I recently saw a Christian Facebook page I usually agree with share a post about how Jesus came to start a movement of inclusiveness. The exact words in the article were: Jesus, a teacher and carpenter's son, could have called up an army or built an empire. But instead, he sought to show how faith can spark a movement of love and inclusivity. Technically, there could be truth to this statement. Jesus was a teacher and carpenter's son, but it concerns me that this is all the article called Him, rather than acknowledging Him as the Son of God, God the Son, our Savior and Redeemer. Secondly, it is true that Jesus could have built an earthly empire (and some even wanted to make Him their earthly king--John 6:14-15), and yet He chose not to do so. It's also true that Jesus did include others. But that isn't why Jesus came. That isn't why Jesus refused to overthrow the Romans and start His own earthly kingdom. His reason was to die for our sins, making it possible to save us! And yes, that is a form of inclusivity, to make salvation available to all. But that wasn't even what the writer of the article was getting at. He was talking about just including people, no relation to salvation.
There are a lot of facets to the idea of inclusivity. It's not fun to be left out. I remember in 5th grade, a mean girl in our social circle braggingly told me her parents were taking her to Disneyland for her birthday, and she could invite anyone she wanted, but she decided to invite everyone in our class except me. I felt terrible, especially the day after the party when everyone showed up with their Disneyland souvenirs. But Jesus didn't come to earth so that mean girls would be forced to invite me to their birthday parties. His Spirit should lead us toward kindness and reaching out, but that wasn't why Jesus came. A lot of time, inclusivity these days is a code word for having to agree with everyone and everything, and accepting all behavior and lifestyles as being normal and good. Jesus did not come to teach that at all. To say He did is false teaching. Even a more mild form of inclusivity, such as being kind and loving to all (which we should be doing as Christians) is not the reason Christ came, and to say it is, or to isolate that without looking at the real reason, is a false gospel!
 |
| This was the picture with the article |
Galatians 1:8 says But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. We use this verse a lot with Mormons, because their books teach another gospel from what is presented in the Bible. But the Mormons are not the only ones with another gospel. The writer of the article I mentioned seems to be promoting a false gospel by saying Jesus came to show how faith can spark a movement of love and inclusivity (while emphasizing Him being a teacher and carpenter's son without mentioning His divinity). Likewise, it is wrong for people to say Jesus came to set an example, and isolate that. Or for people to say, Jesus came to speak truth to power. These things happened, as stated in scripture, but they are only part of the bigger story, the story which culminated in Christ's death and resurrection, and result in our eternal salvation! Some people not only make these other things the focus, taking attention away from the cross, but also twist them.
Liberation theology is something I've run into in recent years, and it really focuses on Jesus speaking truth to power. Sometimes, emphases are made on this, to the point that the cross isn't even mentioned, and they even imply Jesus has a problem with any person who holds to the foundational beliefs in a changing culture, comparing such people to the pharisees. It should be understood that the pharisees were not following God's laws. They were just fakes, and were adding to what God had actually said in many cases. If they really loved God, and were obeying what had been written in the Old Testament, Jesus would have commended them, and told them, in essence, "You're almost there! That's why I came!" Nicodemus was a pharisee, and he sought Jesus out to question Him, and Jesus didn't rebuke or blast him. He told him the Gospel message.
Jesus didn't come against the pharisees, or anyone else, for being conservative, or holding to sound doctrine. Jesus came against them for failing to believe in Him, and misleading others in the process. Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not do away with them (Matthew 5:17). If the believers in scripture in Jesus' day had been in error in their understanding of the Old Testament, Jesus would have told them this. He clarified it (especially in the Sermon on the Mount where He pointed out several examples of how sin starts in the heart, IE: looking with lust being equated with adultery, and anger toward someone being equated with murder), but in all of this, Jesus didn't deny anything that was stated in the Old Testament. For this reason, we can completely rely on the Old and New Testaments. If something believed by the people had been false, Jesus would have corrected it when he was on earth. For example, if the creation account in Genesis wasn't actually true, He would have said, "Hey, you know, the creation story Moses wrote down? Well, it's a metaphor. God didn't really create the earth in six days." or "You know, when Moses wrote in Leviticus 20:13 how it is an abomination for a man to be in a sexual relationship with another man? Well, that's not what it really means." But Jesus never corrected any of this, because it was all God's true word in the first place. Jesus didn't come to simply challenge the status quo, and neither should we, unless the status quo is wrong. A pastor I greatly respect used to say, "The goal isn't to be radical. The goal is to be right." This means to conform our beliefs to the truth.
The apostles were very clear about what the gospel was. They were willing to die, not for speaking out to power, or being inclusive, or setting an example, or any other aspect of Jesus' actions, but for the real gospel. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 centered on Jesus' death and resurrection. Stephen's defense to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7 was about the Old Testament pointing to Israel's (and everyone's) sinfulness and need of a Savior, and touched on Jesus' death. Paul said in First Corinthians 1:23, But we preach Christ crucified...
To return to the article about being inclusive, I believe including others is godly and right--something Jesus did and would urge us to do. Including doesn't mean we have to agree or affirm what they are doing. It means we treat them kindly and thoughtfully, and make room for them in our churches. We treat them like real people, not just case studies (some churches want to reach a certain demographic, and they treat these people like a commodity instead of a person). I have been in churches where I didn't fit with their target audience, and was made to feel less important, and unwanted. Another time, my husband and I attended a church where we did fit that exact demographic they were going for, and it felt fake, as if by having us there, they met some sort of quota instead of becoming our friends or ministering to us. Being on either side of that kind of inclusivity really hurts. Make sure you really know what including people should look like. And even genuine, loving, Christlike versions of including others isn't the gospel. There are many false gospels out there, some even stated by well-meaning Christians. Anything other than Christ crucified and resurrected is not the gospel, and if anyone says it is, run away fast! It's another gospel!
