Do you think it possible for Christian exclusivists to maintain their exclusivity (the part that cannot be seperated from their beliefs, not the unneccessary petty aspect of being exclusive)?

My main concern with the Christian sect that I have been a part of most of my life is the fact that it is almost entirely founded in their exclusive nature, and darn proud of it. It simply does not make sense anymore for a church to be so isolationist. Perhaps I have only seen the darker side of Christian exclusives, but I’m not sure how it would work.

So how can Christian exclusives evolve to fit in our present day social climate, while still clinging to what their religious dogmas claim?

Your sect didn’t start off that way :) It just went wrong, as most movements do. Ha.

Tell me more about this question: Do you think it possible for Christian exclusivists to maintain their exclusivity (the part that cannot be seperated from their beliefs, not the unneccessary petty aspect of being exclusive)?

Did you enjoy the dialog with AJ Levine?

If it went wrong, shouldn’t we start over? Or at least find a different way to execute the movement? :-)

About my question…In the CoC, most believe that baptism is a required action for salvation, along with other motivations and good deeds, but baptism seems to be the kicker. How can a conservative church hold on to this belief that is vital but not demand it of other non-members, which is the source of our negative exclusion persona. Is there a way to passionately live out your faith while not being condescending to others who choose to live it out differently?

I really enjoyed it! I’m sort of fascinated with Judaism, the way the Jewish people act our their religious beliefs and how/why they are so successful with their social action efforts.
I also like to take part in any conversation that aims to bridge the gap between Christians and Jews, because it’s one of the biggest rifts in our world and religious history (closely followed by Western Christians and Muslims).

…I was going to use another Christian sect besides the CoC as to not strike too close to home, but I decided using any other one would be a lot of assumptions.

I think that’s the crux….that is, baptism is a part of a response for those who are in the community. It seems like we are in a time when people need to belong, believe, and then behave instead of asking them to believe, behave, and belong. It’s a subversion of assumption.

I also think building Jewish/Christian relationships is impt–to me it’s more interesting than denominational ecumenical work.

It seems that exclusive Christians have three options to continue to grow with the world: change their practice, approach, or both.

Do you think the CoC will/can/should change their practices? Don’t feel compelled to answer that here.

When it comes to approach, I feel like postmodern Christians face a backlash. To rid ourselves of exclusion, yet still hold to what we belief, we have to become a little more graceful, patient, and understanding with others; yet I know many who call that cowardly and not standing up for your faith and ‘the truth’. Are our options, when it comes to approach, seem to be:
1.Take a stand, repel others, and proclaim ‘truth’.
2.Hold to our beliefs, have dialog, and proclaim self in the image of Christ.
I do see benefits of both options, but it might be up to the individual/community to decide which is better and more Christ like.

Like the first century church, we live in a pluralistic society. My question: How did first century disciples of Jesus approach this pluralism?

OR, how did Jesus approach pluralism? Let’s go back to the original source. I think Luke’s gospel is the genius answer to the question.

Ah, fair enough! So, how does Luke portray Jesus’ approach to pluralism? Also, I’m interested in the discussion here of “exclusivism.” I’m interested partially because I don’t understand how the folks here are using the term. For instance, do you mean “exclusivism” as in excluding other denominations from what you consider to be the true church? Or do you mean “exclusivism” in some other way? Sometimes it’s good to define our terms.

Luke, more than the other three gospel writers, brilliant navigates the tension between Hellenistic pluralism and the pluralism of 1 century Judaism. In fact, to call Judaism, “Judaism” is problematic. That is, first century Jewish thought is do diverse (think: zealots and essenes) it’s not helpful to categorize it as “Judaism”, as if it is a set religion.

Enter: Jesus. He bridges all of these worlds into a coherent picture of what it looks like when humanity and divinity kiss, forever altering our understanding of the relationship of time (past, present, and future) and space (the realm of earth and heaven).

Becca–ah, the question is: how to be inclusively exclusive. That is, everyone’s welcome . . . to die. That’s one way of summarizing the Jesus Story. All are invited to live in a community whose sole purpose is to live the life of Jesus in our time. What do you think?

I’m still wrestling with the idea that religious diversity is better for the U.S. than the Jesus way of living is. Shouldn’t I want everyone to follow Jesus?

I wonder if there is space for us to let go of having to know what God will do with such-and-such’s soul. Right now I lean in certain inclusive directions when it comes to the eventual outcome of all things (I just have always had “I am making all things new” ringing in my ears since I first heard it). I also know for me my attempts to define what is and is not salvation for others is actually based on my own fear, fear of what will happen, fear of what God will do with me, because I can only trust him about as much as I can put him in a box.

I believe we can live in the truth that the gospel presents a better alternative culture in the here and now and that we can invite the nations into that culture, into that truth, to live a better community than what we build on our own. (Which is essentially an exclusivist perspective.) But that this inviting is not what will decide the ultimate culmination of all things or such-and-such’s soul, but instead is what can change lives here and now.

We can also, perhaps, stop being scared of seeing the beauty and working of God in other religious traditions as he works within cultures to bring people to truth. I feel like it is silly to say that God doesn’t start working a culture until the Bible missionaries get there — there’s a long history where he has been forming and shaping human history.

If this type of inclusivism is embraced, where we are inviting people into the beginnings of what they will eventually have, the message becomes “The culmination of all things is coming, but why not get a glimpse and taste its firstfruits now by being a part of this beautiful community?” I think this is still a beautiful message.

Perhaps, Nick, but would you rather force them to live like Jesus or have their hearts changed to follow Him?

What in our entire (short though it may be) online friendship would lead you to think I would want anyone forced to live like anyone, much less Jesus?

If those are the only two options, then sure, I’d be all for religious diversity! But I think it’s a false dilemma.

I was kind of putting up a false dichotomy as well. I certainly don’t think you think that way, although I do think that could be one interpretation of your comment. The “You” was a universal “You.”

I’d be curious about what you think the other options besides forced following or religious diversity are.

Nic–per your first question…did I say that, because if I did, I was possessed :)

Randy Harris likes to say, “I don’t want to hold laws over people that are true only if Christians are in govt.”

Obviously God loves diversity…just look around at the myriad colors, smells, tastes, people groups, and so on, and you can clearly see this. However, the Bible never indicates that God loves religious diversity. In fact, he describes himself as a “jealous” God in this respect. This means we should not rejoice at seeing others worship Allah, Shiva, the earth, themselves, etc. Instead, we should look at these people as what we are without repentance and faith in Jesus–lost and under God’s wrath. Jesus said, “Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest.” There are people all around us now who don’t know Jesus, and that is an opportunity.

Josh-It sounds nice (especially with that catchy description-inclusively exclusive), but is it realistic? That’s not rhetorical either. It seems that almost every church that I’ve been associated with has proclaimed this: “The gospel is for everyone, it’s all here waiting for you, come and see that the Lord is good.” However, I have never seen it sincerely approached as applicable to everyone; without bias, prejudice, and assumptions made about others history or religion. Perhaps it could happen (perhaps it must), it just seems too dichotomic to set up barriers around this proclaimed inclusion.

Also, I don’t think that religious diversity and Jesus’ way of living are polar opposites; in fact I think they can easily walk side by side (at least in the beginning)-which is kind of brillant. Speaking as someone who doesn’t clearly know where to define herself religiously, there’s not a day where I don’t think that the way Jesus lived his life isn’t worthy of following.

rjohns–one of the key texts getting a lot of press these days in Paul in Athens (Mars Hill)using the language, “I know to whom the unknown god refers”–of course, the story ends with Paul’s “foolish talk” of crucifixion/easter Sunday.

I think that’s a good example of the tension of inclusion/exclusion.

The rub for me: why do we insist on holding non-followers to Christian standards and followers to little standard?

Becca, How about Dorothy Day, MLK, or Tutu–I think those are GREAT examples of this kind of Christianity actually being lived out. Or Bonhoeffer. Or…I’ll stop. :)

Great discussion. I’m grateful for your insight and perspective. I love your last line, great stuff.

Josh,

Paul talks about the issue of standards for believers and non-believers:

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’” (1 Cor. 5:9-13)

The principle seems to be: Expect those inside the church to act like saved people; if they don’t act that way, hold them accountable; we personally can’t expect to hold those outside the church accountable, but God himself will.

In light of that, how would you spell out our responsibility to those both inside and outside the church? And if God tells us he is going to hold our unbelieving neighbor accountable, is it more loving to (a) warn them or (b) act as if nothing is amiss? Within the church, is it more loving to rebuke sin or overlook it?

Regarding your question (”The rub for me”), what situation specifically are you referring to?

I got an e-mail from a friend asking me about diversity and the selection of the word “strange”…here’s what I wrote.

1.I am saying the religious diversity is unavoidable. It was true in the time of Jesus (Pharisees, Sadducees, zealots ,essenes, Samaritans not to mention the diversity within Hellenistic Greco-Roman religious views) and it is true now. Conservative Christianity has done a poor job, in my estimation of focusing on what it means to be Christians within a pluralistic context like the U.S.—now the most religiously diverse nation in the world. I think it’s important because a) these non-Christians bear the divine spark/image and b) thousands of seekers or post-Christians are considering faith but want to know if “our faith” is good news for those who do not subscribe to our faith. Notice how Jesus engaged persons of diverse faiths in the gospel. That rarely gets attention in conservative circles beyond paternalistic notions of charity or shallow tolerance. Liberal Christianity (mainline) isn’t much better, btw.

2.I think you are using the word “strange” differently than the study indicated. In the study, the word strange denoted, stupidity, foreign, foolish in a derogatory sense not a “wow, they are unusually holy, attractive.” Does that make sense? I think I know what you are getting at but sometimes we can use the same words and have a different meaning.

There is a film coming out this summer – “The Nature of Existence.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8rKnDId4M0