I agree.

Maybe some of the problem could be resolved by defining terms. A partner is defined in my dictionary as “a person who takes part in some activity in common with another.” It doesn’t necessarily imply equality, which is what I think many people think of when they think of partners. I think using this definition of partner, most would agree that when we yield our will to His to accomplish His purposes we are taking part in the activity of God. We are unequal partners with God. I would guess that most who use the expression ‘partnering with God’ are trying to suggest agreement with and involvment in what God is doing–not equality.

Humble and meek are other terms that are similarly misunderstood and need to be defined and/or examined in light of the original language used in Scripture. As I understand the terms, a powerful, mighty person can also be meek and humble. He would not cease to strong even in meekness or humble even when exercising his strength.

I think you are spot on. This entire way of thinking has been giving me a headache for a day. It’s like an evolving Jesus. No no no! The Final Word has always been our glorious mediator. He APPEARED to us in temporal flesh, but even then his glory was visible in everything he did and was.

If David is concerned about turning Jesus into Ted Neely in Jesus Christ Superstar, then I am buying him coffee. Amen! But the idea that emerging churches that emphasive the Gospels are rejecting or demeaning the risen, reigning Lord seems to me a faulty criticism.

We need to avoid talking merely about who Jesus was and talk more about who He is right now.

Taken in context, I understand he is talking about getting a complete picture of who Jesus is and the difference between what He did on the cross and what He is doing sitting on His throne. However using terms like ‘who he was’ and ‘who he is’ are very misleading when referring to a person who is the same yesterday, today and forever.

This really highlights the difficulty we face when trying to grasp the nature of the Son of Man/Son of God. Focusing on one aspect without the other gives us an incomplete, often misleading picture. But a ‘that was then, this is now’ approach is wrong, as well. Even though He didn’t come to rule and to judge, at that point in time, He was still the King and Judge of the Universe in His incarnation –and He is still a man (and God) and our friend (”if you keep My commandments”) and companion even as He sits on His throne, today….and forever. Depending on the circumstances, He can make hippies feel at home or kings fall on their face in awe and fear. That’s the mind blowing awesomeness of the thing..

The beauty of the person in the Gospels is the power of humanity and divinity in the same person–the man who commanded the waves, walks on water and, after the resurrection, walks through walls–walked with His friends and cooked breakfast for them! I know all of that occurred before He ascended–but He is unchanging. So I don’t see how any of those aspects of who He is can be any different today, in the future or in eternity. Why can’t a meek and humble Lamb wield a sword or judge? He wielded a whip, when circumstances called for it, during His incarnation. I know that’s hard to comprehend but the dual nature of Christ is difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend.

Please forgive and correct me, here, if I am misundersanding David’s point. I just mean that we have to be very careful in our use of temporal terms like was/is when we are referring to the Eternal. He may look a lot different at various points in time and what He is doing at any given point in time changes but the exalted Lord and the incarnated Lord, are still the same unchanging Person.

Bottom line: I heartily agree with the points of your post, IM–especially this one:
The risen Christ has an earthly church that has forgotten the risen, exalted Jesus AND the earthly incarnational Jesus.

But I find much of the criticism presented by David and Driscoll a little confusing – esp. the dichotomy made between Jesus as the Incarnation and Jesus as Lord.

For instance, “We need to avoid talking merely about who Jesus was and talk more about who He is right now.”

Huh? Isn’t He the same then, now and forever? Doesn’t the bible say that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?

And this sort of statement is especially puzzling: “Jesus lives today and He lives in a state of exaltation, not humiliation.”

I can’t help but wonder if those who find a need to make this kind of distinction just don’t get it. Has the idea of Christ’s glory on the cross been lost? How have we so lost sight of what was really happening there that we can view the cross as humilation only, and not triumph and exultation? Are we so focused on ‘best life now’ type of theology that we don’t want to even try wrapping our minds around the idea that suffering and humility are deeply and intimately intertwined with triumph and exultation?