I realize the claim with which I ended my last post may come across as rather far fetched to some. Christianity has gotten poor scores on inclusivity throughout its history, and in contemporary America, there are few organizations except the NRA that are popularly regarded as being more reactionary and irrationally, combatively traditionalist.
Elements of secular humanism, on the other hand, have led the charge in the last century to preach a message of unity and connectedness in our increasingly factionalized world. In doing so, I believe they have hit upon perhaps the greatest question facing mankind today. How are we supposed to get along?
As two centuries of global political order based on the nation-state as the primary political actor wanes, we see an increased movement towards ethno-specific or religiously exclusivist self-identification. In response to the homogeneity of market capitalist-led globalism, people are turning to ethnicity, religion, geography, language, culture and even subculture to try to define the boundaries of the people group to whom they will swear allegiance. It can appear that we are moving backwards away from the unity of humanity that had been such a fervent hope for much of the last century.
I have not studied every one of the worlds religions in depth, but to my limited experience, every other system of belief on the planet has its boundaries. Some contain a linguistic barrier such as Islam, or ethnic designations such as Judaism. Those which are more inclusive on those terms still stop short of true inclusiveness by mandating practices of dress, behavior, diet and worship that are inextricably tied to their culture of origin. Some systems of belief are so tied to their respective culture or polities that them is a political term, with no spiritual or relational component even coming into consideration.
The fact is, there is no religion on earth that preaches the radical sort of inclusiveness that Christianity proclaims. Even the Uniterian Universalists (who have no creeds and therefore no comprehensive belief at all) and Bahá’I (whose amalgamation of multiple religions is logically inconsistent in that it believes mutually exclusive claims of differing religions to be related to each other in a process of progressive revelation) do not go to the extremity that Christ does.
Make no mistake. Christians have a positively awful track record of practicing this culture-crossing, barrier-breaking inclusiveness. For the past two millennia, uncounted horrors have been perpetrated on mankind in the name of Christ. From the Crusades to the Inquisition, the Conquistadors to the KKK, the cross of Christ has been used as a weapon in truly appalling ways. Christ on the other hand, saw things differently.
To properly understand Christ’s views on this issue, one has to distinguish between the regrettable actions of Christians and the teachings and actions of Christ. Christians exhibiting violence, hatred and divisiveness are not proper examples of their faith. On the contrary, Christians are the only people to whom their respective deity has given a mandate to love everyone, as well as providing the power to carry out that divine vision of unity.
In brief, Christ commanded his disciples to love all people everywhere as though they were family. Something does not come from nothing in this world, and love is no exception. God, through Christ has chosen to love mankind so completely, so radically, so deeply that were we to recognize and respond to that love, there would be no end to the love that we could give to our fellow man.
What is more, Christ gave us only one defining characteristic of the love that we are to show for everyone. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
This simple line introduced to mankind a definition of sacrificial love unparalleled in any other system or belief or thought that had come before or has arisen since. Christ did not set out parameters for the worthiness of being loved that someone must show. HE did not say that political boundaries, racial differences or religious disparities could be used as excuses not to love someone. HE did not tell us the point at which we are allowed to seek selfish ambition at the expense of others. HE did not give us an out when love has become difficult or costly. Barriers and boundaries set upon the love God lavished on and entrusted to mankind were set by man himself. On the contrary, Christ has commanded those who would follow him to seek out self-sacrificing, costly, love for their fellow man without regard to any of the differences we humans seek to identify and accentuate.
What then, does this have to do with politics? How does this definition of love really constitute the hope of the world?
More to come…



