In a discussion on evangelism I made a comment about the exclusivity of the gospel, and how I saw that as a barrier to effective evangelism. I thought I should unpack that a bit.
First of all I have a dilemma because while the claims of Christ are unique (making Christians - or those who respond to these claims - unique as well), but there is something inclusive about the work of God's love.
Where exclusivity plays a negative role is in an attitude of exclusivity in our ecclesial structures. Hard boundaries that define in absolute terms who is in and who is out. The problem is that the churches then decide that a single method is the way in (formulaic "gospel" presentation in the West) which creates yet another barrier of exclusivity. So in the end we have largely self-isolated communities of a disconnected subculture trying to assert itself in the flood of a macroculture that it has handed over to the "world".
Is inclusively the only alternative? I hope not. The idea of inclusivity also has real problems, not the least of which is that if everybody is "right" then what do we do with the claims of Christ? So there has to be another option, one that respects the unique claims of Christ, as Saviour of the world, and the inclusive love of God for the world in which Jesus Himself sent us into.
Isn't that really where this wrestling falls? Jesus, as the manifestation of God's perfect love, gives us the same mission as the Son - Go into the whole world. John's gospel is great for this - I have not taken them out of the world Jesus explains to us in His final prayers. It is for the world's sake that Christ came. And it is for the world's sake that the Church was born.
The Western idea of evangelism goes like this: you repent and get saved, then you come to Church rejecting the world, the Church takes over your life. The Celts did it a bit different: you welcome and invite folks into your community, you minister with and to them, you disciple them and then you baptize them into the body. The Celts also became part of the community in which they were called - literally adopting its rhythms. Thus the converts are not taken out of the world, but left in the world where they can actually do the work of the gospel. The Celts were remarkable at converting whole communities in this way. When is the last time you've seen a whole community come to Christ? And I don't think getting the people in your church re-saved every week counts.
So maybe I'll call my paradigm - Godclusive ;-)
2 comments:
The Celts were on my mind over dinner last night as a group of us met at a local ranch that may become the birth place of a new kind of church.. a learning community, a listening community, a worshipping, working and serving community... the idea you are phrasing sounds similar to me to the centered set idea, but like Guder et al (Missional Church) I think within the center there is room for covenant... :)
Hi Sam. I do agree that there is something special about the family united under the nex covenant in Christ's blood. But where I get skittish is the exclusivity of the community of God as a focused feature.
I think maybe part of my musings follows my denominations stance on ecstatic manifestations. We accept that they happen, and even enjoy them when they come. But we don't focus on them or really go looking for them. And above all we don't try to make them the normative. This is the bane of most charismatic movements - once the manifestations (even so benign as falling) become normative you end up with a tiered community. What I long for is something like Len talks about - a goal of Christ at the centre of a community where folks are free to persue as deeply as they desire. What I am not sure about is how the covenant at the centre looks. Elsewhere he has used a marriage analogy which I've seen abused by churches (even recently). I have often thought on the relevance of initiation rites in terms of a centre set community.
Post a Comment