This is the third part of a series looking at the basis for a theological understanding of inclusion. It draws from the stories of Acts 8-15 and puts them in a broader historical, biblical, and theological context. If you haven’t read part one on the Ethiopian eunuch or part two on the conversion of Cornelius then it’s worth going back and giving them a read first.
The Story So Far
There is a movement in the early chapters of the book of Acts which sees the church move from being a Jewish messianic sect to the fullness of Christ’s church. The church is the mark that the prophecies about what God will do to fulfil the covenant promises are coming true.
In Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch is baptised into the Church. Phillip understood that the Law had been fulfilled, so there was a new Law and a new covenant. Where once the Law had prevented the Ethiopian eunuch from being able to worship with Jewish people, now, by grace through faith, the eunuch could be part of God’s family.
The prophecies of Isaiah 56 had come true, and because of that, the Law as it applied to Eunuchs no longer applied.
Scripture critiqued and superseded itself because of what Christ had done.
In Acts 10, Peter experiences a vision telling him the dietary laws are no longer necessary, for what God has made clean, no one should consider unclean.
Peter also interpreted this to mean the inclusion of Gentiles. This is why he abandoned tradition, custom, and law to welcome Gentiles into where he was staying and then to visit Cornelius.
The Roman centurion Cornelius was known for his prayers and his almsgiving. Then, when he heard the Gospel message, the Holy Spirit filled him and his household. Peter asked how anyone could withhold baptism when God had blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing given to the church.
In Acts 11, Peter tells the Jewish believers what has happened and the wonders that God has done in giving the Holy Spirit to Gentiles. The Gentiles did not need the Law or circumcision to be blessed by God. All they needed to be doing was have faith, pray, and do acts of righteousness.
Then, we arrive at Acts 15. Here, the church must decide what to do about the divide between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. There has never been an event like this before. This will decide the fate of the church and of the Gospel.
After looking at the events in Acts 15, we pivot to Paul and his account in Galatians 2. This sets us up for the final part of this series, which looks at Paul’s approach to Inclusion.
The Council Meet – Acts 15:1-21
Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. 3 So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers.[a] 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.’
6 The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers,[b] you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. 8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. 10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’
12 The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘My brothers,[c] listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first looked favourably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15 This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,
16 “After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
from its ruins I will rebuild it,
and I will set it up,
17 so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—
even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.
Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things 18 known from long ago.”[d]
19 Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled[e] and from blood. 21 For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.’
The council in Jerusalem takes place roughly about AD 50. It was a hugely significant moment for the early Church, and it determined where it would go next.
After twenty years of the apostles, disciples, and other believers spreading the Gospel and trying to work out what it means for them, seemingly unresolvable conflict makes this council necessary.
There was a dispute over whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised and submit to the Law when they became Christian. Some, like Paul, said no. Others, like the people called the Circumcision faction or converted Pharisees, said yes.
There didn’t seem to be much wriggle room with this. You can’t half circumcise someone, and either you kept Kosher or you didn’t.
Some members of the Circumcision party travelled to Antioch and told the Gentile concerts they needed to be circumcised according to the traditions of Moses. Paul and Barnabus argue with them. Then, the church in Antioch sends Paul and Barnabus to Jerusalem to speak with the apostles and elders of the church.
They are initially welcomed, but the converted Pharisees say that Circumcision is necessary. The apostles and elders come together to discuss it.
Rather than Paul, Peter steps forward and recounts his experiences from the last few chapters. He particularly mentions how God has given the Gentiles the blessing of the Holy Spirit. Their hearts were cleansed by faith so that they were no different to Jewish Christians.
It was faith that mattered. Peter then refers to the Law as a yoke being put around the neck of the Gentiles when the Jews or their ancestors couldn’t keep it. Instead, they believe it is not by the Law they will be saved but by grace. Effectively saying there is no need for conversion or obedience to the Law.
Then Paul and Barnabus give their evidence of all the ways that God has blessed the Gentiles. Neither Paul nor Peter made a doctrinal argument or appealed to scripture. They simply showed that God was working in the lives of the Gentiles and had blessed them with the Spirit. The direct evidence of God was more important than anything else.
But neither Peter nor Paul is in charge. James, called the ‘Just,’ brother of Jesus, is in charge of the Jerusalem church. He starts by quoting from Amos 9:11-12. Interestingly, if you pay attention, this passage does not actually answer the question. The question was not whether Gentiles would seek the Lord, which this text addresses, but what those Gentiles would have to do when they did. The only scripture quoted is only tangentially related.
Then James says he’s decided that they won’t trouble the Gentiles with the burden of the Law but only call them to keep a few rules which he suggests are commonly known. We will come onto that more below.
Sometimes the debate has to just be brought to an end and it a decision made. I doubt that Paul was happy with the decision, but I equally doubt that the converted Pharisees were happy with it. But James provided a way forward so the church could remain united in the face of such a divisive question.
The Letter to Gentiles – Acts 15:22-
Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members[f] and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: ‘The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers[g] of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds,[h] 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives[i] and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled[j] and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’
30 So they were sent off and went down to Antioch. When they gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 When its members[k] read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation. 32 Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers.[l] 33 After they had been there for some time, they were sent off in peace by the believers[m] to those who had sent them.[n] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, and there, with many others, they taught and proclaimed the word of the Lord.
This is essentially a recapitulation of what has just happened. As was common practice, two people were sent to deliver the message. Two, because the roads were dangerous. Prophets were chosen because the job of a person delivering the letter was also to read out and explain the letter at the other end. They could give personal testimony to support the evidence of the letter. Another reason why two people went was to act as authoritative witnesses. The two messengers return to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabus stay and preach to the Gentiles.
The four points James says the Gentiles must keep might seem strangely arbitrary. Especially when the letter claims the Holy Spirit thought it was a good thing to do. However, it draws from a discussion going on during that period around the covenant made with Noah.
The suggestion was that the covenant made with Noah was for all humanity, and the covenant made with Moses was for just the Jews. This is called Dual-covenant theology.
Around the same time period as the Council of Jerusalem, Gentiles and the Torah were also debated among the Tannaitic rabbis as recorded in the Talmud. This resulted in the doctrine of the Seven Laws of Noah, which Gentiles should follow, as well as the determination that “Gentiles may not be taught the Torah.”
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6585-gentile#anchor21
The 18th-century Rabbi Jacob Emden was of the opinion that Jesus’ original objective, and especially Paul’s, was only to convert Gentiles to follow the Seven Laws of Noah while allowing Jews to keep the Mosaic Law for themselves.
It is perhaps worth noting at this point that a lot of meat came from temples, including the temple in Jerusalem. When an animal was sacrificed, it was common for the priests to give the worst bits of meat to the sacrifice and then the rest was sold to butchers.
This meant that in Gentile cities if you ate meat, the likelihood was that the meat had been killed as part of a sacrifice to a pagan god. This meant the meat had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, and so eating it was part of participating in that system of idolatry. This is part of the reason why Jewish people did not eat with Gentiles. It’s also why Christians would often eat only vegetables when sharing a table with non-believers.
However, we can contrast this with what Jesus said in Mark 7:18-19,
18 He said to them, ‘Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
And what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:27-30,
27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice’, then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgement of someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
and Romans 14:
13 Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of another.[h] 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 If your brother or sister[i] is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. 19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual edification. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat
Jesus says that all foods are clean. Then within years of the council at Jerusalem, Paul says that a person can eat whatever is set in front of them. The only restrictions on behaviour are what would affect a fellow believer. Care and attention need to be given to believers who are less strong in their faith, and eating food given to idols might lead them to fall back into their old habits.
If someone you do causes your fellow believers to fall into unfaithfulness toward God, you need to think carefully about whether you should do that. Just because it is permissible doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Care needs to be given to the conscience of others, not just our own.
But that needs to be balanced with our freedom. Our liberty of conscience and action should not be constrained by another person’s conscience. There is a balance to be found between personal liberty and responsibility for others.
Feet of Clay – Galatians 2
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false believers[a] secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was[b] eager to do.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’[c]
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified[d] not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.[e] And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ,[f] and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God,[g] who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification[h] comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
There are questions about when the events of Galatians 2 take place with regard to the narrative of Acts. There are three main positions:
- 14 years after Paul’s conversion, this meeting was held during Acts 11 when Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to help with a famine. However, the Acts account does not include any sense of a meeting with the leaders.
- 14 years after the last time reference in Galatians, which was when Paul spent three years in Arabia. This would mean the event took place 17 years after his conversion which would be the story in Acts 15. However, in Acts 15, Paul does not go because of revelation, and the meeting does not seem private.
- Paul met with the leaders at another time, which was not mentioned in Acts. However, there is no other Biblical evidence to support this.
I think that the second option fits best. The reference to 14 years later naturally flows from the previous time reference.
The discrepancies between Paul’s account in Galatians and Luke’s account in Acts can be resolved in several ways.
First, Paul is writing before Luke did. Galatians is the earlier text written closer to the event. This suggests that elements may have been forgotten or expressed differently in the later text. Particularly if written intentionally to promote unity in the church.
Second, Luke is writing for a very different purpose from Paul. Luke is trying to show the unity of the early Church. Paul is defending his position and understanding of the Gospel to a specific church where this issue has considerable significance.
Third, Paul is more prepared to point out individual failures than Luke is.
If we accept that Galatians 2 is Paul’s account of what happened with Acts 15, it tells a somewhat different account and gives a much harsher view of Peter.
For Paul, there can be no compromise. Christ has come, and the world has changed. We are saved by grace and justified by faith. Nothing else is necessary, so nothing else is needed. Why should a person go backwards when they have been set free?
The Council
Paul deals with the actual council meeting really quickly. He and Barnabus meet the church leaders, make their case and give their evidence, and the leaders accept this. The decision is made to separate out the church. Paul and Barnabus will go to the Gentiles while the rest stay and work with the Jews.
One difference is that in Paul’s account, there is just one rather than 4 points for the Gentiles to keep. To remember the poor, which Paul a little tetchily says they were going to do anyway.
Peter the Coward or Hypocrite
The significant difference comes after the council meeting. Later on, Peter comes to Antioch. At first, Peter ate with the Gentiles, but then, when people from James came to Antioch, he stopped. He started eating only with the Jews. His example led the other Jews, including Barnabas, to withdraw from table fellowship with the Gentile believers.
Paul calls this hypocrisy because Peter only stopped eating with Gentiles out of fear of the circumcision faction. Paul publicly confronts Peter for going back on his previous behaviour and, in Paul’s perspective, therefore, also denies the truth of the Gospel.
Justified by Faith
Paul is clear that people are not saved by the law but by grace through faith. There cannot be a return to the law because that would deny Christ’s grace.
Being justified in Christ reveals our sins; as such, the law has fulfilled its purpose, but it cannot deal with those sins. Only Christ can do that. We must rely on grace to free us from sin, not the law.
Christ lives in us and is our salvation, so we do not need to go backwards. Not only was Peter scared of the power and influence of James and the Circumcision faction, but he was hypocritical in pretending he didn’t eat with Gentiles when he did.
Christian Freedom and Circumcision
Paul is even more clear just a few chapters later in Galatians 5: 1-15,
Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working[a] through love.
7 You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? 8 Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. 10 I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty. 11 But my friends,[b] why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offence of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!
13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;[c] only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence,[d] but through love become slaves to one another. 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 15 If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
Paul wished that the circumcision faction would not just go away and be quiet but would just castrate themselves and be done with it. If a little cut made one holy, why not just do one big cut and get it over with?
Anyone who is circumcised puts themselves under the Law and is cut off from Christ. In Christ, neither Circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything. Only faith working in love matters.
The whole law is summed up in the single commandment to love the neighbour. This is what is necessary, faith leading to love for the neighbour. No need for Circumcision, no need for dietary laws. The law itself has been fulfilled and has fallen to one side, for we are justified by faith alone. Not because we are sinless but because our sin is dealt with in Christ.
The Fall of the Jewish Christians
Acts 15 brings the conclusion to the previous few chapters. It is the moment when the birth of the church, as we know it, is finalised, and the church’s beginning and end are as they were.
The council of Jerusalem leads to the division of the church into Gentiles and Jews. Gentiles are not required to become Jews first before they can become Christians. They don’t need to be circumcised, nor do they need to follow the Jewish law.
But there are still Christians who keep the Jewish Law. Based in Jerusalem and led by James, the brother of Jesus and his descendants. The number of Gentiles in the church swiftly outnumbers the Jewish Christians. The centre of Christianity is no longer in Jerusalem but loves to Antioch and then to Rome and Alexandria.
The end of the Jewish Christian church was finalised in the middle of the second century. An uprising against Rome in AD 60s saw much tighter controls and many Christians scattering around the Mediterranean. Then, in AD 132 – AD 135, there was a second revolt led by Rabbi Ahkibar and Simon bar Kokhbar.
This led to Rome destroying the city and forcing the Jews to leave, making it illegal for Jewish people to return to Jerusalem. See more about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
This is the end of the Jewish church. After this point, the church is thoroughly Gentile.
Jewish thought and prophecy are united with Greek philosophy and science, expressed through the language and techniques of Latin rhetoric. This union indelibly moves Christian belief away from Jewish thought. Christianity inherits the Jewish traditions, scriptures, and sense of apocalypticism from its prophetic traditions. But this is now understood, expressed, and developed through the tools and language of the Greco-Roman world.
Paul is the first Christian theologian. To a degree, Paul invents theology as a rational and constructive enterprise. Judaism had revolved around textual interpretation and application. Paul takes a step forward and starts to develop an entirely new way of thinking about the things of God.
The very existence of the New Testament is an exercise in radical scriptural interpretation based on personal experience, direct revelation, divine inspiration, and the creative use of rational ability.
What Does it Mean for Inclusion Today?
Like before, we start with what this story doesn’t do. This story and the previous ones do not give a simple or straight argument to support absolute inclusion.
In each example given, the mark of distinction for the Gentile being welcomed into the Church is that they already worship God and live righteously. Acts 10 shows what that righteousness looks like, praying and giving Alms.
Gentiles are not automatically included in these stories. Faith is necessary, and the consequence of faith is righteous living. Inclusion is the inclusion of redeemed sinners. People who are fallible and fallen. But people saved by grace through faith seek to live according to that faith.
This story does not do anything to challenge the position that homosexual acts are sinful (although Acts 8 makes a convincing argument for inclusion for people with different gender identities). It shows that the church was confronted with a group of people they thought could not be included suddenly because there was evidence that God was in their lives.
That is a pretty good starting point for a theology of inclusion.
Starting with Listening
The council of Jerusalem has almost no biblical arguments, although I am sure they were all influenced by their knowledge of scripture. What happens is that people tell stories of their experiences with the work of God. They share where they have seen God work and who they have seen blessed by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps the place to start with questions about inclusion is not with doctrinal or scriptural arguments but by listening to people’s stories.
It is a cliché in mission studies to say that the job of a pioneer is to see where God is working and then to go and join in. Maybe with inclusion, the first step should be to listen and watch the stories and evidence of who God is blessing and where the Holy Spirit is being poured out.
Then, questions of scripture and doctrine can be worked out in the face of the evidence of what God is doing.
Can there be a sustainable compromise?
Is it possible to find a compromise that can bring people together on the question of inclusion? Yes, no, and maybe, all at the same time.
Yes, compromises can be made. However, they will be seen differently by people depending on their position. For someone who wants full inclusion in the church, a compromise is a step in the right direction towards final victory. Someone opposed to inclusion will see compromise as either a step closer to collapse, the thin end of the wedge, or something that is already a failure.
For people with ideological positions, compromise is either good but not enough or bad and to be resisted. Compromise works for people who put the continued existence of the church above ideological positions because it enables people to remain together while disagreeing because no one is happy, but equally, nobody has their worst nightmare come true.
However, the real consequence of compromise is seen in the words of Jesus.
In Matthew 12:25, Jesus says: He knew what they were thinking and said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.
Compromise rarely unites but covers over the cracks in a group. The fracture points remain, but ways around them are found so that the group can stay together and keep on going.
The strength of a compromise is that it creates space for people to talk to each other, find ways to disagree with each other, and learn how to stay in a space with someone you think is wrong. Some examples of how this might work can be found in my blog here:
https://mytheologycorner.com/2024/05/23/7-steps-to-disagreeing-well/
The weakness of compromise is that the differences are never resolved. It requires people to learn how to live with tension. It requires a church to learn how to live with the complexity of balancing ideological views when making decisions.
The biggest problem with compromise on questions of Inclusion is the mix of ideology and identity.
An example of an attempt at compromise is the idea that people who are gay can be part of the church but just be celibate. Or that someone who is gay can be in a civil partnership but must be celibate. These are compromises offered by people who genuinely mean we’ll but which fall down for everyone.
Are ‘Traditional Views of Sexuality’ today’s version of the circumcision faction?
Is there a degree to which the ‘traditional’ view of sexuality is a modern version of the circumcision faction?
It is important to note that disagreeing with the belief does not have to go alongside disagreeing with the person. People who hold inclusive and non-inclusive views of sexuality are attempting to faithfully understand scripture and the work of God in the world. The question is not about the people but the views that are held.
I suggest that there is a degree to which, from my perspective, non-inclusive views of sexuality are functioning in the same way as the circumcision faction. A strict interpretation of scripture which gatekeeps complete entry to the church.
This is not every person who holds non-inclusive views on sexuality, but there is a definite tendency towards this kind of approach. There needs to be a fresh awakening to the way that God is working in the world. Perhaps by looking back at how the early Church understood and engaged with scripture, there might be a clue for moving forward faithfully.
However, there is also an issue with an approach to inclusion which does not take seriously the impact of sin and the need for radical transformation through the grace of God. Inclusion is, first of all, the inclusion of sinners, followed by other kinds of inclusions.
But yes, I think that there is a tendency for non-inclusive views of sexuality to end up becoming like the circumcision faction.
But Remember the Poor … The Inclusivity or Biblical Inclusion
The Bible shows us a church which is radically inclusive in the culture within which it has emerged. Women and men, slaves and free, Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, are all equally included in the church.
Tax collectors and Samaritan women, prostitutes and freedom fighters, Ethiopian eunuchs and Roman soldiers are all welcomed into the church.
They are welcomed in because of their faith. Their faith emerges from recognising the need for grace and their determination to love their neighbour. Through faith they experience the grace of Christ freely gifted to them. Then, redeemed sinners who have fallen but are still serving God act with justice, mercy, and all righteousness.
The theological underpinnings of inclusion start with the inclusion of sinners. All of us are included. We do not, by rights, belong to the church because, by right, we are sinful. Only by grace do we belong to the church and so none have ownership over the church, none can claim by right their belonging, none can claim that they are without sin. Or that they never sin again.
As with the previous stories, this comes down partially to how we envision sin. But, before that point, we have to recognise that inclusion begins with grace for sinners.
What Next?
The fourth and final part of this series will focus on Paul’s theology. Specifically Galatians 3. The central argument for any kind of inclusive thinking in the Bible follows from the great themes of Acts 8-15.
A theological understanding of inclusion must start at the beginning, not the end. I am not trying to justify or explain it, but I am returning to the roots and setting out the first principles. Next time, we will see what that means in the wider context of our contemporary inclusion debates.
If you want to keep up to date, sign up to My Theology Corner Newsletter for a weekly lite-bite theology hit. Get short-form reflections from topics on the main blog and or on other interesting topics from that week.
https://chrisbutton.substack.com
