Except Through Me: Is JC Inclusive or Exclusive?


Abstract:

(Pic sourced here.)

I think a good bit of the difference between those who are theologically liberal and those who are theologically conservative can be boiled down to what "except through me" means. Specifically, how would liberals and conservatives rewrite Jesus' words as an IF - THEN statement?

Body:

(Pic sourced here.)

I think a good bit of the difference between those who are theologically liberal and those who are theologically conservative can be boiled down to what "except through me" means. Specifically, how would liberals and conservatives rewrite Jesus' words as an IF - THEN statement?

The passage is from John 14:5-7

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Now, bracket, for the moment, that this comes in the middle of a conversation between Thomas, Jesus, and Philip, in which Jesus is trying to explain to the disciples that they have already seen the father because they have seen Jesus - even though they don't realize the fact.

There are several ways you could rewrite the "except through me" passage. If you are inclined to believe in a literal hell, and that salvation means accepting Jesus Christ and going to heaven, then you might write the passage this way:

1. IF you go through Jesus, THEN you get to the Father.
or perhaps more exclusively
2. IF you do not go through Jesus, THEN you do not get to the Father.

On the other hand, if you believe in some version of a more inclusive salvation understood through a Christian meta-narrative, then you might write the passage this way:

3. IF you get to the Father, THEN you go through Jesus. (Whether you recognized him as Way, Truth, and Life or not, as in the case of the disciples).
or perhaps even most inclusively
4. IF you get to the Father, THEN you go through the Way, the Truth, the Life.

Obviously, number 2 is the most exclusivist statement, and seems to be the way most fundamentalists read this passage. In and of itself, it's not a bad understanding of Jesus' words. I think the problem most non-fundies have with it is that the second statement is often understood in light of a further condition: "going through Jesus" is understood to mean accepting and believing in the second IF - THEN statement in its own narrow reading. In other words, the doors "to the Father" and to salvation are slammed shut for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and so on - and anyone who does not agree with statement number 2. In fact, Christians who believe in #3 and #4 may be consigned to hell as well, because they don't believe in #2. There is some legitimacy to the more exclusive statement, because Jesus calls himself not only the Way, but also the Gate. (Although I do not read any passage in which he calls himself the Bouncer. Maybe that's in that other gospel.)

Number 3 means you have to accept the idea that Jesus is the Way, but that he may not be recognized as such. In the context of the actual conversation he's having, that seems to me not only reasonable, but implied by the response of the disciples. Note that immediately after Jesus says, "from now on, you do know him and have seen him," Philip, who clearly doesn't get it, says, "show us the father." This is the formulation I tend to prefer, because it seems to make the most sense in context.

Number 4, I think, is possible, but is stretching it. The idea behind the fourth IF - THEN statement is that the Living Word, present from the creation of the world, draws people to the Father. Theologically, I think that is spot on. But I don't think that's the primary meaning of what Jesus is saying. This conversation is about the identity of Jesus himself - "I am the Word and the Word is me." At least, that's the way Jesus seems to understand it. The disciples are thinking about travel arrangements and introductions.

I'm inclined to believe that Christians should hold all four readings together - even the second one, for those (like me) who tend to favor more liberal readings. I think there is a Christological tension between being inclusive and exclusive, because something bigger than "clusivity" is at work here.

What turned me on to this text is this week's lectionary passage from Matthew on the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). How you read the passage, whether you see it as threatening or hopeful, inclusive or exclusive, depends on where you place the emphasis. Liberals and those inclined to take a more friendly view toward other religions see it as a passage about recognition: where and how we recognize God in Jesus, and Jesus in the least of these. Conservatives and those with a more exclusivist Christology read these passages with an emphasis on eternal salvation: who is in and who is out.

Is that a reasonable characterization?

Posted: Mon - November 14, 2005 at 07:22 AM           |

©