Comments on: Stuck between Mohler and McLaren: The Incarnational Approach to Leading in Our Disagreements

By: trip to israel

trip to israel — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 05:58:18 +0000

I really love approaching your blog! your amazing approach to see things is what keeps me interested. Thanks so much!!!!

By: Ken Howard

Ken Howard — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:54:03 +0000

Hi David,

As Scott said, I haven’t read the entire comment thread, but I do have a thought on the matter… That is, there must be a middle ground between authoritarian and democratic. I’ve often said that, when it comes to conflict, liberals change the subject (“if we disagree about something, we won’t talk about it”), while conservatives change the venue (“if you disagree with us on something, you can go somewhere and talk about it… or we will”). Both see conflict as a sign of dysfunction, they just deal with it differently.

I’ve been suggesting that we adopt a transcendent paradigm that views conflict as normative and even an opportunity for all to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. In my book “Paradoxy: Creating Christian Community Beyond Us and Them” (http://www.practicingparad?oxy.com/), I suggested “Incarnational Orthodoxy” as way to describe a theological orientation that transcends the doctrine-driven “Propositional Orthodoxy” of conservative Christianity and the praxis-driven “Ethical Orthodoxy” of liberal Christianity in a way that incorporates (“gathers into a body”) the strengths of each without turning them into idols.

Incarnational Orthodoxy returns the term “orthodoxy” to its literal roots (ortho=right/appropriate, doxy=praise/worshipful response), so that our experience of the all encompassing love of the incarnate Christ drives both what we are, what we are becoming, what we believe, and what we do. It is not “anything goes”/”let’s change the subject” and it is not “my/our way or the highway.” But a sense that the living Christ IS all truth, that none of us cannot contain it fully, and that we need each other to draw closer to the truth…

In Christ’s love,
Ken+

By: Pastors as “wannabe executives” | theRubicon

Pastors as “wannabe executives” | theRubicon — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:00:50 +0000

[...] back to biblical depictions of church life as the normative standard. So in this post [link: http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/stuck-between-mohler-and-mclaren-the-incarnational-approach-to-l..., which covers some of the same ground as the chapter on leadership in The Great Giveaway, the [...]

By: Reclaiming the Mission » “On Being Missional” and the Gay/Lesbian Peoples

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:32:22 +0000

[...] series of posts that began here (and continued here and here and probably should include this post here as necessary background). The three posts to follow all deal with this last and probably most [...]

By: Reclaiming the Mission » Woman and Men in Ministry Together: Affirming and Transforming – The Missional Way

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:05:30 +0000

[...] in salvation. Yet there are differences as well which I tried to make clearer previously over at this post. This incarnatiuonal, post Christendom driven understanding of life and truth in the gospel leads, [...]

By: Reclaiming the Mission » A NEW KIND OF INCLUSIVITY: Before I Talk about Women in Ministry and GLBT Relations

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:48:24 +0000

[...] different than the one most associated with (what was) the emergent church as I articulated over here. So before I actually outline pos. 3 on these two questions, I’d like to show why Missional [...]

By: Linking Life for the Week of February 18th « Linking Life

Linking Life for the Week of February 18th « Linking Life — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:32:35 +0000

[...] Nathan Colquhoun posted Reclaiming the Mission » Stuck between Mohler and McLaren: The Incarnational Approach to Leading in…. [...]

By: David Fitch

David Fitch — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:54:46 +0000

yo Bill…
I’m using “democratic” within the general usage of democracy as a political means of reaching agreement …Bill you say “You seem to be focused on determining doctrinal parameters. Perhaps this is not what should be key in a faith community. It isn’t in mine.” But then you say immediately following “We have agreed that the center is Jesus Christ and we have agreed on a vision which is quite broad.” Although we both find distasteful some of the exclusionary implications of “doctrinal paramenters” … and we both acknowledge we should flesh these out together … it appears you’re contradicting yourself … here eh?… or at least nuancing in a way I would be favoruable to …

Hey Matt … ouch!! thanks …

By: matt johnson

matt johnson — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:40:51 +0000

Great post, Dave. Very thought provoking. My comment here is more of a meta-reflection, however. You write about the leadership approach of three white men, and the blog lights up with discussion. You write about the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., or ask if missional communities need to be racially diverse, and it’s crickets. I think that shows us something about how courageous the missional church really is when it comes to doing church in a different way.

If we continue to cave to the racism inherent in American churches, then the missional movement will solve little.

By: The Quest to Be Unconventional » danielmrose.com

The Quest to Be Unconventional » danielmrose.com — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:46:44 +0000

[...] being said, I think that David does something in a recent post which is not authentic. He is discussing how to deal with conflict in the community of believers. [...]