Byrnesys Blabberings

Ive been realising recently that people’s words can betray them, an attitude, a pretense, a value they wouldn’t state openly, but they reveal it by the words they use to describe and converse. The response to this is not harsh criticism but thoughtful reflection on the attitudes, pretenses and values that we ‘bring to the table’ so to speak.

This, I think, has been the most meaningful understanding in my study of Christian ethics over the last two years. An Understanding that we all have our lenses, we all have our history and emotions, and we can’t demonise them in ways that deny who we are and who we’ve been made to be while accepting the challenge of following Jesus.

In relation to this Andrew Jones pointed out an interesting distinction between two terms used to describe models of mission/church planting which were discussed at Dallas Theological Seminary.

- I think when we shift the word missional to incarnational (session 3) then we lose something of the cost, commitment and creative strategy of being sent, as Christ was sent by the Father, into a new and different culture. The incarnation of Christ is the model for mission but to lose the cross-cultural focus by shifting the emphasis from missional to pastoral or evangelistic is by-pass the pressing challenge of a vastly different post-Christian environment in which we are sent with good news.

I think this is a very intriguing aspect of mission, establishing balance between mission and incarnation in a world which is altogether ‘other’ than the kingdom we are called to be a part of.