Thinking, Writing, Speaking Incarnationally

This is an "in-between" post that sort of fits into the #1 discussion (narrative and theatre, learning through stories) that I was planning on beginning after my last entry. I'd like to wait on the theatre part for another entry and instead point to a couple of examples I've run across recently as knowing/unknowing situations of speaking and thinking incarnationally. By this, I mean allowing our faith to shape our entire worldview, not as simply a way of dealing with exestential questions or philosophical realities. Speaking incarnationally means seeing our faith as the lens through which we view our entire world, which then shapes every decision and action we make. Two examples (and in no way am I implying these incarnational discussions were intentional):

1) I saw incarnational language in John Weeden's post titled A Christmas Memory. John is the director of the Urban Art Commission in Memphis, TN. He wrote this post after being in a local bar called the P&H that was held up at gun point in the middle of the afternoon during a business meeting he was a part of. I always think that the role of our artists, poets, writers, actors, and musicians is to speak truth (much like contemporary prophets) into a world of deception. John does that beautifully in this post, speaking incarnationally of how community forms, in this story, through examples of sharing, respect, and wonder.

2) I particularly enjoyed this insight into the cliches of television posted by Jay Norrell on his blog, www.jayinrome.com. I've posted the applicable portion of the entry below:

The Only Religion Plot There Is: Dude A is a hard nosed rationalist (and is always the smart character). Dude B is religious. Dude A says that religion has no proof. Dude B says he doesn’t need proof because he has faith. Jay gets up to go find something to kick very, very hard. When Jay returns, Dude A experiences some eerie coincidence or somehow narrowly misses fatal injury. He briefly questions his atheism. Also, Dude B experiences some tragedy and questions his faith (which somehow failed to happen before the age of 40). Ultimately, both return to their original positions, decide that everyone has their own beliefs, different strokes for different folks, and so on. This makes me maniacally furious for the following reasons: a) religion is given condescending approval, so long as it is viewed as some kind of coping mechanism, rather than an intellectual position and a coherent worldview, making it something you ‘need’ or ‘don’t need,’ and thereby giving people an ego boost if they ‘don’t need’ religon. B) “faith” is defined as an antirational and contralogical belief in something wacky. C) The implication that Atheism is somehow the most rationally supported understanding of the universe, or even that scientists and smart people in general are dominantly atheist.

Once again this is a great example of looking incarnationally at the world around us. We can take a lot from observances like John's and Jay's and begin to look at the world around us incarnationally, both the beautiful and the ugly. Where is God working and how can we join?