I continue to wrestle with what feels like a growing tension between the Missional and Incarnational approaches to life.
I may be way of base here, does anyone else feel this tension? Is it just me?
I guess when I say, “missional” I’m referring to the type of intentional living promoted my groups like the “gospel and our culture network,” (For the record I am deeply indebted Guder, Hunsberger, Van Gelder and the crew, especially their antecedent: Newbigin).
On the video series Merchants of Cool that I posted last week they talked about Sprite’s increased sales among teens. It started with an add from a few years ago featuring basketball star, Grant Hill. In the add, each time Hill mentioned Sprite dollar signs flashed on the screen. Basically, Sprite was mocking itself and it worked – for a while.
I sense a similarity between the “Missional” movement and those Sprite adds. Intentional living, without incarnation seems little more than savvy product placement, at best, and colonization most often.
Current use of “mission” in popular language has something to do with engaging with something outside of your life or experience. From, “I’m going on a mission trip,” to “I’m serving soup at the mission.” It is often task driven, completion oriented, justified by external results.
Again the idea of mission is central to life as a disciple. But given our time in history and the use of the word “mission” in our context, it seems to me that “incarnation” more effectively communicates the essence of Christ’s mission for his followers.
Please don’t hear me saying that the Blues Brothers were wrong – We are on a mission from God. But it maybe less of a task to complete and more of a life to live. Being on a mission from God is not license to colonize another or let alone trash a mall… won’t it make sense that a mission from God would look a like living like Jesus of Nazareth?
Peace, dwight
