What does it mean to live "incarnationally?"

It's another word for.............APOSTASY!!!

 

It's a word bandied about by the Emerging Church and its proponents. I think they think it's sounds cool.

I don't know if the EC has figured out yet that what is cool today is not cool tomorrow.

 

The incarnation was Jesus coming in the flesh. In - Carnal (flesh).

So to live incarnationally would not be to live in the spirit, but rather to live in the flesh, to live a carnal life. So it seems to me, these emergents have revealed the truth about themselves, if this is what they are encouraging.

 

I use the term frequently. I'm not an apostate. (Well at least theologically.)

Living incarnationally, for our context, means that we are living authentically in community as we attempt to emulate the way Christ demonstrated through the testimony of the Scriptures. Since Christ is to be our example of how to live, by living incarnationally we allow the Holy Spirit to work in our lives so we might live gracefully before others. While we don't suggest we can living sinlessly or in the same kind of divine state as Christ, we do hope to reflect His actions and truth. It is an attempt to live as we are called.

This isn't some weirdo, quasi-new age thing. It is a way to express our desire to reflect Christ as best as possible. Just being honest.

No I'll wait for the slings and arrows...

 

Well then don't use a word that means to live in the flesh. I'm just saying what the word means.

 

Well one of the reasons the term is used is precisely that we are living the holy life in the flesh.

 

Um, yah, that's because your still breathing. Of course you are in the flesh and we are to be as holy and separated as possible in this life and the only way that can be done is through the spirit. The flesh is what keeps us in bondage to this earth and to sin. We are not to glory in the flesh, a carnal Christian is nothing to brag about. But then this generation calls good evil and evil good, so I suppose it is fitting for this generation of Christians to be proud of their carnality.

 

The gospel is offensive to sinful man living in the flesh.
This isn't about how you present the gospel, but the gospel itself. Because it says 'non-offensive FORM OF the gospel'

 

Amen.

John 14:6 is probably considered offensive by many, so does modern gospel and modern non-offensive evangelism remove this fact. I wonder what emergents do with this verse? Is it even still in their Bibles?

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

Can we put "missional" into the same cagetory as "incarnational?"

Is "missional" different from "mission-minded" or "evangelistic?"

 

I don't use the term except about Jesus. So are you saying that when I talk about the incarnation of Jesus, I am saying that he lived a carnal life? I don't think you are (at least I hope not).

 

Well the community I referred to was our local community. Ours is pretty diverse, I don't know about yours. We live in the midst of many people who are both inside and outside a relationship with Christ.

But Christian community (which I wasn't referring to) is a select group of people. By the very nature of redemption it is a select group of people.

Actually Paul's point was that he imitated Christ too. Jesus is the ultimate example of what it means to be human. When Paul, or Peter, or any other NT writer references exampled living the ultimate litmus test is Jesus.

Our obligation is to imitate Christ. Doing life incarnationally means we put the needs of others before our own needs. It means that we live in a way that exemplifies the way of Christ, it isn't plastic (i.e. fake.)

I get the divine aspects of incarnation. I get the theological aspects. What we use this term, when applied to our lives in our community we mean taking the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our lives and living authentically before others. We all the ways and will of God to permeate our persons in a way that allows others to see the divine purpose in our us. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it free from sin? Certainly not.

The idea here, as our church family uses it, is that we take the gifts of the Spirit and allow them to flow in our lives in such a way that our fruit is evident. Incarnation isn't limited it Jesus. Though His incarnation is something we cannot obtain theologically.

Okay, then don't use it. I don't gripe at people for using outmodded language to speak about Christianity. I don't get the issue.

I speak to, minister with, and live in a younger (generationally) context. We use different language but it isn't important, the language is just language. How we live before others is deeply important.

So what are you doing to reach people who are outside of Christianity in a meaningful way? How are you taking the commands of Christ and translating to those who have either never heard them, or are living outside of them?

Those questions matter.

I have no clue how my using a term in the context of my life and how I practice is insulting to others. I don't understand how someone, who is deeply removed from my life and context, can offer the suggestion that it is and I should stop using it.

 

Just from my perspective, missional has a different aspect than "mission-minded" or "evangelistic." It has to do with a focus of purpose, the integration of person and community. There is a healthy difference between it and the other two terms imho.

Again, if you don't like the terms that's fine. But don't try to smear others who use them as language dedicated to describing how we reach others. Just saying.

 

How is that different than living the Christian life? How much of today is following a guru rather than Christ? People's needs are still the same. They need to be loved. They ned to know Christ not new and novel methods.

What the Church needs today is not more machinery or better, not new organizations or more and novel methods, but men whom the Holy Ghost can use -- men of prayer, men mighty in prayer. The Holy Ghost does not flow through methods, but through men. He does not come on machinery, but on men. He does not anoint plans, but men -- men of prayer. --E.M. Bounds

 

No smear intended. Just asking.