Incarnation vs inbibliation

When I lived and worked in Bradford I became much more aware of Islam because I was encountering it in people and media on a far more regular basis. In that time I became convinced that we Christians have no business beliving that the Bible is the word of God in the same way that Muslims belive the Qur'an to be God's word. You see, the Word was made flesh, not book. Our scriptures are more like hadith in the Muslim paradigm: witnesses and background and explanation and exploration of the central revelation. We happen to believe that this witness was providentially ordered by God.

Anyway, it was good to see someone else saying something similar to it. the church and postmodern culture: conversation: Incarnational Christianity and Islam - Further Engagement as a Response to the Points Made by Amos Yong: "Now what does this really mean when we start taking seriously my own 'radical' proposal that incarnational, rhizomic, missional Christianity is the real deal; in other words, it is our revelation, which is not a 'message' handed from on high to a divinely-summoned messenger that is enshrined once and for all in a sacred book, though I admit a lot of today's Christian 'inerrantists' would want it that way. What they don't realize is that the inerrantists are themselves making the Muslim argument, and the Muslims do it much better. After all, their 'inerrant' Scripture supposedly 'supersedes' ours. Our revelation, however, is The Word Become Flesh, Emmanuel or God-with-us, in the form of an historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Our revelation is a person, not a book, and the mission of our 'Great Commission' is not to 'spread the word about what Jesus said' (that's actually not in Scripture), but to 'make disciples,' to become 'Christs to each other.'"

What I like about that is it also begins to show how it makes a mission difference.