Was Jesus really radically inclusive?

[paradox3]

Was He, do you think?

This is a very popular notion these days, used to support all sorts of theological positions.

But how radically inclusive was He?

Certainly He ate with tax collectors and sinners. He touched lepers and welcomed women and children. He extended compassion to the woman at the well and told us the parable of the Good Samaritan.

My recent reading of the synoptic gospels is giving me a very prevalent view of Jesus as apocalyptic preacher. His views on salvation and end times are not striking me as especially inclusive. What do you think?

 

[Redbaron]

I think in his day, he was. Maybe from our time's standpoint, not so much; but for the 1st century CE, yes.
A sort of modern example-- in 1949, in the infancy of the television industry, Jay Silverheels became the first native to actually play a native in a TV role. Looking at the Lone Ranger show now, we can pick out a lot of stereotypes, prejudices, etc etc; but for its day that was an earth shaking event.
I think we have to discern such things from the times he lived it, rather than pass quick judgement from the perspective of the times we live in.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think his core teachings support progressive inclusion throughout time and place. I think some of the people who wrote the stories weren't as radically inclusive as he was portrayed to be in other stories. Given the discrepancy, I'm going to say he was radically inclusive, but that he didn't so much support the excluders. He gave people things to consider, to change their minds and "repent", though. The non inclusive aspect is not where I place my hope and faith.

The Bible sometimes seems to be one of those "choose your own ending" books, as a collection (and as collectives of humans), depending on where we are in history and geography and mindset. The thing is, the fruits of the Spirit don't contain bigotry and/ or the seeds of bigotry don't produce good fruit (outcomes)...so the growth of the fruit of the Spirit has to be on a progressively inclusive trajectory.

 

[Luce NDs]

We could easy exclude if we had a raging desire to do that! It is all that is required at times ... nothing nu!

 

[paradox3]

I think in his day, he was. Maybe from our time's standpoint, not so much; but for the 1st century CE, yes.

I think some of the people who wrote the stories weren't as radically inclusive as he was portrayed to be in other stories. Given the discrepancy, I'm going to say he was radically inclusive, but that he didn't so much support the excluders.

Where do you see Jesus being less than radically inclusive?

When I wrote the OP, I was thinking of some of the rather exclusive claims he makes for himself. The most striking examples of this are probably in John's gospel but we have also seen it in Luke recently.

In Luke's gospel, we have Jesus saying to the disciples, "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (10:16)

A little later, we have the present evil generation looking for a sign, not realizing they are in the midst of something greater than Solomon and Jonah. For this, they will be condemned. (10: 29-32)

Jesus also makes many disparaging remarks about Pharisees, scribes and lawyers. Interestingly, there are a few stories where individuals in these groups are presented in a positive light.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It’s more about so many who gather in his name who are not radically inclusive.

 

[paradox3]

It’s more about so many who gather in his name who are not radically inclusive.

Are you talking about present day or are you referring to biblical times?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Present day...but, likely, also in biblical times. Christians splintered into sects early on. And they were probably exclusive too.

 

[paradox3]

Present day...but, likely, also in biblical times. Christians splintered into sects early on. And they were probably exclusive too.

Okay, point taken. But I started this thread to discuss Jesus Himself and the question of how radically inclusive He was. Any thoughts about this?

 

[Waterfall]

Jesus seems to be radically inclusive about an exclusive gospel...in other words all are welcomed to the table once you believe in His message about who God is and what it means to follow His message.

 

[Luce NDs]

Is God inclusively everything except what's hated to be received as intellectual aesthetic? Thus that was darkened ... and Thomas probed what was deficient ... a mental process in the deeper well?

May cause some floaters ... wind drifts!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Jesus himself is a living allegory. He was inclusive of people from other religions, and measured their faithfulness by how they behaved. Maybe his message to his followers, was to people who needed to hear it not those who already essentially understood it on their hearts - who would love their neighbour even if they never heard it from Jesus ( that’s ‘essentially’ Christ) without being intensely taught lessons.

I think he was inclusive. And he wasn’t a megalomaniac who demanded exclusivity to himself over caring for others.

(Thinking now of outpouring of grief and support for mosque victims in New Zealand, the Maori people showing solidarity with the Muslims, and everyone coming together irrespective of religion. That’s the essence of Christianity in my opinion...that’s where God is present. Religion or not.)

 

[Waterfall]

Maybe His message just becomes exclusive when we label it as Christianity instead of the universal message it could be?

 

[Carolla]

I wonder if 'radical inclusiveness' and 'radical hospitality' are the same or slightly different concepts? Or is it just semantics?

I find P3's comments interesting, about the evolving message of Jesus. I wonder if, as Jesus time on earth became shorter, his delivery of message became more strident. When we think we have lots of time to get something done, there is less urgency, more willingness to wait to see what happens, more willingness to 'soft pedal' the message. When the need for action/change is more urgent, this often changes how the message is delivered. Think about teaching kids to cross the road - when there's no traffic and they are safely by our side, we're definitely gentler than if they are running out of our reach and vehicles are approaching.

 

[paradox3]

Maybe His message just becomes exclusive when we label it as Christianity instead of the universal message it could be?

The question I am asking myself is how Jesus intended His various messages to be heard. When it comes to his preaching, he didn't discriminate. He talked to his fellow Jews in the synagogue and he preached to anyone who would listen in the cities and all over the countryside.

He was inclusive with his healing ministry as well. And radically inclusive with his words about determining who is our neighbor.

He called everyone to repentance, as far as I can tell. This was key in his ministry.

His preaching about end times I find somewhat inconsistent. It could be, as @Carolla just suggested, that He became more strident as he saw the end of the age approaching.

There are a few passages in scripture that suggest we will be judged for our behaviour towards others. The "inasmuch" sayings at the end of Matthew's gospel are a good example of this.

But there are many other texts which suggest there will be all sorts of condemnation for various things. I mentioned a couple of examples from Luke earlier. A whole generation is called evil and condemned for not recognizing there was something greater in their midst than Jonah or Solomon.

Maybe it is His philosophy of salvation which could be called exclusive. Disappointing to me, personally, I am finding precious little in my reading of the gospels which supports a universalist view of salvation.

Jesus offers it to all but woe to those who do not accept the offer! The evangelical voice over on the Luke thread has made this point several times.

 

[revjohn]

Was He, do you think?

This is a very popular notion these days, used to support all sorts of theological positions.

Radically?

If by radical one means going to the root or origin (fundamental) then sure. If by radical one means extreme or drastic then not.

It is a popular convention to append "radical" to something as a way to place greater emphasis. Wasted effort.

The children of God (Israel) were never meant to be isolationist.

Jesus in bringing the good news to all people (and let us not forget his initial thrust was to Israel not to the whole world) is addressing Israel as partner in the whole project of redemption.

His agenda conflicts with prevailing thought that in order for the Messianic age to begin societal holiness needs to be achieved. Jesus looks to societal wholeness and believes that the Kingdom of Heaven can be found through a transformation which the good news allows.

 

[GeoFee]

Hi,

Reading the gospels I notice Jesus open to gracious encounter with persons excluded by religious and political structures of the day. His apocalyptic position is relevant to those exclusive structures. They have no future. Those vested in such structures are increasingly resistant to Jesus. This because he breaks the boundaries of exclusion. I think that Jesus was not hostile to those who maintained and benefited from such exclusive structures. When they have him hanging on the cross as a common criminal, he speaks words of forgiveness. Jesus realizes that they are in the dark concerning the implications following their self-serving ideology. Sad to say, their rejection of Jesus implied their refusal of God's way and resulted in their own hurt. I take it that this basic pattern is in play in all times and places of our Western civilization.

George

 

[Waterfall]

Radically?

If by radical one means going to the root or origin (fundamental) then sure. If by radical one means extreme or drastic then not.

It is a popular convention to append "radical" to something as a way to place greater emphasis. Wasted effort.

The children of God (Israel) were never meant to be isolationist.

Jesus in bringing the good news to all people (and let us not forget his initial thrust was to Israel not to the whole world) is addressing Israel as partner in the whole project of redemption.

His agenda conflicts with prevailing thought that in order for the Messianic age to begin societal holiness needs to be achieved. Jesus looks to societal wholeness and believes that the Kingdom of Heaven can be found through a transformation which the good news allows.

Did Jesus actually come to preach only to the Jews and did that only change with Paul after Jesus death?

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

As one of George's congregants once profoundly realized - Blah blah blah.

Jesus was and is radically inclusive. His message was not about religion or politics. It is about your personal relationship with God.
Anyone who will follow him is accepted.

But those who choose to follow him are transformed by him. They are no longer tax collectors and sinners. They are unified parts of the body. The best testimonies are the ones of people who were the farthest from God at their lowest point in life and finally realized Jesus was there.

Afterwards they are no longer so diverse, but unified.

So when somebody noticed that Jesus was eating with sinners - he really was not. That is how they were remembered, but they were changed.

 

[paradox3]

Did Jesus actually come to preach only to the Jews and did that only change with Paul after Jesus death?

Scripture seems to suggest He became progressively more inclusive over time.