Incarnational missions. Hotly contested in blogosphere at present. Let's discuss it.
This is basically a view in the strategy of cross-cultural evangelism where the driving force is your Christology. With incarnational missions the fact of leaving your home, volutarily restricting your freedom, deciding to serve others, adopting and adapting to a new and foreign culture, living as a jew to the jew, as one without the law to those without the law...
This is in opposition to the command on Israel not to be in corrupting cultures, but rather eradicate them. The separation of those living in obedience and faith to God were reminded to remain separate from dangerous influences.
Christology is and will always be the determining force of missions strategy. Your view of his life and work will shape which side you emphasize. Good and faithful men on both sides are to be found.
Within a humanistic context, within a postmodern and postchristian context, the downside is who influences whom? Being close to unrighteousness, immorality and corruption need not have the last word (ie Daniel), but there is that danger.
The upside is salt being in contact and causing thirst. Without the relational impact in Europe, it is difficult to imagine a platform to be established apart from some adoption of incarnational missions.
While the concept and application of incarnational missions is hotly debated, the missional guru Ed Stetzer weighs in with these words:
"Some will not like the use of the word, but I hope we all agree on what it is we are looking to see the church do: to be in the world, while remaining distinct, with the aim of fulfilling the Great Commission."
If you wonder why your church or church-planting strategy appears as it does, look no further than your theology. A faulty view of Jesus, perception formed not by biblical mandate but rather by personal comfort or preferences will determine everything.