A fundamental question must be asked of each believer living on Earth, does it not? "What is my purpose," would be one way to put it, but I prefer another similar oblique look at the same issue: why incarnation, why humanity? We were not created in a bubble; we do not exist in a Platonic vacuum, operating only in the ether, disembodied spirits in unhindered acts of worship without bodily concerns. No, we were created in an environment ruled by the human being. One can hardly argue that God did not privilege the human above all other things, giving man dominion over the Earth, allowing man the only opportunity in creation to partake of the imago dei, and God choosing this earthen vessel as a house for the god-man, Jesus.
Man was not only tolerated as a necessary evil the plan of God; he was given artistic outlets, creating and subduing creation from the beginning , participating in this godlike act in ways that other creatures could not. The first chapters of Genesis speak to this creative function of humanity. Adam embraced his humanness, naming the creatures of God on Earth, and engaging in the human right of marriage. Much of the Old Testament speaks to the governing of man on Earth. Imperfect as man's efforts in governing were, God did not abolish the function of government itself; instead, he continually called his leaders to both follow him AND lead justly. The New Testament, likewise, offers salvation dripping with abundant life, in both this life and the next. What purpose do books like James serve apart from guiding one's endeavors while embodying the human form?
Why, in light of privileged humanness, are we believers so very insistent on denying our two-fold existence. Agreed, there is a metaphysical component to one's life - a hope unseen and unknown, but we cannot divorce ourself from then context we have been placed into any more than we can decide the breathing of oxygen violates our faith in God. We look not, as one of my favorite folksingers croons, for a 'Saviour on Capitol Hill", but we with equal certainty do not throw up our hands in surrender, pining for the completion of time not yet fulfilled.
I ask, why not 'hope'? Is my hope in God so fragile that it cannot be divided? I love my wife without fear that such love will undermine my love for God, that an increase (or existence) of the one does not necessitate a denial of the other.
We search not for a new saviour; our is sufficient for salvation, but he has chosen not to rule as a Pharoah upon the throne, God in the form of man as ruler. In fact, his incarnation existed in a civil society governed by the laws of Caesar, laws which he both obeyed and advocated. His death was even a Socrates-like submission to these authorities. Saviour aside, what is the danger of hoping for a good leader? We exist as beings living in the flesh; should we not choose to live out our condition fully and in thankful submission to our state?
