Category: Blog

Ben and I have been attending some pretty thought provoking workshops here in Miami at the CCDA (Christian Community Development Association) conference.  In the world of Christian Community Development people talk a lot about living “incarnationally”.  This word, incarnational, keeps showing up in every workshop we attend.  It is not a word you will find in the dictionary.  Incarnational is a coined term popularly used by many Christians to mean, ‘a person’s embodiment of the gospel in a concrete location.’  It’s not a novel idea, right; we as the Church are the body of Christ, so it logically makes sense to refer to this as living incarnationally.  Not so fast though.  I think we need to remember a few important things when we use the term incarnational to describe our outreach.  This is not semantics; it could mean the difference between pointing to Jesus or displacing Him.  Here are two important qualifications I would like to offer on the subject: 

One, there is only one true incarnation, and he is Jesus of Nazareth.  Jesus is the only pure embodiment of the gospel; we are not.  I think we would all agree with this statement.  Yet, I find myself at times eclipsing Jesus in my attempt to be incarnational rather than simply pointing people to Jesus (as well as looking for them to point me to Him), the one full incarnation.  When we say we are living incarnationally this does not mean we are Jesus but that we represent and point to Jesus.

Second, we must acknowledge that incarnational living is a two way street.  If we are able to embody the gospel through the Spirit in a concrete location, then it would follow that we will at times also have the gospel embodied before us by others.  In other words, we reciprocally point one another to Jesus.  I know when I think of living incarnationally, I think of it as my behavior towards others and not others’ behavior towards me.  We must expand our view of living incarnationally to also include learning from others’ incarnational living.

What do you think?  Do you think speaking of living incarnationally in our neighborhoods undermines the incarnation of Christ, why or why not?  What other dangers do you think there are in using this language if any?  How would you define living incarnationally?  And what does living incarnationally mean to you?

With the workshop on Gospel and culture just around the corner, I think it is appropriate to stimulate some conversation of how we communicate and think critically about how we engage culture. 

It has always been useful to me to think of engagement with  culture when proclaiming the gospel using three categories:

1. Things we accept
2. Things we reject
3. Things that are redeemed

I believe that this fits in with Paul’s approach when proclaiming the gospel on Mars Hill in the book of Acts as well.  Admittedly this is a bit reductionistic in that some things aren’t quite this simple, but I wonder if these categories can serve as a primer to thinking through how the Gospel is proclaimed in a specific cultural context.

Do you think that there is anything of merit in the system I propose?

What can we learn from it?

What are weaknesses to this sort of approach?

If you totally disagree with this sort of approach, how do you think through issues of relating Gospel to culture?

If you were to take a room full of 100 Christians and ask them about their theological tenets you would more than likely have a group with rather a wide theological spectrum of beliefs, practices, doctrines, backgrounds, and convictions. Before long you would be able to develop a rather extensive list of disputable matters among these Christians and if you shared the list with its creators, you’d more than likely end up with relatively blistering arguments and rising tensions. This of course would not be a pretty sight to watch.

Moreover, if you took a room of 100 people, 50 Christians and 50 non-Christians, and asked similar questions, you might as well put a bunch of hungry monkeys in a room with only one banana. The vibe in the atmosphere would certainly not be pleasant.

I think we as humans can correctly state that we can become rather uncomfortable around those of which we do not agree with. Be it theology, politics, ethics, personal practice, etc. we, the human race, throughout history have naturally tended to gravitate toward those in which we are in alignment with.

Ever since I can remember I have always struggled to love and befriend those of which I find disagreement with. More recently within the last few years, as my theological and political beliefs have shifted quite profoundly, as a Bible college student I have found myself becoming more and more uncomfortable with those of which I disagree in areas such as theology, politics, and personal practices. In some cases it has even gotten to the point where I don’t feel like I can completely be myself in some ways unless I am with people of whom I agree with. This is sad, but true. As in other cases, it has become a rather shameful practice of mine to subconsciously stereotype individuals of whom I disagree with into a completely separate group of people. For example, when disagreements arise, I have essentially said to myself “you think (blank) about this, you must be one of them” Fill in the blanks with whatever labels you wish (liberal, conservative, Calvinist, Arminian, etc) and voila, you have my rather vial thought process. I have conceived a rather dangerous “me vs. them” mentality. This is a personal aspect of which I do not envy, and I have spent many restless nights fighting with myself over my desire to be a truly loving person.

On a wider scale I have always asked the question of how we as evangelical Christians can engage those within our postmodern culture who share different beliefs. I have noticed that we seem to get so hung up on the other’s “wrong” beliefs that we never get past arguing, wasting precious time bickering with one another.

It wasn’t until recently that I truly began to understand engagement with culture can look like. I was listening to a sermon MP3 and the pastor mentioned this…
We could spend our time asking questions about rather mundane issues of theology, politics, morality, etc.

But what if we asked different kinds of questions?
Can we as opponents agree, as different as we are, that Christ’s body was broken and blood poured for the healing of the world? Can we agree on that? What would it be like if the next time we were in a shouting match with a fellow Christian we said
“Can we agree that Christ’s body was broken and his blood poured out for the healing of the world? Can we agree on that?”

Imagine what it would be like if the we engaged someone who was not a Christian, who didn’t want anything to do with God, Jesus, The Bible, or Church? What if we asked, “do you agree that the world needs healing? I believe Jesus’ body was broken and blood was shed for the healing of this world. Can we agree that the world needs healing? Can we agree on that?”

Also, can we agree on our need for the grace and peace of Christ? Can we agree on that? The interesting thing about our opponents is that we both agree that we both need the grace and peace of Jesus Christ. We have a connection we didn’t know we had. Our boundaries would soon look much different and we wouldn’t want to throw bombs at each other if we realized our mutual need for the grace and peace of Christ.

What it would be like if this was how we viewed things?
How would our world change?
How would our faith as followers of Christ be changed?

The gospel. I hear this word nearly every day as a seminary student. But wait, what is the gospel? I am asked that seemingly simple question and am left with a deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression and scrambled mind. Uhh…I should have a succinct, orthodox answer for that by now, right? Maybe it should be who is the gospel. I believe that Jesus, the son of God, as the crucified and risen Lord is the necessary apex. But is it sufficient to say that if you know who Jesus Christ is, then you know the gospel in and of its entirety? What about love and beauty, worship and art? Do these things fall under the umbrella of the gospel? I believe they can and do, but that’s just me.

So what role does culture play? Is the gospel a part of–or apart from– culture?  I don’t want the gospel to be some abstract idea that I dance around, or am studying so closely that I miss the gospel for the theologies. (Get it…?) I want it, essentially, to be evident in and through my life. Ideally, our lives should paint a picture of the gospel. Do we need to disentangle ourselves from culture in order to embrace the gospel? Or do we need to embrace culture in light of the gospel? Does culture reflect the gospel, deflect the gospel, or both?

Thank the good Lord these issues will be addressed and explored on October 18th for the New Wine, New Wineskins Autumn workshop led by Dr. Metzger and Dr. Harper, as well as at the New Wine Benefit Dinner on November 6th. This is what New Wine is about: getting to the heart of these issues, and wrestling with how to live this gospel out in tangible, contextual ways. We comprise culture. And hopefully our lives, in community, exhibit Christ. So how do the two- gospel and culture- work together for his glory? In my opinion, that’s when it gets good. These are not simple questions. And, because the gospel is so profound and beautiful, it doesn’t not warrant a quick, simple answer. This would only limit Christ’s love, and show a lacking gospel.

The gospel is good news. But how do we show that to, for instance, a co-worker who is “just fine, thank-you-very-much”? What is so compelling about the gospel? Are we fanning the flame of this little light of ours, by engaging culture and issues (which, essentially is people) or are we cupping it with our hands, fearful that this light might wake up the neighbors, or be extinguished by the issues of today?

The workshop will provide an excellent time to explore these questions, but until then, what do you think? What is the gospel to you, and what relationship do you think gospel has, or should have, with culture?