Let me say that at first I thought someone I didn’t know called me ‘Dr’ and I was going to have to do the obligatory and bashful correction. Glad that it was you instead, brother.

I would agree with what Kent and some others said above about most ministers not using ‘incarnational ministry’ with the intention of making the church and its work into the content of the gospel. I think that the kinds of things you’re focused on when you talk about using the incarnation as a model for ministry are obviously the right things to be gleaned from talking about ‘incarnational ministry’. And I would agree that having the theological wherewithal to clarify what it does and doesn’t mean will go a long way in alleviating the problems. I think that in the end each church and each pastor will have to weigh the value of using the phrase to inspire and also the liabilities of potential misunderstanding and then figure out the best way forward for their own church. If used well, this sort of language can make a helpful point even if formally and without proper explanation it would verge on theological error or even blasphemy. That’s my long-winded way of saying that I see your point and think everyone has to judge for himself or herself and, if they want to use the phrase, they need to do the theological work in preaching and teaching so that the people aren’t misled. I’m not pastoring, but if I were pastoring a church that talked about ‘incarnational ministry’ I might just be blunt about my hesitations, clarify the valuable stuff to be found there, and then use other complementary concepts a lot so that the incarnational idea wouldn’t get out of hand.

Hope studies are going well for you in Scotland. Great post here. As a church planter, I would want to retain the phrase “incarnational ministry.” But I see a qualitative difference in what we do as ministers of the gospel vs. what Christ has done as the grounding and substance of the gospel. Christ is both our message AND our model. So his work alone is what we proclaim as sufficient, and his incarnation is uniquely his…but we are called to be “little Christs,” living in an incarnational fashion. This seems clear to me when you read Phil 2, among other passages. So while I understand the danger in conflating the work of the church w/ the work of Christ, I believe that a proper understanding of atonement theology will subvert this tendency. Perhaps a better term could be used, but I know from a practical perspective that once people understand the incarnation as a model for living it can be a great catalyst for holy living for the sake of others. Your thoughts?

What does it mean, regarding the “body,” the “flesh” even of Christ himself possibly, when churchmembers, the body of Christ, make grave mistakes?

It seems there is a general problem here, regarding the authority not just of self-consciously “incarnational” ministries, but all Christian churches.

The problem that remains is this: the Bible itself (Paul and John for example) clearly indicated bad things, evils, even in the very earliest, foundational Christian churches. Things amounting in fact, to a corruption in the “body of Christ” itself; right in the very beginning of Christianity.

So two major problems come out of this. First 1) how reliable are our churches, after all?

And 2) for that matter, how pure is the “body of Christ”? In both its meaning as a) the churches, and their doctrines or dogmas. And/or, even b) the body of Christ, himself. And his own personal reliablity?

If the body or flesh of Christ, was corrupt from the start, what does that say?

With Kent, I think some of the theological alarmism is a bit over the top, seeing theological goblins where they may not be. Wise theologians can have much more helpful influence by coming alongside and offering loving clarification than by assuming the role of alarmist prophet. Maybe this is what anesthetizes the Church to theologians at those times when theologians really do need to have a prophetic voice (you know, the old “crying wolf” syndrome).

The intention behind the words is usually something like, “We need to be incarnational (!), in our surrounding culture, not separated from it.” Rallying cries such as these (and I have heard them often in print and from pulpits) very rarely expand upon what calling something “incarnational” might entail for one’s doctrines of Christ or the Church.

Solution: we need to be equipping our future ministry leaders with the theological acumen and instinct to see down to the potential problems of language like “incarnational ministry.”

John’s Revelation for example, warns the “angel of the Church,” that God had “not found your works perfect.” While the opening pages of the last book of the Bible, criticize evils, in one church after another. Clearly, it is a corrupt body of Christ.

For that matter? Paul himself warned constantly of false things in every aspect of religion; finally calling St. Peter, the founder of THe Church some say, “Satan” in Mat. 16.23. While most of Paul’s writings are formulated as letters to various churches – at Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth etc.. And Paul does not complement them on doing a perfect job, either.

So we have in the churches – a corrupt body of Christ? One that can and does constantly make errors?

So it would seem, biblically.