A Christian Critique of Critical Theory

Tags

Critical Theory, culture, race, Sex

About a year ago, I ran across this blog post on apologetics. It posited six premises of Critical Theory and quotes to illustrate them. I was inspired to do a series of sermons based on these premises. I used various quotes archived on the blog post to do a critique of Critical Theory from an Orthodox Christian point of view.

Unfortunately, the audio recordings were not the best and they took a lot of effort to get them to the point where they are now. So, I apologize that these are not up to a standard I would like to have, but I do think these sermons are interesting and important enough to archive publicly here:

Premise #1: Individual identity is inseparable from group identity as ‘oppressed’ or ‘oppressor’

Premise #2: Oppressor groups subjugate oppressed groups through the exercise of hegemonic power

Here are the quotes I used in this homily:

“Whiteness rests upon a foundational premise: the definition of whites as the norm or standard for human, and people of color as a deviation from that norm.” – Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility, 2018, p. 25.

“Power is typically equated with domination and control over people or things. Social institutions depend on this version of power to reproduce hierarchies of race, class, and gender.” – Margaret Andersen, “Social Change and the Politics of Empowerment”, Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology, p. 450

Premise #3: Our fundamental moral duty is freeing groups from oppression

Here is the quote I used in this homily:

“Prior to celebrating diversity, we must first eliminate intolerance. No matter what form it takes or who does it, we must all take action to stop intolerance when it happens. Working towards a celebration of diversity implies working for social justice – the elimination of all forms of social oppression… Social injustice takes many forms. It can be injustice based on a person’s gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability, or economic class.” – Mary McClintock, “How to Interrupt Oppressive Behavior,” Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, p. 483

Premise #4: ‘Lived experience’ is more important than objective evidence in understanding oppression

Here are the quotes I used in this homily:

“The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking ” – Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, “Reconstructing Knowledge,” in Anderson and Collins, Race, Class, and Gender, p. 4-5

“There is no single true, or all encompassing, description.”– Richard Delgado, “Storytelling for Opposistionalists and Others”; in Critical Race Theory, pp 71

To live with equality in a diverse, pluralistic society, we have to accept the fact that all groups and individuals have a legitimate claim to what is true and real for them” – Cooper Thompson, “Can White Men Understand Oppression?”, Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, p. 478

Premise #5: Oppressor groups hide their oppression under the guise of objectivity

Here is the quote I used in this homily:

“The gendered practices of everyday life reproduce a society’s view of how women and men should act. Gendered social arrangements are justified by religion and cultural productions and backed by law, but the most powerful means of sustaining the moral hegemony of the dominant gender ideology is that the process is made invisible; any possible alternatives are virtually unthinkable (Foucault 1972; Grasci 1971).” – Judith Lorber, “’Night to His Day’: The Social Construction of Gender”, Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, p. 207.

Premise #6: Individuals at the intersection of different oppressed groups experience oppression in a unique way

Here are the quotes I used in this homily:

“individuals appear at differing points on the sexuality and gender continuum and n the path toward a definition of their identities; and individuals come from disparate racial, sexual, gender, class, ethnic, religious, age, and regional backgrounds as well as physical and mental abilities. Therefore, the weight of oppression does not fall on them uniformly.” – Warren J. Blumenfeld, “Heterosexism,” Readings…, p. 265

“Time and time again, I have observed that the usual response among white women’s groups when the ‘racism issue’ comes up is to deny the difference. I have heard comments like, ‘Well, we’re open to all women; why don’t they (women of color) come? You can only do so much…’ But there is seldom any analysis of how the very nature and structure of the group itself may be founded on racist or classist assumptions.” – Cherrie Moraga, “Shifting the Center”, Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology, p. 26

Advertisement

Race vs. Culture

Tags

culture, Politics, race

Race in politics has been a focal point in the U.S. for a long time; however, in the last several years it has become more important than at any point in my lifetime. So much that I have written on the subject before here.  Given the events in Charlottesville, VA and the reactions to these events, I must now speak again upon the topic of race.

As a preface to these thoughts, however, I want to meditate upon how Scripture describes God. St. Athanasius the Great defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit in a letter to his friend Serapion. He identifies what he called paradigmata, or paradigms that illustrate to us the nature of God. For example, he points out that the Father is equated to a fountain (Jer 2;13; Bar 3:12), the Son is called a river (Psalm 65:10) and we are told that we drink of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:13).

The pattern can be described this way: the Father is the source of the metaphor (fountain), the Son is the incarnation of the metaphor (running water) and the Holy Spirit is the means by which we participate in the metaphor (we drink).

Thus, if the Father is a poet (which shares the same etymology as the word “create” in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”) the the Son is the Word (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is the breath (wind) through which we hear and speak that poetry:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.—Acts 2:1-4)

Therefore, as Peter declares in 2 Peter 1:4, “through these [promises] you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature,” God’s desire is for us to participate in Him. Due to the fact that we are created according to the image and likeness of God, He also desires that we participate in each other as well: “I have given them the glory you gave me, that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:22). This is key to understanding race and culture in a world obsessed with both.

Culture is something that can be shared and participated in. For example, I can watch Korean movies and television, eat and cook Korean food, wear traditional Korean clothes, learn to speak the Korean language and learn how to behave in polite Korean society. Being Korean would make the learning curve on all these things shorter, but it is not necessary that I be Korean to participate in all these things.

Race, on the other hand, is not something I can participate in. I am not and will never be Korean by race.

Therefore, culture, as a concept, can help us see the image and likeness of God in other people. It allows us to step in other human being’s shoes and live like they do. It allows us to see a different perspective. It allows us to grow ever closer to God’s deepest desire that we be one like He is one.

In radical contrast, race prevents us from seeing the image and likeness of God in others. As a concept it really only has one purpose: to separate us and prevent us from talking to each other and therefore experiencing that which culture invites us to experience. In a practical sense, race is only useful to those interested in power. Race de-humanizes people so that they can be easily pitted against each other and used and abused to gain and maintain power.

In other words, if I am White, African-American, Latino, Asian, Native American or any other race, than I am merely a tool used by those interested in power to gain and maintain power. It is arguable that I am not even human.

If, however, my culture is European, American, African-American, Latin-American, Asian, Native American, etc. than I and other human beings can freely share our cultures with each other and therefore more easily see the image and likeness of God in our fellow human beings.

Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scyth′ian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all. — Colossians 3:11

Bible Study Gospel of John Pt. 16

Tags

Bridegroom, Gospel of John, Trinity

Thank you to all who send questions. There were some really excellent ones this week. Please keep them coming!

Beginning this week, our normal Bible Study time will usurped by the Presanctified Liturgies of Great Lent. In truth, however, people are not showing up in person to the study, but rather prefer to listen on their own time and send questions via email. Thus, I can record in part or in whole at various times during the week, knitting together recordings as necessary. In other words, we will continue to study the Gospel of John throughout Lent and I will encourage people to continue to send in questions.

The text for next session will be John 4:1-13.

The audio for this session can be found here.

Music: http://www.bensound.com

Meditating on Race and Ethnicity

Tags

anthropology, ethnicity, Politics, race

Given that the concept of race and ethnicity has become a focal point in the U.S., both culturally and politically, I thought it would be helpful to share some of my own thoughts and experiences as well as a Christian perspective on the subject. To that end, I would like to introduce two men to you.

The first is my father. Ethnically, he is Welsh, born of Welsh parents. Culturally, however, he is American. We have family from his maternal side that have been in this part of the world since the 17th century. We know this because his mother (my grandmother) was an amateur genealogist that had traced our family tree back to the 12th century. There was, however, one bit of controversy within the family, because there is evidence that suggests that some of my ancestors hail from Germany. Thus, I thought it was a good idea for our family to give my dad a genetic marker test from the National Geographic Society as a Christmas gift a couple of years ago. Shockingly, while there were no German markers in his profile, there were Greek ones. A lot of them. It turns out, my dad is half Greek.

The second is an NBA basketball player by the name of Γιάννης Αντετοκούνμπο (Giannis Antetokounmpo) who plays for the Milwaukee Bucks. He also plays for the Greek National Team because he was born in Athens, Greece. He lived his entire life there until his success in basketball took him out of the Sepolia neighborhood of the Greek capital. His parents are both from Nigeria.

I have a very serious question for all of those out there who think race and ethnicity are so important that they should be a large factor in our cultural and political experience: Which of these two men are Greek?

For all practical purposes there are only four ways to answer this question:

1. Both

If both men are Greek, then race, ethnicity and culture are all relative. Anyone can be Greek. Anyone with any affiliation genetically or culturally could claim to be Greek. For example, 17% of my genetic markers are Southwest Asian (as are all of those who have European ancestry). Asian cuisine, philosophy, cinema, television, technology, language, etc. are vital to who I am today. If both these men are Greek, by what criteria can I not be considered Asian? This renders race and ethnicity largely meaningless.

2. Neither

If neither men are Greek, then the two main criteria for understanding race and ethnicity — genetics and culture — are no longer legitimate means of determining race and ethnicity. Again, this renders race and ethnicity largely meaningless.

3. My dad

If my dad is Greek and Αντετοκούνμπο is not, then using culture as a means of determining ethnicity and race is bunk. Thus, black and latino culture are not attributes of race. Anyone can claim elements of these cultures as their own because racism based on culture isn’t a thing nor is cultural appropriation.

4. Αντετοκούνμπο

If Αντετοκούνμπο is Greek and my dad is not, then genetics do not determine race, only culture does. Thus, either there is no such thing as an African-American because culturally they are all American or anybody who lives in an African-American neighborhood, goes to a traditionally black college or black church, or anyone who adopts the language, clothing and music of the African-American culture is ethnically and racially black.

I hope this illustrates that any close examination of race and ethnicity reveals how fluid, subjective and fallible these concepts are. Indeed, I would argue that they are largely artificial. Due to environment and circumstances, different groups of people have developed different ways of explaining the world around them and using that which was given them. All of these people, however, are people and their experiences and ideas can be shared and used and adapted by anyone who finds them useful and/or inspiring.

I am confident of this view of humanity because it is beautifully expressed by St. Paul, not just once, but twice (meaning that this was something he was repeatedly preaching during his apostolic journeys):

Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scyth′ian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all. — Colossians 3:11

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. — Galatians 3:28

God made humanity according to His image and likeness. Christ took on humanity in nature, not as race or ethnicity but as a whole. He preached to women, men, Jew and Gentile alike. The first person He revealed Himself as the Christ to was a Samaritan woman.

Thus, Christ went to the Cross and died so that everyone can share in His eternal life, despite the various ways we like to separate and divide ourselves from each other. In other words, I am a human being, not a race or an ethnicity.

The 14,000 Holy Innocents

Tags

Abortion, Christmas, death, suffering

As a way to wrap up this annual exercise of spending time with one of the Church Fathers in preparation for the Nativity, I would like to follow up on yesterday’s post with a reminder that St. Gregory isn’t the only one who brings up suffering and death at Christmas time. On December 26th, the day after Christmas, the Orthodox Church reads the story of Herod’s anger and his slaughtering of all the male children two years and younger in the environs of Bethlehem. Three days later, on December 29th, the Orthodox Church officially commemorates these victims with the Feast for the 14,000 Holy Innocents.

It is a reminder that though we are called to leap for joy, sing praises to God and stand in awe of all that will be accomplished by Christ through His Nativity, the world continues to be filled with suffering and death. There are those who are today slaughtered by their fellow man for no good reason what so ever. Every year we have far more than 14,000 innocents who succumb to a death brought about by their fellow human beings.

Thus, in the midst of all this joy and all this celebration — for we Orthodox Christians do not stop celebrating Christmas on the morning of December 25th — we must remember all of those who died before ever knowing Christ. Remember all of those who died before they really ever had a chance to live. Remember all those whose lives that were cut short through the selfishness and cruelty of fallen humanity.

This is our burden and also our hope. During the liturgy, the priest says these seemingly innocuous words:

Remember also, Lord, those whom each of us calls to mind and all your people.

Then, as the priest is placing all of the crumbs that are left from the Body of Christ on the paten into the Cup he prays:

Wash away, Lord, by Your holy Blood, the sins of all those commemorated through the intercessions of the Theotokos and all Your saints. Amen.

By these two prayers, and our active participation in them we have the opportunity to ask God to not only remember but to forgive and grant everything that He gives us, His children, to those whom we bring to mind. Thus, the Church lifts up to God all those babes killed by Herod before they ever had a chance to live life or to know Christ. In turn, she invites us to lift up to God all of the innocents who have been killed throughout the ages.

May God, through our prayers, be as loving and merciful as we dare to hope. Indeed, may He marvelously exceed all of our expectations. Amen.

Victory

Tags

Christmas, death, Oration 38, St. Gregory the Theologian, suffering

Section 18 is the last in St. Gregory the Theologian’s Oration 38. Despite the challenges posed by the polemics of Sections 14 & 15, this last part of St. Gregory’s homily on Christmas may very well be the most provocative, especially for those of us who live in the relative luxury of 21st century America. St. Gregory exhorts us to intimately identify ourselves with Christ. That in and of itself isn’t very shocking; however, the kind of intimacy he demands is.

Be stoned? Get interrogated by authorities who might kill us? Seek torture? Taste gall? Seek spittings? Accept beatings? Get crowned with thorns? Get crucified and die? At first glance, St. Gregory sounds as if he wants us all to turn into suicidal masochists.

For those of us who live in societies that are relatively tolerant of Christianity, St. Gregory’s words are metaphor. The proof of this is when he asks us to “be crowned with thorns through the harshness of a life in accord with God.” Though he might be speaking of the ascetical practices of Orthodox Christianity, the sacrifices we must make in our time and treasure for a life in Christ as well as the hardship that accompanies trying to do the right thing, here is a dirty little secret: life is harsh whether you are a practicing Orthodox Christian or not.

We are all doomed to tragedy, decay and death. We will be assaulted by natural disaster, emotional turmoil and disappointment. We will all see the dreams of our youth fade into the harsh realities of adulthood and old age (that is, if we aren’t molested by some disease or accident which makes old age look like a luxury).

Thus, St. Gregory really isn’t asking us to seek trials and tribulations because we are going to have to go through them whether we like it or not. Rather, St. Gregory is asking us to go through all of our pain and suffering with Christ at our side. He does so with this litany of sufferings that Christ went through Himself to demonstrate that Christ is intimately familiar with our suffering. We do not have to go through the harshness of life alone. We do not have to shoulder all of this pain on our own.

Christ tells us His burden is light, because He has the strength to shoulder all of the pain and all of the suffering that humanity has ever, will ever and is going through. If we allow ourselves to identify with the suffering Christ went through for us, we, with Christ not only at our side but within us, can power through even the most horrendous of tribulations. Witness the martyrs.

In the end, all the pain, the suffering and the death that world can throw at us are powerless in the face of of the resurrection. This is our hope, this is our strength, this is our victory and it is all made possible because Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Hypocrite!

Tags

Arianism, Atheists, Christmas, Oration 38, Secularism, St. Gregory the Theologian

After I made the claim that modern secularists and atheists like to brand Christians with the image of the fire and brimstone preacher, one might be tempted to point out that in Section 15 of his Oration 38 St. Gregory the Theologian sounds an awful lot like a fire and brimstone preacher:

Against which is he more angry?…It would have been better for you to be circumcised and possessed by a demon, if I may say something ridiculous, rather than in uncircumcision and good health to be in a state of wickedness and atheism.

This characterization, however, would completely miss the point of what St. Gregory is trying to say. Whereas the fire and brimstone preacher is typically urging morality (stop sinning so you don’t go to hell), St. Gregory really isn’t talking about moral behavior in Section 15.

The point, rather, is about how to answer that most important question: Who is God? and subsequently Who is Christ? St. Gregory mentions demons because they, unlike his Arian opponents, understand that Christ is God.

This section talks about how the Triune God is one in essence and distinct in persons. Father and Son have their own activities (the Father sends forth and the Son is sent), yet both have the power to resurrect. Therefore his point about being a demon possessed Jew (an illustration he calls ridiculous) isn’t about behavior, but understanding.

In order to have a proper relationship with God, and therefore be able to partake of His divine nature (cf 2 Peter 1:4), we must have a proper (aka orthodox) understand of who God is. If I go around insisting that all women are really men and that all men are really women, all of the relationships in my life are going to be dysfunctional. How can it be otherwise with our relationship with God?

To demonstrate this relational understanding, St. Gregory mitigates his own characterization of God as angry by correcting himself: Rather whom must he pardon more? God is a loving God. The relationship, therefore, is about love (who must He pardon) and not anger (who must He condemn).

Ultimately, what do the Arians and the atheists gain from who they insist God is? Nothing. If Christ is a created being (as the Arians insist) we cannot partake of divine nature — we merely partake of creation, something we already do at every meal. Since Christ would have a beginning (as we do), he must also have an end (just as we do). Therefore, both Arians and atheists really have only one hope: death.

In contrast, St. Gregory lives in hope that by partaking of Christ, who is one of the persons of the Triune God, we may all share in God’s eternity and thus overcome death. Morality really doesn’t play a role in this discussion, because we are all hypocrites and sinners. In fact, that is why Christ became a babe born in a cave.

Thus, to mirror St. Gregory’s self-admitted ridiculous statement, it is better to be a sinful hypocrite who has a proper understanding of who God is than an atheist who is unquestionably moral.

Polemics

Tags

Atheists, Christmas, Love, Oration 38, Secularism, St. Gregory the Theologian

Inevitably when reading the Fathers of the Church, we will run into a polemic style like that in Section 14 of St. Gregory the Theologian’s Oration 38. To the modern ear, it sounds angry, mean, over the top and even bigoted. However, we must understand that our own politically correct, post-Holocaust context is extremely different than the context that St. Gregory found himself in.

Christianity, despite being adopted by the emperor St. Constantine at the beginning of the fourth century was still on precarious ground. Not only had it suffered persecution under the emperor Julian the Apostate only two decades prior, but St. Gregory’s faith, expressed in the Nicene Creed, was not held by the majority of clergy or the emperor when St. Gregory was preaching this homily. As I stated in my introduction to St. Gregory, despite being bishop, he was forced to serve in a house church because every single church in the city was controlled by Arians. In addition, Judaism not only had had special privileges within the empire, they were a source of persecution against the Church.

In the same way we might be comfortable with the polemic cries of bigotry aimed at those who would persecute Jews or other minorities today, we should not allow our modern ear to allow us to dismiss Oration 38 because St. Gregory’s polemics are entirely appropriate for the context in which they were said.

If we can look past these contextual polemics, what we actually find is a apologetic style that we modern Christians should actually find quite useful. In essence, St. Gregory is challenging his foes (the Arians, in his case) to answer for their rejection of the Christianity preached by St. Gregory. He does so in a wonderful way that is still applicable today: “Do you bring as a charge against God his good deed?”

So often we Christians must defend ourselves from personal attacks by secularists. We are seen as ignorant, non-rational, backwards thinking and un-scientific. The assumption is that only non-rational and ignorant people would be foolish enough to believe in an old-fashioned idea like God. Rarely do they have to answer to St. Gregory’s challenge: Do you accuse God because He loved you so much so as to send you His Only Begotten Son? Do you accuse God because Christ humbled Himself for you? Do we need to dismiss God because Christ loved you enough to go to the Cross and experience death? Does God need to be persecuted because He gave us the gift of the resurrection?

Rather than having to get into an argument over who we are as Christians (an argument we cannot win, because there is no way to prove or disprove faith), we should talk about the real issue: God and His Gospel. At issue isn’t our faith, our intelligence or our ignorance. At issue is the rejection of God and all the good He willingly gives us.

Today’s atheists are used to Christians talking about morality, avoiding punishment and operating from a negative view of who God is. St. Gregory powerfully demonstrates that we shouldn’t operate that way. The Gospel isn’t about morality, hell or punishment, it is about the ultimate expression of love. It is this love that is rejected. It is this love that is attacked. It is with this love that we should be challenging the secular world around us.

An Ancient Man Speaking to a Modern Man

Tags

Christmas, Oration 38, Science, St. Gregory the Theologian

For me, there are two very interesting facets to the twelfth section of St. Gregory the Theologian’s Oration 38, particularly in our own context of modern secularism.

One of the most iconic depictions of Christianity within secular America is defined by the Scopes trial of 1925 and the popularization of this incident through the play and movie Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee. Dramatized is the (false) dichotomy between science and Christianity and the crux of this particular conflict is in the historic reading of the Book of Genesis.

Please note that St. Gregory, in the fourth century no less, feels free to interpret Genesis from a metaphoric perspective. He equates the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with contemplation, the sinful weakness of Adam with his own weakness and the skins used by Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness with the sinful flesh of fallen humanity.

In other words, Christianity historically did not limited itself to an historic reading of Genesis. Indeed, one of only three men in the entire history of the Orthodox Church primarily uses a metaphoric reading of Genesis in a homily on Christmas. Thus, the secular depiction of Christians adhering to a literal, historic reading of Genesis even in the face of a scientific reading of history is intellectually dishonest.

Another iconic depiction of Christianity is embodied in the fire and brimstone preacher who is exhorting his people to cower from the anger and punishment of God. St. Gregory also posits that God punishes; however, note what the punishment is and why:

[Adam] gained a certain advantage from [being banished from the tree of life and paradise]; death is also the cutting off of sin, that evil might not be immortal, so the punishment becomes love for humankind. For thus, I am persuaded, God punishes.

God is not an angry God who punishes with the fires of hell. Rather, He is a loving father who limits the amount of damage we can do to ourselves until such time that he can heal what damage has already been done.

On Angels

Tags

angels, Christmas, Oration 38, St. Gregory the Theologian

As is expressed by St. Gregory the Theologian in his Oration 38 Section 10 with the concepts of the “first” and the “second” worlds, Orthodox Christianity understands that creation is both visible and invisible. The visible creation is, of course, the world in which we are a part and interact with on a daily basis. When we speak of the invisible creation, we are primarily speaking about angels, also known as the bodiless powers.

Unlike many of the angels portrayed in popular culture (such as Clarence earning his wings in It’s a Wonderful Life), the Orthodox Church understands angels to be an entirely different order of creation than human beings and none of us are destined to become one of that order. Rather, angels are understood to be (as St. Gregory mentions) “radiances…intelligent spirits, or a kind of immaterial and bodiless fire, or some other nature as close to those just mentioned possible.”

As can be seen by St. Gregory’s reluctance to definitively attribute any kind of characteristic to the angels, the appearance of angels in the experience of the Orthodox Church is manifold in character. Sometimes they appear as men (see Joshua 5:13-14) and sometimes as fantastic beasts with multiple eyes, wings or other strange features (see Gen 3:24; Eze 10:1; and Rev 4:6). This variety can simply be chalked up to the limitations of language to describe the experience of an encounter with one of the bodiless powers.

The word angel literally means “messenger.” This function of the angelic powers is best personified by Gabriel, who, at the Annunciation, gave the message to the Virgin Mary that she was to give birth to the Christ.

The prayers of the Orthodox Church also call out for the protection of the bodiless powers (from the Apolytikion of the Synaxis of the Archangels on Nov. 8):

O Commanders of the Heavenly Host, we the unworthy beseech you, that through your entreaties you will fortify us, guarding us in the shelter of the wings of your ethereal glory, even as we fervently bow before you crying: ‘Deliver us from all danger, as Commanders of the Powers on high!’

This function is best personified by the Archangel Michael who helps defeat the Persians in Daniel Chapter 10, battles the devil for the body of Moses in Jude 1:9, battles Satan and his angels in Revelation 12:7-9 and is revealed as the protector of the people in the end times in Daniel Chapter 12.

One might be tempted to ask (indeed, St. Gregory does rhetorically ask) what any of this has to do with Christmas. We must understand who we are and who we are not in order to fully appreciate the magnitude of what occurred at the Birth of Christ. If, as It’s a Wonderful Life posits, we merely become angels when we die what did Christ accomplish by becoming human? We will be these bodiless things that are still subject to change and still part of fallen creation. In other words, Christ didn’t accomplish anything. If, however, Christ became a human being to renew our humanity and to allow us a path to fulfill the image and likeness according which we were made, then Christ’s Incarnation is truly the most important event in all of history.