exclusion.

exclusion
God dignifies all of humanity, and asks us to do the same. even (perhaps especially?) those who are different.

tracing the overarching narrative of scripture, one can see even in the midst of the evolving jewish understanding of the character of God a progression or evolution in the elevation of the Other -

You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.’

You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.’

Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

these hints of social justice for the alien and outcast were elevated, heightened and intensified in both the major and minor prophets (amos, for example, forges an explicit and unbreakable link between the call for justice toward those outside the community and the righteousness of God).

the celebration of the fact we are each hand-crafted works from divine fingertips, regardless of our religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, citizenship, gender, race, sexuality, socio-economic status, or any other variety in which our humanity is celebrated and expressed is woven throughout the story of scripture.

this radical inclusion is best seen in the person of jesus who saved his statements of exclusion only for those who would make it difficult for others to find their way to YHVH.

think about it.

the countless stipulations and demands for conformity in the old testament law were fulfilled in the very person of jesus christ – who broke cultural, religious and even political boundaries by including any and all into his new way of living, standing in solidarity with Others as the way of reconciliation ::

the samaritan woman – scorned by the jewish status quo for worshipping YHVH the ‘wrong way’ on the ‘wrong mountain.’

the syrophoenician woman – whom didn’t worship YHVH at all, but instead likely had false idols to which she subscribed deity.

the centurion’s ‘servant’ – another gentile oppressor of God’s people, likely engaging in amoral behavior and certainly of no consequence to an oppressed jewish rabbi.

the blind and lame beggars – sent to the margins of society, the popular view was their disabilities were acts of divine retribution for sinful behavior – either their own or that of their parents.

the lepers – each of whom carried not only a socially unacceptable stigma, but the very real and present danger of an uncurable and fatal disease.

the man with a withered hand – lingering in the synagogue and hoping for a miracle on the sabbath, he was seen as unclean to those in religious authority.

the unbelieving paralytic -lowered from a rooftop into the compassionate presence of jesus by his faithful friends.

the disciples – dropouts and outcasts, this ragtag band of curiously single jewish men was composed of a diversity of cultural, socio-economical and political categories – including one whom he knew would betray him.

christ’s counter-cultural engagement of the Other stands in stark contrast to the way in which many christians interpret their charge to be ‘in the world, but not of it.’

in 21st century western evangelicalism (and even beyond) the church is primarily known for its exclusion of the Other, rather than the radical inclusion of all personified in christ.

a thinking individual must wonder :: at what point did we begin to move backwards and away from the ‘come as you are culture’ which jesus created and move toward excluding Others with whom we disagree… and what can be done to change?

what do you think?

  • tommy

    I’ve been waitng to see if you were going to address the Boy Scouts reconsidering their longtime policy against inclusion of gays as troop leaders or scouts and I guess this column can serve that purpose generally. As sponsoring bodies of many Scout troops, churches are wading into the fray with mixed fervor, including ours.

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      i’d certainly be interested in hearing what your thoughts are on that, tommy. i haven’t (as yet) commented on the boy scouts discussion – but i’d expect that i may dive into that conversation sometime next week. your thoughts?

      • tommy

        I believe the BSA (Boy Scouts of America) have painted themselves into a corner and they are now damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they include gay /scouts, there will be a MAJOR pushback from within with hundreds of churches dropping their sponsorship of packs and troops from Maine to California. Exclusion will be met with a PR deluge the likes of Augusta National Golf Club from activists, the maintream media, the Holywood Left as well as those churches eager to sponsor scouting programs that do not discriminate. Twenty years ago the mainline denominations began to feel the effects of the homosexual debate. I had a front row seat at the time. I think the best solution is for each sponsoring body to decide for themselves whether to include gays in the leadership role. But I also think they should leave the kids out of it and by that I mean accept every boy, regardless of his sexual orientation. The BSA is NOT a Christian organization. Their handbook doesn’t even hint at Scripture. Muslims, Jews, Mormons and Unitarian are welcomed with open arms. The BSA cannot appeal to the holy bible nor do I believe they would even try. The Jerry Sandusky scandal only fuels the misconception and stereotype linking homosexuality and pedophilia and thus ‘safety concerns’ will be expressed frequently in defense of exclusion. You thought the Chic-fil-A affair was big? You ain’t seen nuthin yet.

  • Andrea

    I think at some point the Church as a whole gave into fear and decided to focus more on being ‘right’ than allowing the radical love of Christ to fully change us. And I think this happens when we do not allow the Holy Spirit in our congregations on Sunday mornings, when we ignore Him and His presence because we are scared of that which is unseen for fear of being marginalized as ‘charismatic’. The Lord left His very Spirit to be experienced, lived, shared, trusted. If we are not aware of the Spirit of the Lord in our lives, we automatically begin to focus on what we think we ‘know’. Our doctrines, theologies, traditions begin to take precedence over the desires of the very heart of God as He seeks to prompt us by His Spirit. The Spirit is our guide, the Spirit is the only way we can live in love, grace, forgiveness towards anyone. Without Him, our flesh, our pride, our defenses, our fears will always separate us from the beauty of the love of God in our own lives and for the lives of others.

    • tommy

      Jesus said the Father seeks those who will worship im in Spirit and truth. Seems we in the church run to one of those at the exclusion of the other. Truth without spirit is legalism. Spirit without truth is license. Thats why Jesus offered the pair as the answer.

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      excellent observation, andrea. thanks for sharing!

  • Steph

    The words
    “The Just Shall Live by Faith” taught throughout the New Testament
    but with exceptional clarity in the book of Galatians. This was the fundamental
    teaching that Martin Luther cried to the church of his day. The Roman Church
    had become the central power and authority that replaced the Roman Empires
    Government. It became a legal institution passing and governing the known
    world. Law and Judgment became the rule and the teachings of Jesus laid and lay
    unheeded on the pages of scripture. Why would I want to give up the gifts of
    life, love, light and freedom that Jesus promised to live in religious bondage?
    Why do so many continue to live for religion and not seek to walk in the footsteps
    of the master and savior? In asking this question am I also guilty of passing
    judgment on those who sit in religions leadership? It is my goal as it was
    Martin Luther’s to follow Jesus and not the law. As the Holy Spirit through
    Paul taught my freedom from the Law does not mean that I chose not to live a
    holy life but that I chose to live my life in love of Jesus and do those things
    that are pleasing to Him. I want desire and need fellowship of my brothers,
    sister and elders. I do not want desire or need fruit inspectors or judges. In
    His time He will call me home and then I will be judged in Wisdom and Truth. I
    will rejoice on that day as I rest in the Blood Shed for all my sins and for
    the sins of all mankind. I rest in Jesus and as in the Book of Romans I am
    raised as a New Creation in Jesus. This is the call on my life and our lives
    that in love, because of love and empowered by the gift of love we seek to live
    as Jesus Lived and walk in His steps each day until He calls us home.

    Salah

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      great stuff. thanks for reading/sharing, steph!

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      great stuff. thanks for reading/sharing, steph!

  • Matthew

    “this radical inclusion is best seen in the person of jesus who saved his statements of exclusion only for those who would make it difficult for others to find their way to YHVH.”

    Sin separates us from God. This we know. I suppose it stands to reason, then, that if someone tells me to embrace a sin and make it a proud part of my identity then that is a direct attempt to keep me from YHVH. I suppose, then, it would be appropriate to save our words of exclusion for those people.

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      interesting perspective and interpretations of this post, matthew! thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.

      question :: do you believe i’m encouraging you (or others) to ‘embrace sin’ in this post? if so, how?

      • Matthew

        No, Mr. Kimpan. I do not believe you are encouraging anyone to embrace sin in this post. Definitely not. The proud embrace of sin seems to be part of my generations zeitgeist. I have met guys proclaiming their pride of viewing pornography. I made a connection between one of the principles you elucidated in your article and somewhat regular observations in my own walk with Christ

      • Matthew

        So, I have a question as well: what are your thoughts? Specifically, what would you say causes more damage to the Body? Excluding people from a church for their sins –as Tommy refers to them “exclusionists”. Or, dividing people from God, and thus the Body, by encouraging them to continue a sin, embrace that sin, and be proud of that sin(keeping with Tommy’s nomenclature, we could call people who do that “dividers”)?

        It seems a fine balance: on the one hand we have the reality of sin, elucidated so well by Alexander Pope:

        “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
        As to be hated needs but to be seen;
        Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
        We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

        When we embrace each other in grace without the mutual understanding that sin must eventually be repented of then we will inevitably embrace that monster of so frightful mien. On the other hand, shame and disengagement lead to the horrors you write of.

        Reading the Gospel, Christ shows through His behavior a very useful discrimination. When people were broken, acknowledged their sin –not necessarily groveling in self-debasement–but still acknowledging they have done wrong (“Son of Man –I am a sinner”) He granted them grace, forgiveness, and healing. When they were proud and would not concede they had done wrong(eg the rich young ruler proudly proclaming “I’ve kept all those commandments since my youth!”) He did not respond with grace but more Law. He showed them their faults and moved to break their pride. The seed of His grace cannot sprout on a spirit of hard, rocky pride. Grace is utterly wasted there –”Pearls cast to swine”.

        I have heard dramatic stories of change in the lives of believers –for people do change. Those testimonies, I think, are a very strong way of showing people who are still outside the church the face of our loving God. He is a God who says “Come as you are” but not “stay as you are”, for it is the goodness of God which leads us to repentance.

        • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

          a brief response ::

          it seems to me that christ offered grace even when there wasn’t an ‘acknowledgement of sin’

          ONE example :: ‘father forgive them – for they know not what they do.’

          so if we are to take seriously the example of jesus and seek to follow him, i am convinced that if we do err, we err on the side of grace.

          thoughts?

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      interesting perspective and interpretations of my post, matthew! thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
      question :: do you believe that i’m encouraging you (or others) to embrace sin in this post? if so, how?