Incarnational ministry
The SST conference this year was particularly good. (The conference is always a great time of meeting old friends; this year several of the papers – Webster; Kilby; Sarot – were excellent as well, which is not always the case; and more folk from St Andrews attended than has been common recently, which was also a plus for me.) A recurrent theme of bar conversations (where all the best theology gets done at SST) was ‘buzzwords’: language that sounds positive and resonant, but on examination is unreflective, ill-defined, and so dangerously meaningless. ‘Participation’ was one such; ‘incarnational’ another.
‘Incarnational ministry’ seems still to be a popular phrase. As far as I can tell, its meaning, to the extent it has any, is a gesture towards a practice of Christian discipleship which involves simply being in a place, consciously refusing to challenge people or structures, but instead living a life of quiet piety and availability in the hope that this will serve as a witness to those around.
It might well, of course, and there have been times when such a practice of mission was perhaps appropriate (the Mennonites survived by becoming ‘the quiet in the land’ in a bloodier age…), but is this really ‘incarnational’? Is this what Jesus did – quiet, non-confrontational living; service without preaching; being but never saying? It might not be wrong, but to dignify it by claiming it is uniquely true to the life of Christ seems to me rather ambitious. Jesus was not obviously quiet and non-confrontational; the authorities noticed Him, and feared Him, and did something about Him. ‘Incarnational ministry’ will not be quiet and non-confrontational either: by a holistic combination of word and deed, it will publicly and decisively undermine the authority structures of this world in the name of God’s Kingdom of justice and joy; it will mock our idols and critique our lives. It will be profoundly threatening to the culture it lives within.
Truly incarnational ministry will end, invariably, in crucifixion – and the sure and certain hope of resurrection life.
6 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- In Light of the Gospel » Blog Archive » Incarnational Ministry… - [...] of a buzzword, and those are usually not helpful. What are we getting across with incarnational? Steve Holmes: As…
- Incarnational Ministry? « Already Not Yet - [...] of a buzzword, and those are usually not helpful. What are we getting across with incarnational? Steve Holmes: As…
It sounds like the SST was good this year; one day, I might even get there!
Notwithstanding your focus on ‘incarnational ministry’ here, I’d be interested to know why ‘participation’ is also a buzzword.
In my understanding, “incarnational ministry” does not negate the need for a prophetic witness, but argues that we must also (and before) be in solidarity with those around us. It is thus a model of the incarnation, where Jesus came in solidarity first, and then called for sanctification.
That is how i understand it, as a “both/and.”
Thanks for commenting, folks.
@Terry: I am always surprised by how much I enjoy SST – I think it is the fact that it always comes at my lowest time of year (our Christmas break is fairly short, so it feels like six months of continuous teaching to Easter), when the last thing I want to do is drag myself off to a conference… Participation: maybe something longer soon, but quickly, my concern (as with ‘incarnational’) is that the word is used without being defined. To ‘participate’ in the divine life might mean something as basic as ethics, and it might mean ‘enlarging the society of the Trinity’ (Edwards). Define it clearly, and we can talk about it; my concern comes when the word is used undefined.
@’brain’: if that is what the phrase means, I don’t think I disagree (although I’m not sure ‘solidarity before sanctification’ is quite true to the incarnation – discuss, with reference to Irving…). In my hearing, however, it is rarely so clearly specified, and too-often used as an excuse to choose silence rather than challenge.
Eckhard Schnabel finishes his two-volume Early Christian Mission with a chapter against the use of ‘incarnational’ to describe anything other than the unique event. Yet, we still call people (more worryingly, sometimes even things) ‘Christian’ who clearly are not Christ.
The use of ‘incarnational’ that I see the most is simply referring to a certain aspect of being Christian: not that presence itself is (necessarily) redemptive, but it is prior to any redemptive words or deeds. While our proclamation and demonstration of the good news will never match Jesus’, we can and should ask how well it conforms to his example. The same is true of our being present in the world.
Steve,
I hear your concern, and it is a valid one. Regarding the solidarity/sanctification point you made, i feel the same tension you do. My professor-whose own academic nurturing and subsequent career are profoundly shaped by Barth and the Torrance family-advocates this order, at least in my understanding. While i understand his point, i too struggle with whether or not we can place a definitive order on the theological and pastoral significance of the Incarnation. It seems to me that it should have a more dialectic flavor, with us trying to constantly hold both in tension.
Nevertheless, in the world of ministry we do often give priority to one over the other in actual situations. This it seems, is also true of most theology. So i usually arrive back where i started, a bit unsatisfied.
Thanks for the interaction.
Participation – is this not the very heart of the debate between Catholic and Protestant theology? That is to say, I have little doubt that it is a ‘buzzword’ – RO et al. can’t say it quickly enough as they drone through their mantras – but surely it betrays at it’s heart some kernel of quiddity (a word for which I am eternally greatful for the introduction to)?