For some time now I have been wrestling with the challenge of including exclusivists into the life of our church. I want our church to be a community that is a 'big tent,' a place where people can come and wrestle with God in the context of authentic and loving relationships. I want our gathering to be a safe place to ask questions, doubt, think, and pray; all the while pressing deeper into relationship with God. But saying that, I am aware that I am also demarcating boundaries that will at some point create a place where a person walks out from under the shade of the tent. By saying that the context should be "authentic and loving" I am drawing a boundary around artifical and caustic - callusoused and hurtful - spiritually arrogant and self-aggrandizing. And by describing the kind of community that I desire to shape as "a safe place to ask questions, doubt, think, and pray," I am drawing a boundary around the kinds of relating that are preachy, condescending, and unable to live lovingly together with others who disagree.
Exclusivists, whatever their position might be, find this kind of community repulsive. They want eveyrone to agree with their position/ doctrine/ interpretation; and their way of relating with others is typically focused on convincing and pursuading rather than encouraging, supporting, and walking in love. And when exclusivists find themselves walking out from under the shade of the big tent they tend to charge the tentminders as being divisive and narrowminded. Hence, trying to make the one time 'big tent' promoter into the one excluding the exclusivist.
The rub for me is how to be able to continue to offer inclusion in the 'big tent' to the exclusivist, and yet not allow the exclusivist to downsize the tent to allow only those who agree with them. Any thoughts?
3 comments:
Tough subject, Jeff. I was recently reading Dan Kimball's "They Like Jesus but not the Church" and just got done with his chapter on fundamentalism. He reminded me of history I'd long since forgotten. Fundamentalism originally was about basic Christian beliefs (Bible is inspired and authoratative, God is triune, Jesus saves, Jesus died and rose again, etc.) - creating the boundaries of the tent.
Indeed, there DO need to be boundaries to the big tent, lest we cease to be anything "Christian" at all (unless "Christian" be redefined as "all world religions")
You ask a tough question. Even the Bahai and Unitarian Universalists don't have an answer to this one. There MUST be boundaries to EVERY community, no matter how inclusive and relativistic it might be. "Intolerant of intolerant" is the motto basically. Tolerate everyone who tolerates everyone else. Gets bizarre.
But if we assume a Christian basis, yeah, what ARE those boundary markers of the tent where a Christian brother or sister is being too exclusivist and thereby threatens the tent by demanding their narrow view be THE view of the community. This is how cults emerge. That was harsh. This is how denominations form. There, that was nicer.
I wish I had an answer, but alas for now I will just wonder with you.
Question I'll ask to prompt further discussion: how did Jesus create boundaries in His community?
REV
It seemed to me that Jesus excluded the exclusivists. He said woe to you...
They keep people out and are not going in themselves is my paraphrase off the top of my head.
Here it is
"For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in. "
From Matt 23.
Thanks Troy...but who reaches the exclusivists if we exclude them? Are they past reaching? I wrestle with this one because I don't want to just write someone off, and yet people with an exclusivist perspective on whatever issue seem to be unwilling to be included.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment