I have recently subscribed to the Mars Hill Podcast (the link to the podcast is on the front page of the site), and have also downloaded all of the messages that are available from the Acts 29 Church Planting Bootcamps (which you can find under "Resources" on the main page and then under "audio") of the last couple of years.
So I've listened to a bunch of messages, mainly by Mark Driscoll, and I want to discuss here what I think is the most helpful thing I have heard him say. I am sorry I can't remember which message this one was - I think it may have been one of his messages on theology at one of the bootcamps.
He mentions that missional ministry is built on the model of the incarnation of Jesus. This is a good thing. But the incarnation, i.e. the earthly sojourn of Jesus, is not the only part of the story of Jesus. Jesus lives today and is active today. Thus our Christology, and whatever ministry implications we derive from that Christology, must take into account who Jesus is today, not merely who He was during His earthly sojourn.
Here's the deal - Jesus didn't just live and work back then, He lives and is working today. Thus our model of ministry is seriously deficient if it is only based on the incarnation (again, defined as the time of Jesus' earthly sojourn). We're not just basing our ministry model on the Jesus who lived, but on the Jesus who lives.
This has profound significance for ministry and it seems so obvious to me that I want to smack myself up side the head and say "duh, why didn't I think of that."
In his typical snarky way, Driscoll says that the exclusively incarnational Jesus who forms the basis for so much of the emergent church is a hippie Jesus. I don't know if Driscoll said it this way, but I am thinking of a guy with long hair and a beard, a long tie-dyed robe and sandals with a guitar singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony . . . " I guess maybe I'm picturing the Coca-Cola Jesus (and for those of you who don't get that, you are way young - ask someone over 40 what I am alluding to - and if they don't know ask them just how stoned they really were during the whole 70's).
But this is not the Jesus who lived then and it is not the Jesus who lives today.
The Jesus who lives today is not the meek and mild sacrificial lamb. He is the risen and ascended Jesus. The Jesus who lives today does not walk among us, He sits (or stands) on a throne above us - Acts 7:56, Ephesians 2:19-23. In I Corinthians 15:20-28 we have a picture of a Jesus who is reigning until He puts all His enemies under His feet. Jesus lives to intercede for us - Hebrews 7:25. He acts as an advocate for His sinful children - I John 2:1.
Probably the clearest picture of who Jesus is today is seen in the first three chapters of Revelation. It is important to keep in mind that these chapters do not give us a picture of a future Jesus, rather it gave us a short film of a Jesus as He was busy and active at the time John was writing the book. In other words, Revelation 1-3 didn't show us the Jesus of AD 1-33 or whatever. Depending on whether you are a preterist or not, and how you date the book of Revelation, this gave us a film of Jesus as he lived somewhere between 66-100AD.
Revelation 1-3 does not give us a picture of the humiliated Christ, but of the victorious, conquering, reigning, glorious Christ. He is the ruler of the kings of the earth (1:5), and the Almighty (1:8). Here is a description of His physical appearance:
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
And please notice the effect that this Jesus has on people. When people see this Jesus they don't say "yippee, I get to partner with Him in bringing redemption to the world." In verse 17, John says:
So, where is the Jesus that terrifies people today?
As you go through the seven letters of chapters 2 and 3 you have a picture of a Jesus who is busy about warning, threatening and judging His people.
The church at Ephesus (2:1-7) is rebuked for losing it's first love and commended for intolerance of wicked men, rejecting false teachers and hating the practices of a certain group of people. In other words, Jesus commends those who are intolerant of the wicked and who reject false teaching (as opposed to having conversations about it). Now, to be sure all of this discrimination between the true and the false, the wicked and the righteous is of no value if we lose our love for Jesus but I point that out in order to point out that the Jesus who lives today commends that which many condemn in His name.
Similarly, the church at Pergamum (2:12-17) for failing to discriminate between true and false teachings. I wonder if the leaders of the church at Pergamum were in conversation with the teachers of Balaam and the Nicolaitans?
The church at Thyatira (2:19-29) tolerated sexual immorality and idolatry and was soundly rebuked for it. Does that sound like anything anyone has heard in recent days, you know, statements saying we need a moratorium on speaking out about sexual immorality and that we need to be in dialogue with other religions?
I wish I knew exactly what constituted the deadness of the church of Sardis (3:1-6) but I don't so it is hard to find a link to today, except that once again, we have a picture of Jesus as judge.
With the church at Philadelphia (3:7-13) we see that Jesus is not only judge but comforter.
I think the church at Laodicea (3:14-22) offers a rebuke to those of us in more traditional churches who have lots of resources, a good reputation in the community and things like that. We can begin to trust in our resources to the point that we no longer trust in Jesus.
Now, I know I have taken some broadsides at the emergent folks here and I want to step back and say that the picture of Jesus we see here in Revelation is as great a rebuke to the traditional church structures that I am a part of as they are to newer, emerging forms of church. I do think that many, maybe even most, of our traditional churches (again, of which I am a part) are enculturated, are moralistic rather than gospel-driven, rely too much on our own riches (and that can be our carefully laid out plans, procedures and campaigns, as well as our money) and are lukewarm.
But the antidote to this is not an exclusively incarnational Jesus who wants to partner with people in bringing redemption to the world, as is so often said (with some variation) today. This is only a partial Jesus.
Yes, the incarnation can serve as a model for us today. In Philippians 2:1-12 Paul tells us that we are to imitate Jesus as He was during His earthly sojourn, the time of His humiliation. But I will point out that if you look at this passage closely, we are to use the humiliated Jesus as a model of our relationships with one another, not our relationship to Jesus.
In other words, in interpersonal relationships we are to model the humility of Jesus, we are to act as servants to our fellow human beings, not as lords. We relate as sinner to sinner. This forever condemns the Fred Phelps' of the world and those who minister as if they are morally superior to others.
But when, as humble servants, we tell fellow sinners about Jesus, the Jesus we are telling them about, has to include not only His earthly sojourn, but His current activity as intercessor, advocate, judge and ruler. This has to be a Jesus who can welcome and comfort, and yet strike terror into the hearts of men.
And our model of Jesus has to be one that He commends. This means that, while maintaining all appropriate humility and never considering ourselves morally superior, we will discriminate against false teachers, not converse with them. This means we will have to know what constitutes true teaching and what constitutes false teaching.
This means that, while showing the utmost tenderness and compassion to those who are involved in sexual sin (a la Jesus and the woman at the well in John 4) we will not accept sexual immorality as a viable lifestyle. And by the way, just to let you know where I stand, yes that does have homosexuality in view but I am far more troubled by heterosexual immorality than homosexuality mainly because heterosexual immorality is far more rampant in the evangelical church but it often flies under the radar because we are so fixated on fighting homosexuality. But that's a whole 'nuther matter.
This means that any individual, or religious group, that does not bow the knee to the Jesus who is described in the Bible is not a partner with whom we converse but an idolater whom we call to repentance.
In all of these things, kindness and humility are the rule. False teachers, the sexually immoral and members of other religions are made in the image of God and must be treated with the dignity, respect and love that is due an image bearer.
This means that we do not partner with Jesus in bringing the kingdom to earth. "Agents" and "ambassadors" are good words to describe our role in the advancement of the kingdom as we do play a part, but not "partner." The Jesus who lives today is a king. The Jesus of the seven churches wasn't looking for partners He was looking for repentance. Kings don't have partners, they have subjects. Fortunately for us, Jesus is the most kind and benevolent king, but we are still subjects, not partners.
This has been a very one sided post. I don't mean to dismiss incarnational ministry, nor to dismiss the emergent church. I am grateful for the emphasis on being missional that is driven by an incarnational Christology and am grateful that the emergents are leading in beating that drum. I am even now engaged in study as to how our church can become more missional and incarnational.
But I repeat what Driscoll says. Incarnational ministry is only one aspect of following Christ today. The Christ we serve not only was, but is, and is coming again. Jesus lives today and He lives in a state of exaltation, not humiliation.
We need to avoid talking merely about who Jesus was and talk more about who He is right now.
Let's not give the world a partial Jesus who merely has a humbling past, but a full-orbed Jesus who lives exalted in the present and will come again with glory in the future.
Related Tags: Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Incarnation, Incarnational, Incarnational ministry, Emergent, Emerging, Emergent Church, Emerging Church, Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church, Mars Hill Church Seattle, Acts 29, Acts 29 Network, Acts 29 Boot camp
All around strong post. Especially liked that you are being spurred on to "study as to how our church can become more missional and incarnational." Looking forward to a post with the results of your reflection and study.
Posted by: Jeff | May 04, 2006 at 05:52 PM
Thanks, for the balanced examination. You have helped me sort out some questions (some I had not even formed yet) that were bumping around in my head.
Posted by: Gordontaj | May 04, 2006 at 09:28 PM
Yes!!!
Posted by: Elijah | May 04, 2006 at 10:55 PM
Is it just me, or does it seem that the same people who are concerned about an overemphasis on Jesus' earthly ministry (esp. the actual teachings of Jesus, the parables, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.) don't seem all that concerned when Jesus' earthly ministry is totally ignored, i.e., in the historic creeds of the church?
Posted by: Tom Hinkle | May 04, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something. Maybe Driscoll is refering to another sort of "incarnational" ministry concept. But the one I've read about is base on the word become flesh. If Jesus is the word become flesh--incarnated word of God--as John tells us, then when we live the word, the work we do is "incarnational."
Too much market speak, to be sure. But the idea is to learn from Jesus' example and to emulate it.
You know what I think? Probably nobody cares, but here it comes. I think that hundreds of thousands of individuals motivated to emulate Jesus on their own, strikes fear in the hearts of those who feel a need to be in control. That's control of doctrine, activities and money.
The only "incarnational" ministry is one that "emerges" (check the scientific definition) where it's need, and retreats from where it's no longer needed to where there is new need. This concept just oozes out of every nook and cranny of classical Christian governance models.
However, those of us intent on taking on this endeavor to live out the word, to incarnate it through action, aren't waiting for Driscoll and others to catch on. We've seen several changes in church structure in the past 200 years, but most of them eventually turn inward, singing songs once per week about how glorious the kingdom will be, but they don't put out much effort toward fulfilling that prophecy.
If only a small part of the effort invested in doctrinal scuffles were devoted instead into practicing love for others so that God is glorified, then many more knees would certainly bow to the Christ.
It is only by seeing and experiencing the love of God coming toward us through another, that we can truly believe that it works. And that is where faith is built. When the promises emerge in front of our very eyes because some naive "emergents" tried to live the life, our faith in the giver of that word is strenghened.
Posted by: bill | May 04, 2006 at 11:51 PM
Great post, David. I always appreciate the tone with which you write. And, by and large, I think you have brought a balance to this issue.
There is one area, though, that I think you might have let the pendulum swing too far to the opposite side. You wrote: Kings don't have partners, they have subjects. Fortunately for us, Jesus is the most kind and benevolent king, but we are still subjects, not partners.
The problem with this, to my mind, is that it ignores some of what Jesus actually taught to his disciples when he was ministering here on earth. In John 15:15, Jesus told his disciples that he no longer called them "servants", but "friends". It seems that He, Himself, was inaugurating a change in position (or at least perspective).
What do you think?
steve :)
Posted by: Steve Sensenig | May 05, 2006 at 07:29 AM
"Here's the deal - Jesus didn't just live and work back then, He lives and is working today. Thus our model of ministry is seriously deficient if it is only based on the incarnation (again, defined as the time of Jesus' earthly sojourn). We're not just basing our ministry model on the Jesus who lived, but on the Jesus who lives."
I actually would probably tend to more agree with the Mar's Hill guy on this one.
I am Coptic Orthodox, and the way he described it would actually fit in a general Coptic and Eastern Orthodox view on the subject.
But here is the extra nuance... What you said about what "Christ is doing today..." does fit the way we look at the Church, especially in light of the book of Acts. We have a saying that "The book of Acts is a book of that doesnot have an ending".
That saying is reference to how the book suddenly comes to a stop. In a more abrupt fashion then lets say other books that have a nice ending statement to them. But it really has to do with how we see Church history. Church history for us is the "Continuation of the Book of Acts". Whenever a new saint, martyr, theologian etc. arises we see that as being like an extra chapter written in that Book. For Us the Book of Acts is a living document, the Story of the both the Church of the past, the present and the future.
Posted by: pavel/addai | May 05, 2006 at 04:40 PM
and by the way I forget to mention this. But we read from a book, called the sinaxerion (The stories/testimonies of the saints) at Church and during the liturgy it follows immediately after the book of Acts to show that kind of notion. OF the Holy Spirit being active in the continued life of the Church.
Although that is an interesting point... we see this idea more as an aspect of things like Pentecost, and the Great Commision then purely an Incarnantional view that you mentioned earlier.
Posted by: pavel/addai | May 05, 2006 at 04:45 PM
I like that Driscoll guy more all the time. Who else would preach on the hypostatic union?
Posted by: cavman | May 05, 2006 at 05:18 PM
This was the gist of Driscoll's message at the National New Church Conference for church planters (forgive me for coming in late on this, maybe you already knew this).
Here's a link for a download -- http://brookshanes.com/alifechurch/podcasts/ -- this fired me up as much as anything I heard at the conference.
Posted by: Dan | May 05, 2006 at 11:13 PM
Thank you for this post. I've linked to it here.
Posted by: Mickey Sheu | May 16, 2006 at 03:30 AM
Thank you for a wonderful post; I have many thoughts in my head about faith and incarnational ministry and this has provided some insight and reminds me to keep an open-mind... Thank you very much, I am glad I found this page while doing a google search for incarnational ministry.
Posted by: Laura | January 15, 2007 at 03:44 PM
Thank you for a wonderful post; I have many thoughts in my head about faith and incarnational ministry and this has provided some insight and reminds me to keep an open-mind... Thank you very much, I am glad I found this page while doing a google search for incarnational ministry.
Posted by: Laura | January 15, 2007 at 03:45 PM
"...The Christ we serve not only was, but is, and is coming again. Jesus lives today and He lives in a state of exaltation, not humiliation..."
Yes, but a fully orbed understanding of incarnational theology includes the recognition that the incarnation continues into the end times. Jesus rose in the flesh and he will return in the flesh. And upon seeing the fleshy marks of his humiliation Thomas declaired him the exhaulted one with the words, "My Lord and my God". Incarnational theology encompasses both exaltation and humiliation. Incarnational ministry encompases both humble encounter and glorious encounter. Revelation declares that the lion is the lamb; incarnational ministry is involves living with that paradox.
Posted by: Matt Stone | February 29, 2008 at 01:00 AM
"...The Christ we serve not only was, but is, and is coming again. Jesus lives today and He lives in a state of exaltation, not humiliation..."
Yes, but a fully orbed understanding of incarnational theology includes the recognition that the incarnation continues into the end times. Jesus rose in the flesh and he will return in the flesh. And upon seeing the fleshy marks of his humiliation Thomas declaired him the exhaulted one with the words, "My Lord and my God". Incarnational theology encompasses both exaltation and humiliation. Incarnational ministry encompases both humble encounter and glorious encounter. Revelation declares that the lion is the lamb; incarnational ministry is involves living with that paradox.
Posted by: Matt Stone | February 29, 2008 at 01:01 AM
What I find problematic about what many have spoken of as Jesus' incarnation from 0 AD - 33 AD is the idea that Jesus was meek and loving and quiet. Calling the religious leaders of the day "white washed tombs with bones of dead men inside" was hardly meek and mild and clearing the outer courtyard of the temple where people of all nations were to be worshiping was clearly an act of pointing out the evil practices of His day. Jesus spoke the God's Word with "authority, and not as the teachers of the law and the scribes".
Living incarnationally to me (and I believe in the light of God's word) also means much more than trying in our own power to follow Jesus' example. It can't be done. Living incarnationally should be allowing Jesus to live through us in the power of the Holy Spirit shouldn't it? It's living in relationship with Christ as we've been taught through God's Word.
Posted by: Gene A | July 23, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Ha ha, you said not waiting for Driscoll to catch on... Check out marshillchurch.org That strikes me as funny... Driscoll catch on
Posted by: Chris | May 23, 2009 at 09:50 PM