Incarnational Practices

I read this last year, but found it again recently.  I don't agree with all of it, but I think it's thought-provoking in a healthy way.  "Incarnational Practices."

Comments

[David Rogers]

I'm curious to know what in this article you don't agree with. It sounds to me like exactly what we try to do as missionaries in Western Europe for the most part.

[Steve McCoy]

David, don't get too concerned. Obviously I linked the article because I like what he is saying and agree with most of it.

I don't agree fully with his take on "third places" and the suburbs. Third places aren't the same in the burbs as in the city. But they are just as important, I think.

I also think Mark overstates the need to limit being attractional. I think with Jesus there were attractional aspects connected to his "incarnational" ministry. Mark says it can't be both. I think it can be, though attractional always serves the incarnational.

Hope that helps.

[David Rogers]

Kewl. After hearing your slant on it, I think I agree with you even more than with the guy who wrote the article (with whom I thought I agreed completely).

Keep up the great work!

[Sean Michael Murphy]

Steve,
I agree with you...in agreeing with David. Great stuff

[Van S]

Steve,

I agree with the idea that attractional can exist alongside incarnational, but only in a secondary subordinate role. When I wrote the article, I was in a groove and I overstated that. The problem with doing church attractionally is that we think that that large gathering IS the church and that relational, incarnational, missional interaction is optional. These two emphases should be flipped.

[Steve McCoy]

I was hoping you might stop by Mark. Thanks for clarifying.

[B]

Why do we do this. We try to seperate the two from each other? I have been part of an amazing church service that had 2 other people gathered at a table. We sang, ate, prayed...it was awesome. I have also gathered with 2000 in London at Hillsong. I wept as the voices joined to praise Him.
When you tell people that God wired to be "attractional" that it is wrong--you crush everything in them. Imagine trying to tell John the Baptist NOT be be attractional---or tell Peter that 3000 is too many---attractional/relational/incarnational is not an EITHER/OR it is all about BOTH/AND.

[Van S]

B...I think I addressed the either/or issue in my last post. It isn't an either/or per se...but one must be at the heart of how we are church. Is church primarily, at its root, a network of inter-related people, who, filled with the Spirit, usher one another and those within their context into an ever-deeper relationship with God? Or is it primarily a gathering of Christians who invite others into a shared gathering where they sing praises and hear good preaching? A church should has all of these things. But I don't know of any church that really emphasizes both in equal measure.