If your family read the crucifixion story every year before opening your presents, you may have been a fundamentalist. For to a fundamentalist, the Incarnation is often seen as little more than the first step on the road to Calvary. For unto us a Son is given and his name shall be called Doomed, Condemned, Destined for Destruction. He was born to die.
But we do our Savior a great injustice if we give the season a tragic tone as if this Baby should be mourned as merely mortal. Consider too the years of his humanity as a child, his miracles, his compassion, his wisdom, his teachings of love for others, his laughter and tears and hunger and weariness experienced as a God who condescended to become a man and walk among us. He was born to Live.
And yes, he was betrayed and mocked and falsely accused and beaten and crucified…but the story doesn’t end there either! For of his own will he defeated death and rose from the grave, comforting his grieving friends with words of Everlasting Life. He was born to Live.
Remember the words of his promise that he will never leave us or forsake us and that he is that friend who is closer than a brother. After our years of struggle and pain are ended we too will live with him in an eternity where there will be no darkness or pain or dying ever again. In him we will finally be truly alive. He was born to Live.
Dear heart, if you want to remember the Reason for the Season as you gather on Christmas Day this year, do not mourn as if Christ’s life was only given to be consumed in the tragedy of his death. Read instead these words…”Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen.”
He was born to Live.
Oh the fundieness of the either/or logic of the Incarnation –v- the life and ministry of Jesus –v- the atonement at the cross -v- the resurrection unto life argument.
It is NOT an either/or argument it is an “AND” argument. To focus exclusively on one or the other does so to the detriment of the Gospel.
In Americanized Christianity, reductionism reigns supreme. Reductionism has to have everything boiled down to the lowest common denominator in some perverted attempt to make the Gospel simple, more easily understood. In the attempt we unwittingly breakdown the very thing we are trying to improve, and make “easier” to understand.
Jesus, the Christ, is God, not a part of God but He is God. The life of Jesus is one life. Not a segmented, categorized, catalogued, outline but a whole life. Which in His case includes: His incarnation, his life, his baptism, his ministry, his betrayal, his unjust trial, his beating, his Crucifixion, his burial, his resurrection, his resurrection teachings, his ascension and his eternal life.
Paul said it in 1st Corinthians 15:13-19, But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
So it is not an either/or proposition. It is not a this is more important than that, but it is the whole life of Jesus, it is the entire work of Christ. To buy into some reductionism in order to present some 1, 2, 3 Cliff notes version of the Gospel, in fact, makes it another Gospel. This idea that we have to make the Gospel something simple is not found in Scripture. Just read John 6 if you want to see how Jesus handled presenting a “simplified” Gospel.
If you focus only on the cross you take away from the life and ministry of Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount is passed over and made to be some future phenomenon that does not apply to the current dispensation of the Church Age. The entire fundie mindset gathers at the foot of the cross and perpetually mourns there. They have built a cult of guilt and works sanctification around keeping short accounts and a continual nailing of their sins to the cross when Christ Himself did it once and for all! He took our sin; he bore our sin and drank that cup to the bitter dregs once and forever. He then conquered death, hell and the grave; He lives! Not one iota of Jesus’ life is more important than the other, one cannot separate God and say this part of God is more important than the other, nor can one separate the Gospel and say the incarnation is greater than the life, or the life is greater than the atonement, or that the atonement is greater than the resurrection. (cf I Corinthians 15:13-19 again)
No, Darrell has it right. It is not elevation one part over another but is elevation all parts to the same glory. (cf I Corinthians 12:12-26, For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.â€
Hallelujah!
I remembered this post last night, at my IFB mother’s house for Christmas Eve dinner.
She asked my ten year old son to ask the blessin. (She can’t ask my husband–he’s Cathlic, and our food would have remained unblessed.) He declined, and suggested she do it. Sure enough, she made mention of His death more than His birth.
I hadn’t ever considered the theological implications of “born to die,” until reading this post.
boy I hope my mom doesn’t read this. I would be embarassed.
How is Jesus’s death a tragedy if it’s the way people are saved from hell? I never understood how we were to be both extremely upset over Jesus’s death and also full of joy? I got tired of having my emotions manipulated by preachers with this stuff. Then after they get sensitive, serious people in the pews all bothered, they go out and live their week just like any other American. Makes no sense to me.
That was beautiful!
Even when I was a kid, I thought the ‘born to die’ stuff was…odd.
How any believer can call the death of Jesus Christ a “tragedy” is beyond me.
As theology, this post demonstrates the approach to theology that this blog attempts to decry. The centrality of the cross in all of theology is not Fundamentalist. It is Christian.
But without the Life of the Incarnation and the Life of the Resurrection there would be no point in the Death of the Crucifixion. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world but he has always also been the I AM who will never die.
To see the child alive in the manger and have your first response to be to mourn as if he were dead is a travesty. The angels bid us listen to tidings of “great joy” not “impending doom.” The Church has, for its entire history deemed the celebration of Christ’s coming to be a cause rejoicing. Its music and its art have reflected those truths for centuries. Why now are we suddenly expected to put on sad faces and talk about how the Incarnation represents sadness and death?
I’m not sure how else to say it without resorting to capslock.
“Born to die,” both the song and the idea, is not about mourning at all! It is about rejoicing. How can a believer meditate on this text/idea and not be moved to rejoicing over the great grace shown to us at the manger?
And you are wrong to suggest that this is a change in the pattern of the nativity hymns of the Church.
“Born that man no more may die…” (Hark the Herald Angels Sing)
“Christ was born to save” (Good Christian Men Rejoice)
“Cast out our sin and enter in; be born in us today” (O Little Town)
“I wonder as I wander how Jesus the Saviour could come for to die.” (I Wonder as I Wander)
“He came to die for sinners, to take away our sin” (Go Tell it on the Mountain)
“Sing praises to our heavenly Lord… and with his blood mankind hath bought.” (The First Noel)
“This child who shall redeem us all” (How Great Our Joy)
“Myrrh is mine, its btter perfume breathes a life of gathering gloom–sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying, sealed in a stone cold tomb.” (We Three Kings)
“Thou camest O Lord with the living Word… but with mocking scorn… they bore thee to Calvary” (Thou Dids’t Leave Thy Throne)
“From the manger bed what a path has led…” (The Birthday of a King)
“Who is he on yonder tree, dies in grief and agony” (Who Is He in Yonder Stall)
“Good Christians fear for sinners here the silent Word is pleading” (What Child is This)
Compare those with…
“Born to die upon Calvary; He was wounded that I might live.”
Singing “Born that man no more may die” is quite different from singing “born to die.”
“Born that man no more may die” is actually the kind of long-focus that I’m advocating — looking at his birth not through the sadness of the cross but through the rejoicing of his resurrection. Same thing with “Christ was born to save.” “Be born in us today” even more so.
I Wonder as I Wander was only written in 1933 so hardly represents “historical Christianity”
I could go on and on through these but I think you get the point. What you think is supporting material for a history of focusing on death at Christ’s birth really isn’t.
Pick a hymnal. Any hymnal. Read the texts in the Christmas section. The idea that Jesus was born to die is indeed a major theme in the Christmas hymnology of the Church. Yet few if any of the texts you read will have been written by Fundamentalists.
That you keep referring to the death of Jesus Christ as primarily a sad event is mind boggling to me. Such an approach to Jesus’ death simply not Christian.
The idea that Jesus was born to _save_ is indeed a major theme which involves both his death AND his resurrection. At which point he was no longer dead but alive. He was ultimately born to _live_.
Uh…what? So you look at the image of the crucified Christ and what? Kill yourself laughing? Giggle uncontrollably? Death is inherently a sad event. Luke 24:17 explicitly says that the disciples on the Emmaus road were sad when talking about Christ’s death.
Thankfully, their sadness turned to joy when they realized…wait for it…that Christ was ALIVE! And so should we rejoice.
Good call, @Jason. The self-proclaimed ex-Fundies here are criticizing a single phrase of “Born to Die” without considering the other lyrics. They claim it’s a mournful song, but if the lyrics “I was set free,” “evermore may thy cross I adore,” and “that I might live” aren’t a source of joy, then no Christmas song is.
While a case for the “whole story†approach can be beneficial, it’s not always necessary; for example, Paul wanted to know nothing except Christ crucified and would boast only in the Cross. Forcing Christ’s preexistence, resurrection, and glorification into those passages is eisegesis. If I was to apply your theory, then, you would be telling Paul that he’s guilty in many Scripture passages of not including the “whole storyâ€â€¦
I’m sure you’d admit that no Fundie would actually deny Christ’s preexistence, bodily resurrection, and ascension/glorification. So it seems your beef with (your rendition of) the Fundie take on the Christmas story is their focus; in other words, what they DON’T say is what bothers you. @Darrell, let’s apply that to your devotional. You mention little to nothing of the work of the other two members of the Trinity. You’re therefore neglecting the roles of the Father and Holy Spirit in the Incarnation. A reductionist, incomplete story: the same thing you’re criticizing.
The atonement is the heart of the gospel (salvation). I’ve just given a list which includes many of the classic Christmas hymns making explicit reference to the death and blood of Jesus Christ.
Yes, death is inherently a sad event. But salvation is an inherently happy event. Which is why the cross is the quintessential moment in history. It is the single most horrible and the single most amazing event in all of history.
When Jesus spoke on the Emmaus road, he explained the gospel to these men from the Old Testament Scriptures. It specifically says he spoke of his death. It was not merely his resurrection which brought them joy. It was the gospel! And the heart of that gospel is the atonement!
1st Corinthians 15:13-19, But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Paul goes out of his way to make very clear that Atonement for sin alone is not the Gospel. The Good News is not only was Jesus’ life acceptable “for” sacrifice, and not only was his sacrifice accepted, but He is alive so that we might live also. Atonement is a grand thing for it pays the sin debt but atonement without life is still death. What advantage is there in that? What good is freedom from the power of sin, if in the end you are just as dead as one who dies in their sin? That’s what Paul was saying. That’s what we are saying.
It’s not a question of one over the other, one cannot separate the gospel into it’s component parts and then claim it to be the Gospel. It is only Good News when the whole story is told. To stop at the cross and abide there is to languish in death and one ends up perpetually nailing their sins to the cross over and over and over… something Jesus did once and for all time. No, see the empty Tomb! See the Risen Lord! See him as Stephen saw Him, see him as Paul Saw him, Alive and at the Right hand of the Father! Because He lives the Believer has Life abundant!
@Jason, we’re not trying to downplay the necessity of the cross nor its importance. The problem is with those who use the “born to die” theme to quell our joy. It’s as if they say, “Don’t be TOO happy at Christmastime. Remember, Jesus was born to die.” The angels brought tidings of great joy!!!! Why try to mute it, to subdue it, to cause a little LESS celebration?
@Don,
I did not say the atonement is the gospel. I said it’s the heart of the gospel. And it is.
Every part of the gospel flows either to or from the atonement. It is the heart through which everything else flows.
@Pastor’s wife,
Then the criticism assumes that the purpose of the hymn text (Born to Die) is to quell joy. I cannot see one reasonable argument that assumption. Can you?
Good call, @Jason. The self-proclaimed ex-Fundies here are criticizing a single phrase of “Born to Die†without considering the other lyrics. They claim it’s a mournful song, but if the lyrics “I was set free,†“evermore may thy cross I adore,†and “that I might live†aren’t a source of joy, then no Christmas song is.
While a case for the “whole story†approach can be beneficial, it’s not always necessary; for example, Paul wanted to know nothing except Christ crucified and would boast only in the Cross. Forcing Christ’s preexistence, resurrection, and glorification into those passages is eisegesis. If I was to apply your theory, then, you would be telling Paul that he’s guilty in many Scripture passages of not including the “whole storyâ€â€¦
I’m sure you’d admit that no Fundie would actually deny Christ’s preexistence, bodily resurrection, and ascension/glorification. So it seems your beef with (your rendition of) the Fundie take on the Christmas story is their focus; in other words, what they DON’T say is what bothers you. @Darrell, let’s apply that to your devotional. You mention little to nothing of the work of the other two members of the Trinity. You’re therefore neglecting the roles of the Father and Holy Spirit in the Incarnation. A reductionist, incomplete story: the same thing you’re criticizing.
Jason,
Not so. The purpose of the hymn can remain intact. It’s how the person treats it that matter: quelling joy. Criticizing A doesn’t mean B is bad as well.
Your joy in the cross isn’t taken away by the resurrection, it’s taken away by people: who focus on a “debt” that we must pay because of the gift of God. They have a mournful attitude only seeing Jesus for his death, hence the somber celebration.
That straw man is down for the count.
Wow. That straw man is down for the count…