There is something about the word "exclusive" that drives me a little nutty when it comes to the Gospel. It's not because it's not true in the theological sense that Jesus is the only way to God the Father...it's more because of the ways that it has often been wrongly used to describe the Gospel.
One of the ways that "exclusive" has been misused is much like the kid who gets invited to the Chucky Cheese birthday party brags to the kid who didn't get invited. It wreaks of an "I'm right and I get to go/ you're wrong and you don't get to go" tone that sounds more like a nerd who's right about an algebra problem than it is a beggar who has found bread trying to tell another beggar where to find it.
Another use of "exclusive" that drives me equally batty is a tone often taken by those of a more universalist bent where it is used an insult that is much like the terms "narrow minded" or "intolerant". This use of the word comes from those who would say "how dare you say that Jesus is the only way to God! That is narrow minded and intolerant of other views!"
The response that rises up in me would be "how dare you say He's not!".
I guess part of the reason that I get so agitated is that I don't think that the Gospel is exclusive at all. If there was an impassable canyon that everyone had tried and failed to cross but finally a bridge had been provided to cross it and ANYONE can cross the bridge, would it be "exclusive" to tell people that the bridge was the only way to successfully cross but thank God there was a way across?
If there was an incurable disease but through some miraculous anomaly, a child was born with a natural immunity towards the disease? Would it be "exclusive" to tell the world that they would all have to get the vaccine that came from that child's blood but thank God, there was a cure!
Since we are talking about the Gospel let's take this metaphor a little further (and it is just a metaphor that will inevitably break down somewhere)... What if the production of a cure required the use of every drop of that child's blood (thus taking the child's life) but both the father and the child agreed that this was necessary to save the world..would it be "intolerant" to say that there was only one vaccine but now there was enough for everyone to get it? If I was that father, and after losing my son to save the world, someone had the nerve to say in my presence "it' narrow minded to say there's only one vaccine and I don't like getting shots so...no thanks", I can't imagine what I'd I want to do to them...but I might just let them have their way and let them face the sickness unprepared. Fortunately, God is nothing like me. He is far more merciful and gracious in pleading with us even as we refuse Him and insult the death of His son.
I know that God is much more than just a father but He IS a father and from that point of view, I just don't believe He would have let Jesus go to the cross if there was ANY other way. The hard reality is that there was only one way to pay for and cure the brokenness of man so that we could be restored back to God. The good news and the good news is that Jesus is the only way...and He is the only way that is available to anyone and everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment