on being incarnationAL
i have noticed a certain tendency in the 'emergent conversation' to turn key theological doctrines into generalized models capable of being re-applied in various contexts of practice. one of the most common examples is turning the doctrine of the INCARNATION into the quality of being INCARNATIONAL.
the lesson we learn from the incarnation is the way that God in Jesus 'lay aside' one privileged way of being (divine majesty) in order to 'take up' another lowly way of being (human servility) for the sake of making the gosel known to the world. by a kind of inductive argumentation, the particularity of the incarnation is generalised as a principle of laying aside the cultural forms of existing church and taking up the cultural forms of non-churched people so that the gospel may be rendered intelligible and relevant in any particular time and place. on these terms, it would seem that being incarnational is an obvious necessity for planting truly indigenous churches.
as i attempt to define the 'principle of incarnation', it seems so self-evidently true that it must be deceptively simple! my concern is that the 'logic' of the incarnation should not be reduced to a mere model of cultural relevancy. in our desire for genuinely cross-cultural mission - to be 'the hands and feet of Jesus' in the world - the uniqueness of the incarnation must not be submerged under general principles; since the logic of the incarnation is our relation to the person of Jesus himself: his birth, death, bodily resurrection, bodily ascension, and real presence. in other words, i am concerned that we don't fall foul of modernity's fact-value distinction: that the facts of the incarnation be lost to the mere value of being incarnational. or perhaps it is the sundering of form and content that concerns me: that the content of the incarnation is indifferent to incarnational forms.
i suppose my real interest is to make sure that the particularity of the incarnation is inseparable from any general claim to be incarnational. so, does our drawing alongside the non-churched embrace the same sort of humility (or even humiliation) of being born in a barn? does our life become a sign, foretaste and herald of the kingdom? does our ministry bear the marks of a cruciform love? does our character bear the fruit and gifts of the Spirit, or the fulness of Jesus' risen presence? surely to be incarnational is more akin to the promise that when two or more are gathered in Jesus' name, he will be present among them, doing the work of new creation. then, of course, the question must be, how is the form of our incarnational life constituted by practices that are the 'means' such grace? is the celebration of baptism and eucharist essential to being incarnational in any time and place, i.e. as we are joined to the body of Christ and continue that participation through sharing in his body and blood?
if this is the truth of what it means for fresh expressions of church (fxc) to be incarnationAL, then they are likely to be as 'counter-cultural' as they are 'culturally relevant' (assuming that the former does not actually constitute the latter). it should be remembered that the incarnate one was actually crucified by the culture(s) in which he 'emerged'. what is more, fxc are equally likely to be as concerned for the cultural traditions of the church from which they emerge as they are about challenging them. let us also not forget that the uniqueness or particularity of the incarnation was the coming of a messiah who would recapitulate the traditions of israel, who would restore them to their true missional vocation in the world. whatever else the emerging church accomplishes, it surely must be bold in its claim not only to represent something 'fresh', but that this 'freshness' is actually a further perfecting of the very traditions that have hitherto been constrained in their 'expression'.
As the perfection of judaism, jesus came to fulfil the law, to reveal its true heart, not to erase it. as the perfection of the church of england, john wesley claimed that early methodism, as a renewal movement, was simply being most faithful to the church's deepest missional commitments. wesley himself claimed that there was no more faithful son of the church than he. could our fxc make the same claims about the traditions from which they emerge? that being incarnational seeks to be shaped by the incarnation while recapitulating their traditions, and to do so by embodying the gospel in the cultural forms of their own time and place?
the lesson we learn from the incarnation is the way that God in Jesus 'lay aside' one privileged way of being (divine majesty) in order to 'take up' another lowly way of being (human servility) for the sake of making the gosel known to the world. by a kind of inductive argumentation, the particularity of the incarnation is generalised as a principle of laying aside the cultural forms of existing church and taking up the cultural forms of non-churched people so that the gospel may be rendered intelligible and relevant in any particular time and place. on these terms, it would seem that being incarnational is an obvious necessity for planting truly indigenous churches.
as i attempt to define the 'principle of incarnation', it seems so self-evidently true that it must be deceptively simple! my concern is that the 'logic' of the incarnation should not be reduced to a mere model of cultural relevancy. in our desire for genuinely cross-cultural mission - to be 'the hands and feet of Jesus' in the world - the uniqueness of the incarnation must not be submerged under general principles; since the logic of the incarnation is our relation to the person of Jesus himself: his birth, death, bodily resurrection, bodily ascension, and real presence. in other words, i am concerned that we don't fall foul of modernity's fact-value distinction: that the facts of the incarnation be lost to the mere value of being incarnational. or perhaps it is the sundering of form and content that concerns me: that the content of the incarnation is indifferent to incarnational forms.
i suppose my real interest is to make sure that the particularity of the incarnation is inseparable from any general claim to be incarnational. so, does our drawing alongside the non-churched embrace the same sort of humility (or even humiliation) of being born in a barn? does our life become a sign, foretaste and herald of the kingdom? does our ministry bear the marks of a cruciform love? does our character bear the fruit and gifts of the Spirit, or the fulness of Jesus' risen presence? surely to be incarnational is more akin to the promise that when two or more are gathered in Jesus' name, he will be present among them, doing the work of new creation. then, of course, the question must be, how is the form of our incarnational life constituted by practices that are the 'means' such grace? is the celebration of baptism and eucharist essential to being incarnational in any time and place, i.e. as we are joined to the body of Christ and continue that participation through sharing in his body and blood?
if this is the truth of what it means for fresh expressions of church (fxc) to be incarnationAL, then they are likely to be as 'counter-cultural' as they are 'culturally relevant' (assuming that the former does not actually constitute the latter). it should be remembered that the incarnate one was actually crucified by the culture(s) in which he 'emerged'. what is more, fxc are equally likely to be as concerned for the cultural traditions of the church from which they emerge as they are about challenging them. let us also not forget that the uniqueness or particularity of the incarnation was the coming of a messiah who would recapitulate the traditions of israel, who would restore them to their true missional vocation in the world. whatever else the emerging church accomplishes, it surely must be bold in its claim not only to represent something 'fresh', but that this 'freshness' is actually a further perfecting of the very traditions that have hitherto been constrained in their 'expression'.
As the perfection of judaism, jesus came to fulfil the law, to reveal its true heart, not to erase it. as the perfection of the church of england, john wesley claimed that early methodism, as a renewal movement, was simply being most faithful to the church's deepest missional commitments. wesley himself claimed that there was no more faithful son of the church than he. could our fxc make the same claims about the traditions from which they emerge? that being incarnational seeks to be shaped by the incarnation while recapitulating their traditions, and to do so by embodying the gospel in the cultural forms of their own time and place?
posted by Phil at
12:22 PM
2 Comments:
I think that in the emerging church teaching on the idea of the incarnation hasn't been about reducing the incredible and mystical doctrine of incarnation into simple models and practices but has been about combating church full of cultural elitism, secular/spiritual sepreatism and Christian Culture Ghettoism with the truth of who Christ is and what he did. In a sense justifying our need to go and take the Gospel to people rather than staying in ivory tower’s and church empires preaching over a mega phone to the lost.
In a sense reclaiming something that we feel is at the heart of Christ’s message and legacy. But not with an arrogance about being a perfection of the expression of the church that has gone before, but justifying how being a fresh expression is merely being true to what the church is, trying to share how we understand that the incarnation is essential to Christianity and demand’s a response of humilty and obedience to the leading of the spirit of God to the lost, oppressed and broken. I think one of the best traits of the emerging church and (fxc) has been a humilty in saying we don’t know it all or have any answer’s, but we are different and allowed to be. With an awareness of this humble state comes an openness to learning from all traditions of the church and a hope and belief that maybe we also have something to offer and teach them.
By
Matt Wilson, at 10:38 AM
matt, thanks for your post. i think you express the best of what we are about in fxc. but your thoughtful position is not widely obvious.
i am still concerned, however, that turning to the doctrine of incarnation as a means for critiquing the existing church of imperialism and its failure to get alongside the non-churched still doesn't connect me to the particularities of jesus' character and life. i mean, i would like the emerging church to take the risk of doing some serious theological reflection about its own life in the world that connects it to the uniqueness of the incarnation, who is jesus.
i think you come closest in speaking about humility. the humility of jesus, however, is not really one of refusing to have answers (can this be said of jesus?) but a willingness to live and die for the kingdom! and i do think it is important that in critiquing the existing church (which is not difficult) we don't fall foul of a false humility, which makes easy charicatures of our traditions and the faithful people who they may represent. idolatry and arrogance are part of the human condition, whether we are committed to existing church or fresh expressions. i suspect we need each other to keep us humble.
as for the claim to 'perfecting', i suppose i speak as a wesleyan! i certainly don't claim that any church or tradition represents the perfection of the kingdom. that is a dangerous form of idolatry that keeps recurring in church history; though interestingly enough among renewal movements and separatist communities not unlike the emerging church. this is reflected in the claim you make for fxc as 'being true to what the church is', presumably over against the failures of the existing church. and also in privileging the emerging church somewhere 'outside' every tradition, as the judge of what is best to be learned from them, without any clear form of accountability.
my point is that the perfection of the kingdom is found in the incarnation of jesus alone. insofar as we seek to become evermore jesus-shaped, however, we are about the business of 'being perfected'. at its best, the idea of tradition is itself dynamic in this sense, always and ever more faithfully seeking to follow jesus and make his kingdom visible in the world. i think our traditions can be perfected (in this sense) only insofar as existing and emerging churches save each other from their own idolatries and perfectionisms while remaining true to the incarnation.
i am willing to be wrong!
By
Phil, at 1:14 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home