No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service: Inclusion and Exclusion in the Church

by Clarke Dixon

No shoes, no shirt, no service. We are used to seeing such signs on business doors, we are used to the idea that some people should be excluded from some places. When I joined Air Cadets I had to get my hair cut and agree to wear a uniform. The uniform was a sign of who was in and who was out. There was an expectation of uniformity among those who belonged. While one rarely sees a “no shoes, no shirt, no service” sign on a church door, do we have an expectation of uniformity among those who belong in the Christian Church?

We might have expectations of uniformity with regard to behaviour. For example, in days gone by everyone knew that Baptists don’t dance. We might have expectations of uniformity with regard to belief, with such beliefs being drawn up into a statement of faith. If you don’t act and believe just like we do, you don’t belong. But is that the way it should be?

Here is a Scripture that will help challenge our tendency toward uniformity and exclusion:

As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at his tax collector’s booth. “Follow me and be my disciple,” Jesus said to him. So Matthew got up and followed him.
Later, Matthew invited Jesus and his disciples to his home as dinner guests, along with many tax collectors and other disreputable sinners. But when the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with such scum?”
When Jesus heard this, he said, “Healthy people don’t need a doctor—sick people do.” Then he added, “Now go and learn the meaning of this Scripture: ‘I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices.’ For I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners.”

Matthew 9:9-13 (NLT)

There are a few things for us to notice here.

Jesus welcomed all who were sinners but who showed up to meet him.

Jesus called a tax collector, Matthew, to become his disciple and then he hung out with and ate dinner with Matthew’s tax collecting friends. Tax collectors collected taxes from Jews for the Romans and were known to give in to the temptation to exploit the situation. They were therefore despised as sinners, as greedy people. In those times eating with someone was taken as a sign of showing acceptance of, and solidarity with them. The religious leaders were not impressed with the Jesus’ lackadaisical approach in considering with whom he was willing to associate:

For John didn’t spend his time eating and drinking, and you say, ‘He’s possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man, on the other hand, feasts and drinks, and you say, ‘He’s a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and other sinners!’ But wisdom is shown to be right by its results.”

Matthew 11:18-19 (NLT)

Jesus welcomed all who thought differently but who showed up to meet him.

We can get caught up in the perceived sinfulness of the tax collectors as compared with the perceived righteousness of the Pharisees. But the difference goes beyond sinful versus righteous behaviour. The tax collectors thought differently than the Pharisees, they had a different perspective.

Pharisees saw Rome as the enemy and expected God to cast the Romans out of the land when he came to bring the Kingdom. Therefore Rome was not to be served in any way, including collecting taxes for them, In fact doing so would displease God and cause him not to act. Tax collectors, on the other hand, saw Rome as a fact of life, so why not make the best of it, and hope, as we all do today, that at least some of the taxes collected would benefit the people. They could point to the prophecy where Jeremiah told the Jewish exiles to settle in and pray for the peace of a far worse enemy from that day, Babylon (Jeremiah 29:7). So collecting taxes is what God would want us to do! That is a big difference in perspective.

When tax collectors and Pharisees were together, it was like Republicans and Democrats getting together in America today complete with a mixing of theology and politics, plus a desire to exclude one another. Pharisees and tax collectors would not welcome or eat with one another. Jesus welcomed and ate with tax collectors. Jesus also welcomed and ate with Pharisees.

Jesus invites us to his table.

We might get the impression that with Jesus anything goes. But that is not the case:

But what do you think about this? A man with two sons told the older boy, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ The son answered, ‘No, I won’t go,’ but later he changed his mind and went anyway. Then the father told the other son, ‘You go,’ and he said, ‘Yes, sir, I will.’ But he didn’t go.
“Which of the two obeyed his father?”
They replied, “The first.”
Then Jesus explained his meaning: “I tell you the truth, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do. For John the Baptist came and showed you the right way to live, but you didn’t believe him, while tax collectors and prostitutes did. And even when you saw this happening, you refused to believe him and repent of your sins.

Matthew 21:28-32 (NLT)

It is not anything goes, nor is it strict adherence to standards of uniformity. It is an invitation to life in the Kingdom of God. It is an invitation to take our place at the table with Jesus.

At Calvary our aim is not to make everyone look the same, think the same, and behave the same, but to help people walk with Jesus in faith, hope, and love. There’s a big difference between demanding uniformity to religious traditions and inviting people to walk with Jesus.

With a focus on inclusion and exclusion we are thinking about hospitality which is the next topic of our series “What Kind of Church.” In this series we have been considering the cultural statements of Open Table Communities and today’s is:

A Culture of Hospitality
We nurture a culture of openness to everyone, including those who are different from us. This is accomplished through opening up our lives and homes to others. We choose to live in the tensions that come with inclusion rather than the barriers created by exclusion.

Open Table Communities

---

Clarke Dixon — who is celebrating a birthday today — is the pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Cobourg, Ontario. Before appearing here most Thursdays, his sermon summaries appear at Thinking Through Scripture.

The Opposite of Sola Scriptura

Today’s devotional study is going to be interesting, to say the least. Far more so now than when much of it was posted in March, 2017. And the title I gave today’s thoughts was chosen to be deliberately provocative.

So first let’s deal with that title. In offering the opposite of sola scriptura (the word of God alone) I realize that some, especially if you are from a tradition which holds high “the five solas,” are going to be thinking that anything that opposes this view is heretical.

Years ago, someone challenged me with the question, “Are there things we know about God that we don’t know from the Bible?” I thought about my university philosophy studies and how some of the characteristics of God were intuited or deduced based on other information we have about God. In other words, we could say ‘If God is all-knowing, but he’s also just, then _________.’ (I don’t have a particular answer in mind there, but I wanted you to see the form such reasoning might follow.)

If we were to ask, “Are there things we know about Jesus we don’t know from the Bible?’ then the answer is more clear. Even the most conservative Christians are content to draw from the writings of Josephus and others to get a fuller picture of Christ’s impact, and the life of the Early Church. The Bible tells us even as much itself, The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. John 20:30 NLT and “There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” – John 21:25 NET

Instead, I want to propose that there is a different type of opposite to sola scriptura, one that is not to be condemned, but rather to be considered, and perhaps adopted in your own Biblical studies.

It’s usually referred to today as “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.”

This week we visited another church, as Ruth Wilkinson (who you’ve read here regularly) was preaching. The pastor chairing the service mentioned that the week before, he had spoken about this quadrilateral, and I checked and we’d only really mentioned it here once.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. In November, 2012 it briefly was part of a devotional by we ran by Scott Lencke.

Now, while some might loathe the idea of utilizing our experience to understand Scripture, I wouldn’t say it’s completely terrible. I’m an advocate of something like the Wesleyan quadrilateral that recognizes we have more than Scripture alone in helping us understand God’s revelation. Rather this perspective takes a more holistic approach, identifying a) Scripture, b) tradition (there is such things as good tradition), c) reason (not ‘objective rationalism’) and d) experience as important in grasping the revelation of God.

So, my point is that understanding Scripture is not completely devoid of our human experience and encounter with God and his truth.

But we got ahead of ourselves. What is the quadrilateral?

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, or Methodist Quadrilateral, is a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century. The term itself was coined by 20th century American Methodist scholar Albert C. Outler.

This method based its teaching on four sources as the basis of theological and doctrinal development. These four sources are scripture, tradition, reason, and Christian experience.

Upon examination of Wesley’s work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. Wesley believed, first of all, that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in “scripture” as the sole foundational source. The centrality of scripture was so important for Wesley that he called himself “a man of one book”. However, doctrine had to be in keeping with Christian orthodox “tradition.” So, tradition became in his view the second aspect of the so-called Quadrilateral. Furthermore, believing, as he did, that faith is more than merely an acknowledgment of ideas, Wesley as a practical theologian, contended that a part of the theological method would involve “experiential” faith. In other words, truth would be vivified in personal experience of Christians (overall, not individually), if it were really truth. And every doctrine must be able to be defended “rationally.” He did not divorce faith from reason. Tradition, experience, and reason, however, are subject always to scripture, which is primary.

Each of the “legs” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority.

Here are some images from various places online, where people tried to illustrate the concept graphically:

Do an image search for Wesleyan Quadrilateral and you’ll find various attempts to explain it.

I’m not sure the one on the bottom left is what Wesley had in mind. This is how stereotyping leads to divisiveness. And as I said earlier, the headline I chose would immediately cause some readers to think that the opposite to “scripture alone” would be something bad, or fringe, or not Christian at all.

Personally, I think it is another way forward. It gets us past the notion “The Bible says…” and also the resistance that we’re going to meet in the broader world when we start with “The Bible says…” The pastor we spoke with this morning mentioned that one of the people he’s read says our interactions should begin with experience.

Would that make scripture interpretation subjective? Perhaps, but the truth about God and the narratives about Jesus are subjective in the sense they are going to impact lives in a very personal, very individual sense.

Besides, as Michael Simpson informed us in the same article linked above:

This is a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century. In this method, tradition, experience, and reason are employed, while being subject always to scripture, when forming and applying our theology. Each of the “legs” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority. (italics added)

In an article posted in October, 2020, Matthew Marino reminded us that:

New folk are often struck by how much Anglicans talk about “the tradition.” People sometimes assume we mean, “That’s just how we’ve always done it.” But that is not what we are talking about at all. Refusal to change is not “the tradition,” just stasis. Jaroslav Pelikan, called that, “Traditionalism, the dead faith of the living.” The Great Tradition is the living faith of the dead. What we mean by “tradition” is robust and life-altering. The Apostle Paul commended the Corinthians because they, “maintain the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor 11:2) and, “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (2 Thes. 2:15). So while Jesus criticized the traditions of the elders (Matt 15:3), the traditions of the Christian faith passed along both verbally and in scripture are applauded…

…Why not just go with the Bible? Because heresy after heresy and schism after schism arose in those first five centuries. The early church dealt with them and told us how to deal with them. St. Vincent of Lerins referred to the tradition as, “That which has been taught always, everywhere, and by all.” In our era many claim God giving them new revelation. Yet these “new ideas” are always remarkably similar to ideas resoundingly rejected by the Church as novelty centuries ago. “The Tradition” is Mere Christianity, the core of the faith, that which has been passed from generation to generation.

The verb form of the Greek word for tradition, “paradosis” is “handed off” or “delivered.” When Paul said in 1 Cor 11:2, “maintain the traditions as I delivered them to you.” Paul literally said, “maintain the traditions as I traditioned you.”

He used the same word when he said, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). Jude called it, “the faith once for all delivered.” “The tradition” is nothing less than the core of the faith that is handed from generation to generation. It is the baton that must be passed, the irreducible minimum.

And so, tradition. We could also look in detail at the other two “legs” of the Wesleyan hermeneutical tool in a similar fashion.

Again, the way I framed this may upset the preconditioning of some readers, but I hope you’ll at least file it away and perhaps, a situation will cross your path sometime soon where this interpretive tool is useful.

 

 

 

 

The Value of Tradition(s)

Before we delve into today’s devotional, which is about tradition, I want to remind you of something we shared in 2017, Wesley’s Quadrilateral.

If you jump to the article we posted then, you’ll see some variations on the diagram which place greater weight on scripture, but still incorporate the other elements.

So we’re beginning with the premise that there is a value in tradition…

…It’s been awhile since we last cited Matthew Marino who has a blog called The Gospel Side. I know that linked to him a few times back in the day at Thinking Out Loud, but he only appeared here twice as far as I can tell, in 2013. He describes himself: “Like most adolescent atheists turned Episcopal priests, I’m a bridge-builder masquerading as a provocateur.”

Click the link in the title below to read this at his site. There’s a real edge to his writing I think many of you might enjoy.

The Great Tradition

New folk are often struck by how much Anglicans talk about “the tradition.” People sometimes assume we mean, “That’s just how we’ve always done it.” But that is not what we are talking about at all. Refusal to change is not “the tradition,” just stasis. Jaroslav Pelikan, called that, “Traditionalism, the dead faith of the living.” The Great Tradition is the living faith of the dead. What we mean by “tradition” is robust and life-altering. The Apostle Paul commended the Corinthians because they, “maintain the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor 11:2) and, “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (2 Thes. 2:15). So while Jesus criticized the traditions of the elders (Matt 15:3), the traditions of the Christian faith passed along both verbally and in scripture are applauded.

But what is “the tradition”? When Lancelot Andrewes, the bishop who oversaw the translation of the King James Bible, was asked what Anglican Christians believe, he described the tradition: “One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries…determine the boundary of our faith.” “The Tradition” is the elemental seed of the faith found and taught in the Church’s first five centuries.

Why not just go with the Bible? Because heresy after heresy and schism after schism arose in those first five centuries. The early church dealt with them and told us how to deal with them. St. Vincent of Lerins referred to the tradition as, “That which has been taught always, everywhere, and by all.” In our era many claim God giving them new revelation. Yet these “new ideas” are always remarkably similar to ideas resoundingly rejected by the Church as novelty centuries ago. “The Tradition” is Mere Christianity, the core of the faith, that which has been passed from generation to generation.

The verb form of the Greek word for tradition, “paradosis” is “handed off” or “delivered.” When Paul said in 1 Cor 11:2, “maintain the traditions as I delivered them to you.” Paul literally said, “maintain the traditions as I traditioned you.”

He used the same word when he said, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). Jude called it, “the faith once for all delivered.” “The tradition” is nothing less than the core of the faith that is handed from generation to generation. It is the baton that must be passed, the irreducible minimum.

It is much more than what I received in my flattened evangelical background that assumed nothing was needed beyond a personal experience of Jesus and a passing knowledge of the scriptures that could be interpreted as a promise towards myself. It is important to know “the tradition” because “the tradition” is not just that which must be received for our lives to be changed. It is “the tradition” that guards that we do not wander into the ditch of narcissism on one side or traditionalism on the other. It is the tradition we must pass on for the answer to Jesus’ question, “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth” to be a resounding, “Yes!”

Sunday Worship

In the modern church we go through periods where different types of things are emphasized and in the current climate, one of these is the idea that you can come as you are to church. I think that on the surface, this is a very valid proposition. There are people who due to habitual sin or lifestyle choices feel that they need to clean up before they can come back to church. Or that at some point in the future they will settle down and return to the faith of their youth. Or that they have simply gone too far and can never receive the love of God.

This of course totally contradicts what scripture teaches. Jesus himself did not hang out with the good people, much to the chagrin of the religious set.

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.” – Matthew 11:19 NIV

and again

The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, there is a man who is overfond of eating and drinking–he is a friend of tax-gatherers and notorious sinners!’  – Luke 7:34 Weymouth

If you have a son or a daughter; or a brother or sister; and they have wandered away from their faith because of sin, it’s really important to encourage them to continue to keep the dialog going between themselves and God, even in times of brokenness.

In that spirit, we want to be a church that welcomes people — all people — even if that means people caught in addictions, same-sex couples, people covered head to toe with tattoos.

…However…

It’s easy to let a more relaxed feel toward doing church — whether it’s what’s noted above or just a casual approach toward clothing, music, or drinking coffee during the service — spill over into those of us who are committed; those of us who lead.

The scripture is clear that the persons giving leadership are to cleanse themselves; to purify themselves before serving God. This is true of all of us who come to worship services:

So if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God. – Matthew 5:23-24 NLT

However, I think it especially true of those who direct us in a worship service or lead us in a worship service.

Take the Levites from among the sons of Israel and cleanse them. Thus you shall do to them, for their cleansing: sprinkle purifying water on them, and let them use a razor over their whole body and wash their clothes, and they will be clean.  – Numbers 8:7 NASB

I am sure that some will say, ‘Yes, but those laws are for the people of the First Testament, we are no longer bound by those rules.’ As sure as that is true, I believe it’s easy to lose the spirit of the regulation which is the idea of being pure before the Lord before offering worship to Him on behalf of the congregation.

Personally, I like the idea that I am no longer ‘required’ to wear a suit and tie to church. I grew up under those constraints. I like being able to take a water bottle or cup of coffee to my seat. I like a lot of the contemporary worship songs. I like that the kids feel comfortable in church.

I am also thrilled that we can recognize that people are welcomed into many of our churches even as their journey toward the cross is far from complete; even as their spiritual development is a work in process.

But those of us giving leadership still need to have clean hands. We need to confess our sin long before arriving at the place of meeting. We need to have a sense of reverence as we enter God’s presence. We need to see ourselves as set apart for service.

---

Some of you may be interested in reading today’s blog post at Thinking Out Loud: Who I Am.