Why is it that I read and hear so much about "incarnational" ministry? I mean, I get it: we are to identify with those we minister to in the same way Christ identified with us, as demonstrated so well in the Incarnation. It makes sense.
But, it seems like the New Testament emphasis in terms of Christ's example for us is not so much on his gaining a body, but on his giving up his body. Not that the two can be separated- they cannot. He took on flesh to later take up his cross. Still, the focus in terms of discipleship seems to be on the latter aspect of his earthly ministry. Ought we not, therefore, to speak more of "crucifixional" ministry? Or perhaps we know what such an angle on ministry would mean for us...
Convicted with you,
aaron
And your a blogger...
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you're finally giving public access to that mind of yours - I look forward to reading the musings. On your post: "Crucifixional ministry" ought to be considered an integral part of incarnational ministry already. Jesus came to die - the incarnation wasn't an end in itself. I think incarnational ministry is a decent model of ministry insofar as we come to die in order to "bring many Sons to Glory".
I absolutely agree: it "ought to be considered an integral part of incarnational ministry already." However, I think I'd prefer to put it the other way around, actually. I think if we aim at "incarnational" ministry, we might just miss "crucifixional." If we aim for "crucifixional," I feel more comfortable that we'd get incarnational too.
DeleteI don't want to get caught up too much in the way we phrase things, but I do think it is significant that "incarnational" has become the adjective of choice in our generation when, again, the NT seems to emphasize the cross. Somehow, I feel safer with the term "incarnational"- it's more obscure-whereas "crucifixional" leaves me with a very vivid image of my life and ministry.
I should add, not "safer" in the good sense.
DeleteFair enough!
ReplyDeleteGlad you're blogging, Aaron!