"During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the worldIf grace can be defined as 'unmerited favor' (Eph 2:8), and if there is no partiality with God
debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith.
They began eliminating possibilities.
Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods appearing in human form.
Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death.
The debate went on for some time until C.S. Lewis wandered into the room.
"What's the rumpus about?" he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues
were discussing Christianity's unique contribution among world religions.
Lewis responded, "Oh, that's easy. It's grace."
After some discussion, the conferees had to agree.
The notion of God's love coming to us free of charge, no strings attached, seems
to go against every instinct of humanity.
The Buddhist eight-fold path, the Hindu doctrine of karma, the Jewish covenant,
and Muslim code of law---each of these offers a way to earn approval.
Only Christianity dares to make God's love unconditional."
-Philip Yancey, 'What's So Amazing About Grace?'
(Psa 145:9; Act 10:34; Rom 2:11; Rom 10:12; Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; 1 Ti 2:3-4;
Jas 3:17; 1 Pe 1:17), then what sort of coherent argument can one raise in defense of exclusivism?
That God would consider His faithful to be some form of social clique seems borderline blasphemous.
Defining The Terms
Before we get too far ahead of ourselves here, let us define the terms for the purpose
of not talking past one another in the context of this reading.
When I refer to exclusivism, I refer not to the classic understanding of exclusivism
as referred to frequently, this being Christianity's claim that salvation is appropriated
only through the salvific action of Christ on behalf of sinners.
On that point, I thoroughly concur.
When I use the term exclusivism here, I refer to the ubiquitous mindset that seems
to follow modern evangelical Christians around like a dark cloud.
This could best be understood as a nearly imperceptible up-turning of the nose
in the direction of 'outsiders'. Indeed the entire mentality that it is Us versus Them.
Believers versus Non-Believers. Christians versus Non-Christians.
In this sense, we as modern Christians have converted the church, originally intended
to welcome sinners with open arms and inspire them to repentance by the witness
of our prevailing love and the exhibition of the grace of Jesus Christ, into an exclusive
social club that might as well have a sign posted above the entrance: 'Sinners not welcome'.
We bear this attitude in direct contradiction to the prevailing teaching of Scripture
that all of us are sinners. Indeed, even those of us who have come to the saving grace
of our Lord and Savior, are still often trapped within a mire and web of sinful habits
and idolatrous mindsets which govern our behavior (1 Jn 1:18).
In fact, we often fail to view our salvation through Christ as an ongoing
act of daily repentance and the gradual suppression of the old man and his ways and
the advent of developing in the new man and walking in the Spirit.
There can be no form of exclusivist attitude, when viewed in this light, that matches
up with the example laid forth for us of Christ. All of it smacks of a decidedly
nasty sort of hypocrisy. This is why in an earlier chapter, I spoke of a proper
attitude of humility in refraining from inappropriate judgment of others (even in
our minds), in viewing ourselves as the worst sinners of all, and therefore in more
need of the generous grace of the Lord than anyone we could possibly have
reason to look down upon.
Making a strong case for inclusivism (and therefore against exclusivism as it has been here
defined), is obviously the purpose of this entry.
Inclusivism being defined as the lack of a spirit of rejection, abandonment, and
ostracizing others, because we seek to emulate the actions and mentality of Jesus
Christ in everything we do.
Inclusivism is also rendered here to embody the principle that 'God expects from man a response proportional to the light given and that saving faith is not characterized so much by its cognitive content as it is by its reverent quality'.
Presupposing Inclusivism
Many Christians already believe in inclusivism without being aware that they do.
When it comes to unborn children or children taken before what many refer to as
'the age of reason', most Christians are under the apprehension that they go
directly to heaven, regardless of whether or not they made an explicit confession
of faith. Why do we believe this?
Because an innocent child, sometimes without even the capacity to formulate
coherent thoughts or generate phrases with their mouths, should be accepted
on the basis of their capacities. And we believe that our God is the paradigm
of goodness, justice, and love. As such, it simply follows that we believe He
executes judgment lovingly and righteously and will not punish the good with the
wicked, the innocent with the guilty. To hold someone accountable for something
they were never aware of to begin with is a violation of justice.
Therefore God would not behave in this manner. Or so the (oft unspoken) rationale goes.
A Case For Inclusivism From the Old Testament
In making as strong a case as possible for inclusivism as a theological view,
I am going to liberally borrow from the outline and Scriptural case study of
judgment and the salvation of the nations given by Gregory MacDonald.
Let us dispense with pleasantries then, and proceed into a brief argument against
nationalism and exclusivism in the Old Testament.
In the beginning, God created human beings and blessed them (Gen 1:28).
According to the story, mankind enjoyed a great many benefits of dwelling
within the Garden of Eden, prime among them being intimate fellowship with
God. However, as we all are well aware, humanity made a conscious decision
rendered by their free-will as rational moral agents to choose evil rather
than good, and in so-doing enslaved themselves to dark principalities and powers
which henceforth obtained some sort of dominance over the natural order.
The exact details of how this came about are not clear.
What is clear, and what the primary thrust of my point is here is to
point out the obvious. That God created humanity and blessed them
without exclusion. His blessing was universal. This changed after the
fall which occurred. The next major turning point we see is in the call
of God to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).
The speech used by God in this passage is quite evocative, particularly
the fact that all of the families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham.
This clearly, was God's intention right from the outset starting from one of the earliest
points of reference in the Old Testament.
God offers three promises to Abraham which are significant and directly proportionate
to the blessings offered to Adam and Eve in the proverbial Eden story.
He offers descendants, land and personal covenant relationship with Him.
Hereafter, God begins to focus His attention on Abraham's descendants: the nation of Israel.
Because of the proportionate relation of the promises offered by God to Abraham
and the blessings given to Adam and Eve (Gen 12:2; 17:2, 6, 8; 22:17; 26:3, 24; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3), there are quite a few theologians who view Abraham as a new 'type' of Adam.
Even the fact that Israel was to keep the law was meant for a constructive purpose
for the rest of the nations, who were to observe their higher ethical standard and
to acknowledge their God (Deut 4:6-8; Deut 28:9-10).
This is a pattern of acknowledgement and edification that we see repeated.
God delivers Israel from Egypt so that His name may be manifested to the nations
(Exo 9:16; 2 Sam 7:23; Neh 9:10; Psa 106:8; Isa 63:14, 12; Jer 32:20; Dan 9:15).
He dries up the Jordan river so that they may pass as a testimony (Josh 4:24).
He restores Israel from their exile as a testimony (Ezek 36:22-23; Isa 52:10; Isa 40:3-5).
The argument could feasibly be made that the nations also know of God's sovereignty
through His laying waste to them in acts of judgment (Ezek 25:7, 11, 17; Ezek 30:19, 25-26).
This is a typical Old Testament pattern of symbolism. We will return to examine the
concepts of judgment and salvation shortly in greater detail.
Suffice to say that at least a few Old Testament passages develop this idea
in a different light (Isa 2:1-5; Jer 4:1-2).
We are repeatedly shown a vision in Scripture of the nations making a pilgrimage
to Mount Zion to give glory to the Lord (Isa 2:1-4; Isa 11:10-12; Isa 18:7; Isa 60:1-16;
Isa 61:5-6; Isa 66:12, 18, 23).
The Psalms also reveal this global enterprise of continuing salvation towards the nations
(Psa 117, Psa 86:9-10; Psa 67).
In the first of the 'Servant Songs' (Isa 42:1-7), important clarity is brought to the concept
of Israel's ministry to the rest of the nations. The Servant Songs continue to bring it into
resolution (Isa 42:1-7; Isa 49:1-9; Isa 50:4-11; Isa 52:13 through Isa 53:12).
Here the Servant brings justice to the nations and establishes justice on the earth.
In His law (torah) the islands will put their hope, and He will be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison
and release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
This is the ministry that Israel was meant to fulfill herself. But she fails in this calling.
She fails in keeping the law of Moses (Isa 42:24), and as a result incurs the covenant
curses of Deuteronomy (Isa 43:22-25) leading to ultimate exile.
Israel was meant to be a light for the nations, but becomes blind herself (Isa 42:15; 18-25).
She was meant to release the captives, but becomes captive herself in exile.
In spite of all of these things, Israel remains stubborn and hard-hearted (Isa 46:8-13).
God grows tired of Israel's rebellion (Isa 43:24).
Instead of fulfilling her mission to the nations, Israel is now in need of salvation herself.
Still, in spite of the seeming despair of the situation, Isaiah envisions hope
because Israel is still God's chosen people (Isa 41:8).
Yahweh is their God and will not abandon them (Isa 41:10).
Though they are blind, God will lead them (42:16) and keep them in all of their
trials and tribulations (43:1-2), because He loves them (43:3-4).
The exiles will be gathered (43:5-7) and their enemies destroyed (41:11-12).
Israel, though blind, is still God's witness (43:8-13), though not in her current state.
There will be a new exodus (43:14-21) with provision for the journey.
God promises to pour out His Spirit upon their descendants (44:1-5).
When Israel is finally restored, the nations will come in chains to them
confessing that Yahweh alone is God and that their idols are as nothing (45:14-17; 55:5).
The Gentiles will acknowledge Yahweh and be saved (45:20-25) and Israel's
ministry will be complete.
But how will all of these things transpire, given their current condition?
This is where the Servant enters the picture. He does for Israel what Israel was to
do for the nations.
He, Himself is a covenant for the people (42:6), He releases the prisoners (49:9),
He brings about a new exodus (49:9-12), and He restores Zion (49:13).
How does He achieve these things? Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12 explains this.
Old Testament prophets frequently portrayed Israel's exile in terms of a metaphorical
death and resurrection (Ezek 37; Hos 6:2; Isa 26:19).
This imagery is re-appropriated by the Servant figure in Isaiah 40 through 55.
What becomes of the nations?
Their destruction is a common theme throughout the Old Testament, sometimes
envisioned as partial and sometimes as complete such as in Isaiah 34:1-4.
Isaiah 45:20-25 clearly represents a post-judgment salvation for the nations.
He speaks to the nations, challenging them to repent of their idolatry; to turn to
Him and be saved. He then does something remarkable, in swearing by His own
name that every knee will bow and every tongue confess Him as Lord; a turn of
phrase ironically appropriated by New Testament authors later to refer to the
Lord Jesus (Phil 2:9-11).
Some have argued that this is merely forced subjection.
I fail to see this portrayed in the manuscript here. God has just issued a call to
repentance to the nations. The swearing of oaths in Yahweh's name is something
that His own people do, not His defeated enemies. Those who confess Him
as Lord go on to say 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength',
which sounds suspiciously like the cry of praise from God's own people.
Many scholars here deny that God takes an oath to save all who have survived
because the text goes on to say, 'All who have raged against Him will come to Him
and be put to shame. But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel will be found
righteous and will exult.'
Those put to shame are said to be those who fail to repent and accept the offer
of salvation extended to them. But this seems to be a clear misunderstanding of this
passage as the contrast here is between the shamed and Israel.
The shamed ones are the nations, and so by the common interpretation it would
appear that none of the nations are saved.
The same contrast is drawn in Isaiah 45:16-17, which contrasts those who
make idols and Israel. Again, those who are ashamed are all of the nations.
If this shaming excludes them from salvation, then presumably, none of the nations
turn to God and are saved, which flatly contradicts the teaching of Isaiah elsewhere
(Isa 60:1; Isa 66:18-23; Isa 2:1-4), and therefore the oath sworn by God becomes
something of a joke or a leering taunt. A viewpoint that I cannot hold in good conscience.
When we understand that the nations throughout Isaiah are idolators, we can see that
it is when they turn from their idols to God and worship Him, it is then that they are
ashamed of their history of idolatry. This reading is reinforced further by passages
such as Ezekiel 16:63.
This theme of destruction followed by healing continues in Isaiah 19; one of the strongest
such examples in the entire Scripture.
Here the Lord strikes and then promptly heals. What sort of healing is it that is given?
They convert to God and worship Him on equal footing with His chosen people!
In light of the fierce prophetic oracles of judgment on Egypt, this is fairly shocking
(Ezek 29-32; Nahum; Psa 139:21).
What is even more shocking, however, is that this same coherent message of
inclusivism is continued in what is commonly thought of as the most
violent book of eschatological fury in the canon: Revelation.
This is because Revelation is based largely on a mirrored prophetic vision operating
in concordance with and expanding upon the vision of Isaiah.
This very compelling view of eschatology is one which we will closely examine
in the coming chapter, and so I will not delve too deeply into it here.
I realize that this is a very brief and non-comprehensive case from the Old Testament,
yet I personally feel that it is a compelling one nonetheless.
And it is an overarching case made even stronger by the testimonies throughout
the Old Testament of individuals who were not of the nation of Israel who found
Yahweh and entered into relation with Him.
Rahab (Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25), Ruth, Job (Job 1:1) and Balam (Deut 23:4; Num 22:9)
to name but a few.
How did they come to know God?
The same way in which Abraham did, for as Paul so clearly elucidates for us at a later
date, Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6).
I would also be remiss to note that God was well pleased to use several of these
examples (namely Rahab and Ruth) to be members of the lineage of king David
and ultimately, of Jesus Christ Himself. This sort of irony is almost too much to ignore.
A Case For Inclusivism From the New Testament
If we can find convincing evidence for inclusivism in the Old Testament, where
nationalistic and ethnocentric views abound, then we should have little trouble in the New Testament,
where we see the spread of the Gospel to the gentiles.
"The Gentiles were unclean outsiders.-Donald Kraybill 'The Upside-Down Kingdom'
They were pagans who contaminated the purity of ceremonial ritual.
Jews avoided Gentiles, whom they called “wild dogs.”
They were careful not to let Gentiles tarnish them in everyday life.
Early Hebrew Scriptures envision Abraham’s blessing touching all nations.
In the first pages of the books of Moses, Gentiles receive the divine blessing.
By the time of Jesus, however, that vision had vanished.
To most Jews, Gentiles were pagan dogs who polluted racial purity...
...Luke reports that after Jesus’ inaugural speech, “All in the synagogue were filled with rage. They got up and drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff” (Luke 4:28-29).
Why did the crowd explode with anger? Reminding them prophets are not welcome in their own country , Jesus told two stories. There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, he said.
But in the time of famine, Elijah didn’t visit a pedigreed Jewish widow .
He was sent to a Gentile widow in the land of Sidon for help.
The second story has the same opening and punch line.
There were many lepers in Israel at the time of Elisha the prophet.
But it was Naaman, a Gentile Syrian, who was cleansed. The message sliced through Jewish pride. It stirred rage because belonging to Israel gave no one a special right to healing.
Having a pure pedigree offers no perks in God’s kingdom. Jubilee news is good news for all. In two swift strokes, Jesus cut through the crowd’s ethnicity. He shattered their tribal pride. He demolished national identity. The original Jubilee vision applied only to Hebrews. Gentile slaves and debts weren’t released in the seventh year .
Hebrews could charge Gentiles interest on loans.
Jews expected God’s vengeance to fall on Gentiles.
Now in a split second, Jesus puts the Gentile community on par with Israel.
Exclusive membership cards, it turns out, are unthinkable in the upside-down kingdom.
God’s favorable year, the day of salvation, applies to all.
Jesus shreds the patriotism of the synagogue audience. His words sting.
They smash ethnic pride. Outraged, the crowd tries to shove him over a cliff to his death."
The Jews had a similar attitude towards the gentiles of that time as many
modern Christians do towards outsiders and nonbelievers today.
I've heard the following statement many times, 'We are not all God's children,
that's a false gospel!'
While it may be true to a point that only faithful believers who have
accepted Christ are called 'Sons of God', to not understand the implications
of the fact that God created all, God loves all, God desires to save all,
and in God's eyes all are candidates for adoption regardless of the
horrible way(s) in which each has gone astray would be in essence
a denial of Christianity's core tenets.
If this sort of 'better than' attitude is proper and justified by
Scripture then apparently Paul seems to have gotten it wrong in the book of
Acts during his sermon to the Greeks (Acts 17:26-30).
Also in his epistles (Eph 3:14-15; Eph 4:6).
Obviously Jesus was mistaken also. In the parable of the prodigal
son, a parable in which He made very clear the nature of our heavenly Father,
He describes two sons, one of whom does everything imaginable to transgress
against his dad (Luk 15:11-32). The point is however, the father remained the father
no matter that rebellion and turmoil separated him from his son.
The status of alienation that human beings have in being separated from God
makes them no less His children than we are. In God's eyes we are all
children in the making, for He came for the purpose of saving all
(Rom 5:8; John 1:29; John 6:51; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Ti 2:4; Tit 2:11; 1 Jn 2:2; 2 Pet 3:9; Heb 8:8-12).
Seeing the apparent global scope of the Gospel, and the example of
the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as listed both here and in our previous
chapter dealing specifically with that topic, which is more consonant
with the Gospel and with the commandments of our Lord: inclusivism or
exclusivism?
Addressing Possible Objections
In the interests of thoroughness, let us examine a few objections that came
to mind in the course of the months which I spent pondering these issues.
Jesus demonstrated an abrasive attitude towards the gentiles. This speaks of nationalism within Him.
This argument is generally founded on a couple critical passages, namely Mark 7:25-29,
Matthew 10:5-6 and Matthew 15:22-28.
This seems an untenable position for anyone to hold upon examining
the entire teachings and life of Jesus.
First, as we looked at in the section on Old Testament prophecy, it should be
readily apparent that Jesus is the 'Servant' discussed by Isaiah who would
be to Israel what Israel was to be to the nations.
This much is verified in Scripture (Matt 12:18-21; Luk 2:32).
Second, Jesus' came with a specific mission and purpose, the broader scope
of which was obviously to reach the world at large (Acts 1:8). But this broader scope
itself relied upon the transmission of His message to the Jews (Matt 15:24).
Third and most important, the recorded incident with the Syrophoenician woman is
one of the only events in Scripture where Jesus actually seems to have changed His mind.
This is assuming that He had not already planned to grant her request.
In spite of the statements which Christ made concerning His mission in preaching
only to the lost sheep of Israel, He ministered to a number of both gentiles and samaritans
during His time on earth. He actively enters and travels about ministering in
the predominantly gentile regions of Tyre (Mar 7:24), Sidon (Matt 15:21), the Decapolis (Mar 7:31), and the land of the Gerasenes (Mar 5:1).
In the process of doing so, He engages with the Syrophoenician woman, a Roman
centurion, and the demoniac, two of which demonstrated exemplary faith.
Once again I will call attention to the specific use of the word 'neighbor' in
the teachings of Jesus. The word in the Greek text is plēsion (πλησίον),
and its meaning to Jewish people was understood to identify any member of the
Hebrew nation and commonwealth. So please understand the shocking implications
of the teaching in Matthew 5:43-48 and Luke 10:29-37.
Jesus spoke of a sword of division which would destroy familial ties.
Ah yes, Matthew 10:34-38. A famous text used frequently by proponents of
Just War theory to justify Christians taking up the sword against their adversaries.
In this case it's being used to justify attitudes of hostility and estrangement towards
outsiders (either of denomination, religion, nationality, ethnicity, etc).
But placed against the backdrop of the other teachings of Christ, it makes very
little sense to insist that Jesus expected His disciples and followers to procure
an actual sword and proceed to deliberately hack their family members to pieces
in a fit of zealous ardor.
This passage coincides with Jesus' warning to his disciples to 'count the costs' (Luk 14:27-32)
and to 'not look back' (Luk 9:62) once they had begun walking the kingdom road.
His statements here is a warning of the divisive nature of His message.
Those that make the choice to follow Him will inevitably acquire qualities
that cause some to shrink away from them.
"Frederick Dale Bruner renders the intent of Jesus’ words in more pastoral terms:
Jesus knows, he says, that his mission is a rugged minority movement, a tough, divisive affair, and he prefers to make this clear rather than to give false hopes . . . The effect of this minority movement as it moves aggressively into the massive majority culture is bound to be friction. Jesus does not want his disciples to expect great triumphs and then, when persecution, hostility, and rejection are their experience, to feel betrayed. “This is the way it goes,” Jesus assures them; in fact, “this is the way I plan it to go.” . . . Matthew’s Jesus knows “that the most troublesome side of his faith is the painful difficulties it brings—the persecution by authorities, the ridicule by friends, [and now] the disapproval by families.”
(2012-05-17). A Faith Not Worth Fighting For (p. 165).
For the purposes of the answering the objection here, it is my current understanding
that the warning issued by Jesus here, is not an injunction to ostracize our loved ones,
friends, acquaintances, or strangers. It is not a command to see the pain of separation.
Our comprehensive command from Jesus to love unconditionally, as God does, is
clear. Rather it is a warning that we can expect the pain and suffering that follows
the rejection of us by others who cannot abide proximity to the revolutionary call
of the kingdom of God. Our devotion to God must be absolute within our heart.
Paul quotes Isaiah 52:11 in telling believers to be separate, and John seems
to concur with his exhortation to not love the world or the things in it.
How could this possibly mesh with a doctrine of inclusivism?
This argument derives its force from 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
What recourse do we have at this juncture except to appeal common sense
after a holistic examination of Scripture?
We should first note that Paul clearly states in another passage that
he doesn't expect us to not associate with immoral people of the world.
He was clearly referring to those who identify themselves as fellow disciples
of Christ but who practice explicit idolatry (1 Cor 5:9-13). Why?
Clearly because it destroys our witness by association!
We discussed a little about internal and external cleanliness as defined
by the teachings of Christ in Chapter II, but it bears revisiting in light of this
objection. Should we take Paul's exhortation to be separate from unbelievers
as a promotion of what the Pharisees engaged in
Jesus said that they were clean on the outside but unclean on the inside where it counted
most (Matt 23:25-28; Mar 7:18-24; Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6).
Which bears more weight and seems more correct in light of the whole of Scriptural teaching?
To shun and ostracize relationships with any one we judge as being worldly or a reprobate
and in so doing to maintain the external appearance of righteousness?
Or to demonstrate the selfless love of the Lord to all we meet whether believe or unbeliever
and in so doing exemplify an internal accordance with the law to which Jesus ascribed
highest importance (Mar 12:29-31)?
There are undeniably circumstances when, due to our own weaknesses we will
have no other choice but to flee from the presence of evil (Gen 39:11-12).
But it should be noted that this is due to our own frailty in being drawn aside
of our own lusts and tempted to sin (Jas 1:14-15) and that these instances
are generally few and far between.
It should go without saying that if a man knows strong drink to be a particular
weakness of his, that to habitually hang out in bars after work in an environment
filled with ponderous amounts of the substance he is addicted to, his chances
of overcoming temptation become vanishingly small.
Should a Christian consciously make the decision to marry an unbeliever?
Who can make this decision except for the couple in question?
Paul makes it very clear that doing so will inevitably lead to division and strife
in the marriage. However in a different section of Corinthians, he states that
a believer already married to a nonbeliever should stay the course in their marriage.
But here we digress into a sundry of other technicalities and legalities which
will do nothing but drag the discussion off course into an endless trail of red herrings.
When we are called to be separate, we are called to do what is reiterated in other
sections of Scripture and that is to sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts (1 Pet 3:15).
Our uniqueness and flavor as witnesses to the world and salt of the earth begins with our
internal devotion to the Lord Jesus (Matt 5:13-16).
To sanctify something means to set it apart or consecrate it for God's purpose.
When we sanctify Christ as Lord, we set Him apart in a place of priority and
exclusivity in our hearts. We make Him Lord of our lives.
In so doing, we are to no longer engage in the same behavior patterns followed
by those around us, because we are continually being renewed in our minds
according to the pattern of the image of Christ (1 Pet 4:1-3; Rom 12:2).
In doing this we may experience some rejection and separation from others
as covered above in the discussion over the sword of division (1 Pet 4:4).
Ultimately we are commanded to not be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil
with good (Rom 12:21).
Closing Remarks and Summary
In closing, I would like to make a few statements not about inclusivism,
but about its diametric opposite.
I can think of no bigger danger than that exclusivism ultimately
promotes and cultivates the aforementioned Us vs Them mindset.
When we nurture this sort of mentality within ourselves and raise our
children in the same pattern, we unintentionally establish footholds
in our lives for fear, judgmentalism, arrogance, and prejudice to take root.
Many nonbelievers I have spoken to believe that Christianity based on fear.
If we use the barometer of our own behavior and the witness of our daily
actions, how far off are they?
I have not been alive long enough to see much of this world, but what I have
seen has taught me this fact.
We see in others that which we fear most in ourselves, and in so doing, generate
a self-fulfilling prophecy. People tend to behave as they are treated.
Case in point? Examine the examples of gang formation and violence from the
revealing documentary 'Made in America'.
The circle must at some point be broken by someone loving enough and
sacrificing enough to do so. Enter Christ, and by proxy those who are called
to be His arms to the world:you and me.
"Loneliness and the feeling of being unwanted is the most terrible poverty.Our world is absolutely full of aching, hurting, broken, and emotionally
One need not be a doctor or a miracle worker to meet that need."
-Philip Yancey 'The Jesus I Never Knew'
destitute people who are perfectly described with the above quotation.
Often we are unable to see past the veneer of hostility, animosity, selfishness,
and external behavior of others to the hopelessly lost and grasping person within
who is desperate for affection, for understanding, for friendship, for someone
to talk to, and ultimately for meaning and substantiation in their life which only
comes from restoration to God.
Fortunately for us, God is able to do what we all too often cannot, as the lyrics
of this song by Dottie Rambo so well convey:
"Amazing grace shall always be my song of praise,We are called to emulate our Lord in doing so, but we often fall short.
for it was grace that brought my liberty;
I do not know just why He came to love me so,
He looked beyond my fault and saw my need."
In thinking about this I remember the account of Corrie Ten Boom who along
with her sister Betsie, suffered many hardships at the hands of German captors
during WWII.
"We followed the officer down a wide street lined with barracks on either side and haltedThe witness of the early church, in spite of numerous vivid examples of
at one of the gray, featureless sheds. It was the end of the long day of standing, waiting, hoping: we had simply arrived in the main camp at Vught.
The barracks appeared almost identical with the one we had left this morning, except that this one was furnished with bunks as well as tables and benches.
And still we were not allowed to sit: there was a last wait while the matron with maddening deliberateness checked off our documents against a list.
“Betsie!” I wailed, “how long will it take?”
“Perhaps a long, long time. Perhaps many years. But what better way could there be to spend our lives?”
I turned to stare at her. “Whatever are you talking about?”
“These young women. That girl back at the bunkers. Corrie, if people can be taught to hate, they can be taught to love! We must find the way, you and I, no matter how long it takes. . . .” She went on, almost forgetting in her excitement to keep her voice to a whisper, while I slowly took in the fact that she was talking about our guards.
I glanced at the matron seated at the desk ahead of us. I saw a gray uniform and a visored hat; Betsie saw a wounded human being. And I wondered, not for the first time, what sort of a person she was, this sister of mine . . . what kind of road she followed while I trudged beside her on the all-too-solid earth."
- Boom, Corrie Ten; Elizabeth Sherrill; John Sherrill (2006-01-01). The Hiding Place (p. 188).
useless squabbling over doctrinal divisions within, was predominantly one of
self-sacrificial love demonstrated not only towards one another, but more importantly
to the world they were called to witness to.
As emphasized in Chapter VI, they took this witness quite seriously, since it was
often times sealed with the blood of the martyrs.
Just as in the case of the church in China and other modern areas where persecution
(however sparse) still exists, it becomes increasingly difficult to engage in a
shallow devotion of convenience when to do so requires putting one's life on the line.
When attacked and persecuted, they turned the other cheek.
They frequently took human castaways into their homes.
When others were abandoned during plagues, early Christians often ministered
to them in their sickness even at risk of losing their own lives.
Such selfless behavior prompted Emperor Julian to say:
"The impious Galileans relieve both their own poor and ours...It is my argument here and always that we put our discipleship to Christ
It is shameful that ours should be so destitute of our assistance."
-Epistles of Julian 49
into practice not by engaging in politicking, policing, excluding, judging,
pointing out flaws in others, and nitpicking over doctrinal indiscretions;
but only inasmuch as we are capable of mimicking the selfless love and sacrifice
of our Lord and Savior to the world.
This love is best embodied in feeding the hungry, providing for the poor,
caring for the sick, and extending benevolence towards our fellow man.
Against such sacrifice and willingness to suffer, the power of the sword and of
hatred and animosity wilts away into nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment