On reading “Jesus and the Victory of God”, what struck me strongly was the sense that Jesus’ vocation was an invitation into the kingdom and the scandal which provoked his death was that this was available to all. Would Tom Wright endorse the idea that emerging church concepts build on this inclusive gospel. How would he and others see this in practice; if we follow Jesus’ approach, especially in the multi-faith, post 9-11 West how and to whom is the challenge of this gospel made. And what does Tom Wright think is actually “happening” on the cross to realise this welcome from God?
open source theology
collaborative theology for the emerging church
The Gospel as Inclusive Welcome
Similar entries
Latest comments
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- peter wilkinson on The demise of Sir Toby's
- Kent Clark on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Kent Clark on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
Other recent posts
- Roderick: Preterism and Emergent Eschatology (2): Andrew Perriman was recently interviewed about his views on eschatology ("endtimes"). During the interview it
- jonpaulr: JonPaul : user's biography
- shiert: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword (23): Jesus did not mean this ‘sword’ to be understood metaphorically. Sorry, Andrew, but I can't let this really silly
- RUMINATE MAGAZINE: RUMINATE: A Christian Literary Magazine : RUMINATE is a quarterly magazine of short stories, poetry, creative nonfiction, and visual art that resonate with the
- shiert: A new conversation on relationship : Relational theology may fairly be called a "developing idea" as John Henry Newman might use that phrase.[1] A concerted and
- Duncan: New heaven and new earth on the ultimate day of the Lord (2): Here is something else from my book (The Antichrist and the Second Coming). It continues the post that I put up earlier on the
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
Inclusiveness
Here’s roughly how I see it. Jesus’ ministry was radically inclusive but really only within the boundaries of the covenant people: those who find forgiveness and healing are frequently disenfranchised and marginalized but they are also for the most part Jews (is the Syrophoenician woman the only exception?). The larger inclusion of Gentiles within the people of God is a later development, driven by the Spirit and in many respects a reaction to the Jews’ continuing unbelief and hostility towards the followers of Jesus.
The inclusion of Gentiles is also radically indiscriminate (Jews, Greeks, male, female, slave, free), but they are incorporated nevertheless into a rather well defined community – marked out by baptism, recognition of Christ as Lord, and the experience of the Spirit of God. I don’t see any basis for blurring those boundaries.
Having said that, I think two things still need to be stressed. The first is that the church has developed habits of thought, speech and behaviour that have made it exclusive in practice if not in theology. The emerging church is at least learning (I hope) not to alienate people for cultural and structural reasons. Secondly, there is more to the work of God both in the world and through the church than the enlistment of more disciples. The emerging church is also learning (again I hope) to recognize that people may have authentic encounters with God within a wide variety of religious and non-religious frameworks. I think the church should be in a position to help people investigate and interpret these experiences within the context of committed relationships – as an extension of the believing community – without fearing that in so doing we compromise our identity as those who uniquely have the Spirit of Christ.
Whether Tom Wright would agree with this is another matter. We can say, though, that he interprets Jesus’ death primarily against an eschatological-historical backdrop – rather than, say, in the framework of an ahistorical atonement theology. Jesus’ redeems Israel by taking upon himself the sufferings associated with her continuing ‘exile’ (cf. Jesus and the Victory of God, 590-591). The question raised by his inclusiveness has to do with who exactly would be part of this redeemed Israel – and as you suggest, the answer to that question raised some eyebrows.
who are we to judge ?
i find the subject of “inclusion” very challenging.
i have been a member of a church where the leaders were struggling to maintain the story that the members of the church were in some way uniquely “different” or “holy” in comparison with other churches !
it seems that in fact we are all equal in the sight of god, and that this might also mean that we are all equal even though we believe different things.
for all christians holding firm to the central message of jesus, jesus is the way to god. we can be as holy and clever and sorted-out as we like, but the way to god is through jesus.
what happens if people do not know jesus, but still feel touched by god and respond to him, to live a life of responsibility and trust ? well, i’m sure god is able to accept them, because jesus has provided a way for them, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON’T KNOW HIM.
so, whether you know it or not, god has arranged a way for you to be rescued and sustained. he has done it every day since the beginning of the world.
maybe this means that we have to consider that there are people who are not of our beliefs, but who genuinely have a relationship with god as leader/ruler.
yes, i’ve read the gospel of john. i know that in order for me to cross over from death to life i have to accept the words of jesus : that god forgives. and i have to walk in the light, in truth.
yes, i’ve read romans. i know that in order for me to be able to become a child of god i have to trust the work of jesus : the sacrifice that god accepts. and that i need to be changed.
but i do not have the power to convince anyone else of what i am convinced is true, so i have to do a voltaire : “i may not believe in what you say, but i will die for your right to do so.”
i cannot be a self-righteous person, living safe and secure in my little cell of belief : not everyone believes what i believe, and yet they have genuine encounters with god. and anyway, sometimes i wake up with doubts, particularly about certain heavily emphasised doctrines in the churches.
i reckon that if you asked people honestly whether they believe all the things taught to them in a church on a sunday, most of them would generally concur, but there will ALWAYS be a doubtful minority. and yet it is still possible to have community. effective god-centred community.
when you say :-
actually, i think i disagree. i think church community should extend to people who do not believe all i believe. and i think that church action should definitely include all the people around it : particularly those in need, regardless of their beliefs.
i trust god for the transformations, for the challenges. and anyway, these days, people are on a journey to god, and don’t make it all the way there in one decisive moment.
if churches stopped being about holding a theological position, and more about sustaining a real-world body, maybe more people would come into god.
Just to clarify...
josiebelle wrote:
Actually, I think we probably agree, though correct me if I’m wrong. I went on to say (note the emphasis):
My point is that you can have a fairly clear and rigorous definition of what it means to be ‘Christian’ or ‘follower of Jesus’ or even, if we must use the terminology, ‘saved’, without excluding people from the distinctive type of community that is generated by the presence of God in the lives of believers. So yes: ‘church community should extend to people who do not believe all i believe’. But membership of the body of Christ is something different; it is more than being connected to a community.
A team of medics in a refugee camp, say, will generate a dynamic, inclusive ‘community of healing’ around itself. If they are doing their job properly, they will not discriminate, they will work hard, generously, compassionately, sacrificially; they will take risks, exposing themselves to infection and perhaps abuse; they will not regard themselves as morally superior, merely as entrusted with a responsibility; they will endeavour to bless the people around them by their work and knowledge; they will teach people how to look after their own health. But the distinction between medic and refugee remains: they will not deny their own expertise; they will not hand over the work of diagnosis and treatment to people who are unqualified.
This is where the more extreme arguments for inclusivity break down. The crucial issue, I think, is not whether a person is acceptable to God or will go to heaven. It is whether a person manifests the Spirit of God, which is fundamentally now the Spirit of Christ, who came not only to bear witness to the Father but also to serve. The team of medics will associate with all, may be very friendly with all; but they will also be looking for those few who will receive the spirit of medical care, who will become like them, who will turn around and seek to be a source of blessing to others.
Another Thought
I have really enjoyed reading all of your thoughts on this thread. I just wanted to add in a slightly different perspective. When I think about or discuss Inclusivism/Exclsivism issues I think about what our definition of salvation is and I think about God’s revelation. I am often fascinated that God, who is so immensely transcendent and beyond our understanding, would reveal to us in word and flesh what we need to find salvation, but I also like to remember that my understanding, and everyone’s understanding of that salvation is only a part of what God has revealed to us and only a very small part of understanding God himself or his plan for the world.
In otherwords, using the analogy previously mentioned about medics, these people have a spirit of medical care , but who’s to say there’s not others who have a very different understanding of medicine, who’s practice looks very different, but have some common spirit of care and healing and medicine… I wouldn’t recommend to the medics we would recognize to just start trying other practices that they haven’t been instructed in, but I would hope that they would have a respect for another kind of medic and their practice, just as they do for the others around them who don’t know anything about medicine.
I look forward to continuing to read the amazing thoughts and ideas being discussed on this site! Thanks for letting me throw my few cents in!
Dustyn
First post, glad to be here.
The whole “inclusivity/exclusivity” debate is often heated, in my opinion, by rhetoric that suggests that one must “change” somehow in order to be included in the people of God.
I acknowledge that receiving the Holy Spirit “changes” a person in the best way possible! But here’s my question: for the emerging church, where does that leave the “Rainbow Community”—gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, etc. people?
Maybe this is not the proper thread in which to be asking this question. My underlying question: if the gospel is inclusive, how does it define boundaries? Are there individuals whom who can clearly say are actually excluded if we are teaching the gospel as we ought?
I look forward to further interaction and exploration.
what is happening on the cross ?
when imagine asks :
i have to point him back to philippians 2, because the sacrifice of jesus seems (to me) to be much more than allowing himself to be killed :
death on a cross was a natural consequence, it seems, of giving up all his authority and status with the father, to be born as a human baby, to learn the prophecies and to believe that he fulfilled them, and so to live them.
what is happening on the cross is what was going to happen to someone who said that he was the person to bring about the prophecies of isaiah and others. a person who said that all nations would benefit from god’s rescue plan, all nations would be added to the house of the “paid for”, freed slaves.
isaiah 61 :
isaiah 56 :
isaiah 42 :
when a hard-core evangelical says “jesus died to take away my sin”, or something equivalent about being covered in his blood, i really have to take a step back from that position.
these explanations are kind of technical, kind of narrative, kind of hard to see the reality of. what is real is that jesus was prepared to act as he believed, and that god accepted this sacrifice of himself. i’m not quite sure how that becomes god demanding blood be spilled before he can forgive us.
jesus said on the cross “father, forgive them, because they don’t know what they are doing.” that’s the key relationship dialogue. that’s the thing that gets us off the hook. jesus asked god for our forgiveness. jesus prays for us. and that includes everyone, dead, alive, yet to live.