McLaren & Carson Essay

Write a paper of analysis of and response to McLaren, GO, and Carson, BCEC.
Thoughtfully read the following pages in each book:
McLaren, GO, pp.70-101, and 150 pages of your choice from pp.105-297;
Carson, BCEC, pp.45-182, and 188-234.
Your paper should include the following three parts:
Describe – do not evaluate – the basic arguments and the most compelling major points of McLaren, GO, and Carson, BCEC (approx. 3.5 pages);
Evaluate the most significant similarities and differences between McLaren and Carson and your beliefs and approach to the Christian life (this is a three-way comparison and evaluation – McLaren, Carson and you) (approx. 4 pages);
Describe at least three ways in which the conclusions you draw from your evaluation (b.[2] above) might influence your personal practice of piety and/or your practice of ministry and/or the way your church engages in corporate worship and/or the way your church engages in ministry (approx. 2.5 pages).
Word Count: 3,136

Introduction
Brian McLaren’s “Generous Orthodoxy[1]” is a description of the author’s own encounter with or journey through various faith traditions. It functions as his “confession” or “manifesto”[2]. He calls others to take it up as their creed also. Identified as an influential leader within the emerging church movement, McLaren writes with warmth and insight into many issues of contemporary Christianity. He says,

“The real purpose of this book, and much of my writing and preaching, is to
try to help us realign our religion and our lives at least a little bit
more with that Someone.”[3]

It seems appropriate to point out that the emerging church movement (ECM), as represented by McLaren, has made very little impact on the Christian community in Sydney, Australia. After reading “The Younger Evangelicals” by Dr. Robert Webber[4] and McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian[5]” several years ago, it appeared to me that the ECM was dependent on finding a significantly large community of people who identified with the Christian faith but were in some way disaffected by the current expressions of the (particularly evangelical) church. In a community like Sydney where only 3% of the population are evangelicals, approximately 3% of children attend church and 60% of the general population do not even have a friend who attends church, the ECM seems mostly irrelevant. The most popular expression of the ECM in Australia labels itself the “missional church” movement, as typified by Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost, but even it is small.

The second of the two books to be discussed, Don Carson’s “Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church[6]” is the author’s analysis and response to this movement. Carson is an influential evangelical New Testament theologian who has also written extensively on the areas of hermeneutics and post-modernism[7]. Here he summarises some of his other writing into a more popular form, then engages with two examples of the ECM and concludes with some theological and Scriptural summaries.

Generous Orthodoxy
McLaren’s most basic argument is that reality, especially the reality of who Jesus is, is not adequately captured by any single expression of the Christian religion. In Chapter 1, entitled “The Seven Jesuses I Have Known”, he describes his own journey from conversion in a conservative Fundamentalist faith tradition, through Pentecostalism, to his present “unfinished” position. Along the way he has had encounters with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Liberal Protestantism, Anabaptists and Liberation Theology. This chapter is a good summary of his whole approach. McLaren seeks to show the Jesus presented in these traditions as different perspectives to the same answer, rather than alternative answers to the same question. The sixteen chapters in Part Two of his book follow the same approach – highlighting various aspects of each tradition or expression that he has encountered and found helpful for describing a “generous orthodoxy”.

McLaren is concerned that “orthodoxy” has been used define who is “in” and who is “out” of a particular group – including the group of those who are going to heaven. And that “to be orthodox [now] one has to have right opinions about far more things than one needed to have back then, when having a right attitude toward Jesus was about all it took.[8]” Rather than focus on where different traditions may have erred, McLaren seeks to find positive examples in sixteen different traditions that support his view of who Jesus is.

The most compelling part of McLaren’s book is where he argues that by combining the various images that tribes within Christianity hold to we may end up with a hologram: “a richer, multidimensional vision of Jesus”[9]. The warmth of his appeal is expressed in his desire to recover the “simple, integrated richness I knew of [Jesus] as a little boy.[10]”

McLaren identifies thirteen positives he would draw from these traditions: the outward thrust to the whole world of the missional tradition; the passion for making a difference of the evangelical tradition; the faithful remnant idea of the Protestant tradition; the heroism of being post-liberal/conservative; the imaginativeness of the mystical tradition; the (meta-?) narrative of the Biblical tradition; the immediate experience of God in the charismatic/contemplative tradition; the commitment to reformation in the fundamentalist/Calvin tradition; the practice of spiritual disciplines and spirituality in the Anabaptist and Anglican traditions; the spiritual formation of lay people in the Wesleyan tradition; the sense of celebration in the Catholic tradition; positive engagement with all of creation of the Green movement; and the willingness to engage with those of different faiths by incarnational Christians. He also expresses such concern at Christians’ unwillingness to repent that it makes him depressed-yet-hopeful. He has a vision of an emerging alternative understanding of the kingdom of God and the unfinished work of the coming fullness of God’s kingdom.

Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church
In contrast with McLaren’s largely personal account, Carson seeks to objectively survey the ECM and provide a “mature assessment[11]”. His approach is to develop a profile of the movement, describe its strengths and weaknesses, critique the movement, especially through analysing two representative books (one being McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy) and then provide some Scriptural and theological context for evaluating the movement.

In an obvious effort to connect with a popular audience, Carson does disclose his own experiences and use simpler language than is usual in his academic tomes. He admits that neither the emerging church nor postmodernism are simple, uni-focal movements. Carson’s survey of the ECM relies heavily on published writings of representative leaders (making little reference to the plethora of emerging church material published on websites or blogs). Using these writings he provides a clear summary of the journey that various individuals have been through. From these profiles he identifies its main characteristic as protest against traditional, evangelical (often fundamentalist) churches, seeker-sensitive mega-churches, and modernism in general.

Carson does well in summarising the strengths of the movement: its understanding of the way the culture has changed, its desire for authentic expressions of faith, its acknowledgement of personal perspective, its strong desire to engage with those outside of the faith, and its willingness to explore connections with older Christian traditions.

Carson’s critique of the ECM’s weaknesses is this writer at his sharpest. Those who are attracted to McLaren’s warm winsomeness would be offended by and appalled at Carson’s cold scalpel. His vast academic background gives him the grounding and authority to dissect the arguments of the leaders of the movement. He summarises his criticism into three main points (with a fourth given as a particular example of the three). First, their understanding of modernism is reductionistic and wooden. Secondly, they mock the worst of those they are critiquing rather than providing a balanced assessment of the whole. Thirdly, the ECM’s assessment of modernism and the church under Christendom is theologically shallow because no viewpoint or system is all good or all bad. He also finds its assessment intellectually incoherent because it finds value in anything but modernism.

Slicing through their evaluation of post-modernism, Carson accuses the leaders of the emerging church movement of having labelled a whole range of social changes under the one pop-culture heading of post-modernism.

The most compelling point Carson makes about “Generous Orthodoxy” is simply that the people described by the labels that McLaren uses to head his chapters have little resemblance to the pictures he paints of them. For example, the most defining characteristic of an evangelical is not their passion. McLaren is revealed as seeking to use his own personal encounters with some (often fringe) expression of a faith tradition as evidence to support his own conclusions. Nowhere is this truer than in his depiction of the Roman Catholic Church[12]. McLaren extrapolates from his chance encounter with a woman in a garden across the whole Roman Catholic Church. But, Carson argues, he ignores the whole official teaching and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The expression of the church in a single Californian church garden, or even in the whole of North America does not accurately reflect the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. Carson wishes that McLaren would transcend his own North American heritage by examining both the doctrinal foundations and the expressions of that doctrine in places such as Poland (or, might I add, Sydney). Carson also suggests that McLaren could have made the same point using positive examples from conservative evangelical churches, rather than other traditions.

Similarities and Differences between McLaren, Carson and myself
Like McLaren and many in the ECM, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family and church (Plymouth Brethren). The five fundamentals[13] were deeply held convictions by the leaders of our church. The example of mature believers’ own personal commitment was instrumental in shaping my own faith. Their commitment to knowing the Bible, sharing their faith, and having their lives conformed to the Word of God informed the way I lived my Christian life.

Similarly to McLaren, I also encountered Pentecostalism briefly before being more thoroughly influenced by Campus Crusade’s campus ministry. My church leaders had warned me the university environment could threaten my faith and they encouraged me to join a Christian group on campus. Campus Crusade matched my values of commitment to a strong personal devotional life, taking the initiative in personal evangelism and dependence on the Holy Spirit. I became convinced of the priority of the Great Commission.

In my experience, the hard-edge of my fundamentalist church was softened by the heart of its leaders for people. Their passion to make a difference, labelled as an evangelical strength by McLaren[14], moved them progressively forward. Still, a literalistic interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis and a comprehensive, rigid eschatological scheme made engagement with academic thought at the university difficult.

The strongest campus ministry in Sydney (AFES affiliated with IFES worldwide) is resourced mainly by Reformed evangelical churches, mostly from the Anglican[15] denomination. Their focus on expository Bible teaching, based in a sound Biblical theology, significantly impacted my engagement with the Bible. It took me a long time to reconcile their high view of Scripture with their overt a-millennial and theistic evolutionary interpretation. Carson is a regularly featured speaker at events organised by Sydney’s Reformed evangelical community[16] and so his teaching has influenced my thinking, both directly and indirectly.

However, it was not just my experience in Australia that shaped my thinking. Through Campus Crusade I have been exposed to ministries and leaders from several different nations – including India, Philippines, Korea, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan. In the late 1990’s, I had the privilege of serving with Campus Crusade at the University of Colorado in Boulder for 12 months. I was able to experience church and ministry in a culture far more Christian than my own. Therefore I consider myself sufficiently familiar with McLaren’s context to be able to assess it, while having enough external experiences to allow me an outsider’s perspective.

McLaren’s assessment of the state of much of the church in North America appears fairly accurate. He diagnoses the problems of the church – its firm attachment to a polemical expression of truth or a corporatisation of mega-ministry – accurately and from experience[17]. The disconnection between the culture of churches that focus on the Bible and the increasingly biblically illiterate, unchurched culture is the critical issue.

However, his proposed solution would create a major problem. As Carson writes, in his efforts to be culturally relevant, McLaren has buried the simple gospel message so deep that no one listening to him would be able to discern it. The gospel is a simple, yet profound message. A child can understand it and share it, and yet academic theologians can write thesis after thesis and never plumb its depths. The most personally significant thing I learnt from Campus Crusade was (using the “door to door sales techniques[18]”) how to articulate in clear and simple words the faith I had grown up with and adopted as my own. What I have learned from my study of theology has been the profoundness those simple words seek to convey.

I agree with Carson that emerging church leaders need to work harder at developing theology that is truly biblical. And I agree with McLaren that biblical churches need to apply Scripture to culture more profoundly. In contrast with both, I would also add that a significant role the church needs to emphasise is to expose greater proportions of the community to biblical truth regularly and in an ongoing way. We cannot just strengthen the theological understanding of the church in our present culture. And we cannot just seek to make the expressions of the church more relevant to the culture we are part of. We must engage our communities with the agenda that flows from our theology, not just in response to the popular issues of the day.

Carson’s emphasis on biblical theology[19] ensures that his agenda for engaging with culture is most influenced by Scripture. In contrast, McLaren’s agenda seems to be largely driven by experience. While acknowledging that each of us is influenced by our social location[20], I agree with Carson’s approach: that we cannot know anything omnisciently, but we can know truth accurately, at least that which is revealed to us through Scripture. An appropriate response to our limitations or pre-understandings is to engage with other interpretations of Scripture from outside our own culture, location or time. As we become aware of other interpretations and assess them in the light of the whole of Scripture, we will move asymptotically toward accurately understanding the truth of the Scripture.

Carson focuses on the central failings of the ECM to critique culture and stand for Biblical truth. But he fails to address the underlying motivation for those engaged in the movement – to create authentic expressions of missional community in our contemporary culture. The lone exception is when he holds up Redeemer Presbyterian Church (RPC) as a positive example of a church that has effectively engaged with a post-modern generation and multiplied itself in church plants[21]. But even then he admits that RPC would not identify itself with the ECM.

While disputing over some key issues, Carson misses the main point. We now read the Bible from the perspective of post-Christendom, informed by the issues of mission to pluralistic communities, community formation with increasingly broken individuals and kingdom-thinking amidst tribal globalism. Its own meta-narrative provides the drive for the formation of missional communities. For example, God’s design for a creation stewarded by responsible human beings, who are commissioned to extend order across a chaotic, untamed world, is the impetus for those missional communities who see their mandate as more holistic than saving individuals from a future hell. Similarly, Jesus entrusted the witness of his unique and universal act of redemption to a community of believers. The effectiveness of the ECM to form missional communities – that faithfully extend the transformational good news of the kingdom to the world – must be the main point to be assessed.

Influence on Practice
McLaren’s description of his experiences through various faith traditions confirms my commitment to self-awareness concerning my own pre-understandings and the biases that come from my own background. In evaluating where these life experiences have impacted me most, I need to subject them to the scrutiny of Scripture. I need to actively seek out and genuinely engage with those whose background is different to mine, to see how their experience informs mine. The access to different opinions and experiences is virtually limitless via the internet. Intentionally seeking to humbly interact with ancient commentators, developing world believers and Christian leaders of different traditions will only further my own self-awareness.

Beyond previous life experiences, any present non-rational engagement can influence my thinking about God and the Bible. McLaren models this with his story about the conservation of turtles. My influences may be positive or negative. I am pre-disposed to endorse the music I enjoy. I am more likely to affirm the views of people with winsome personalities than of those with fractious personalities. The beauty of a sunset may move my heart to worship God. I will seek to be aware of how non-rational influences shape my awareness of God’s truth, and how I may legitimately incorporate them into my ministry. An example of this is found in 1 Peter 3:1, where the apostle admonishes wives to influence their unbelieving husbands by their deeds – without a (rational) word! Another is Paul’s own example in 1 Corinthians 9 of identifying with various cultures in order to win them to Christ. An example from my own life was a visit to a cemetery to reflect on the brevity of life.

Finally, the awareness of the shift in culture from Christendom to pluralistic, globalised post-modernism should influence my ministry and church to be intentionally missional. McLaren presents a diagram where, “[Jesus] creates the church as a missional community to join him in his mission of saving the world. He invites me to be part of this community to experience his saving love and participate in it.[22]” No longer is mission something done by people sent overseas, supported from a home church. Rather, it is the experience of each Christian every day. The vast numbers of unchurched people in my community will never be reached by holding slicker, fancier, better resourced Sunday services. The question we must wrestle with is, “how can we support the average, quiet Christian in their everyday activities, so they can be an effective witness for Christ wherever they go?” Part of our answer will include the training and encouragement of individual Christians. However, our answer must also include propagation of the building block concepts of the gospel throughout our society through the use of the media, creative arts and academic world so that people are prepared to hear the gospel shared by average Christians.

Conclusion
McLaren’s book reflects his personal journey through and encounters with various faith traditions. His major concern is that dogmatic presentations of the Christian religion by conservative fundamentalists do not reflect the reality informed by our new cultural context. He proposes a new “generous orthodoxy”. Carson evaluates the emerging church movement, and McLaren particularly, in light of historical understanding, cultural analysis and, ultimately, Scriptural truth and finds them lacking in objective analysis and theological development. He exhorts the leaders of the emerging church movement to be more balanced – less critical of the conservative evangelical church and more critical of post-modernism.

In life and ministry, the impetus for engagement with this new cultural context must be driven from the Scriptures. Those Scriptures must be understood in the context of a whole world of perspectives. Still we can know truth accurately, if not completely. The mission of God must be expressed by the people of God through missional communities who holistically engage the whole world with good news of the kingdom.

ENDNOTES
[1] McLaren, Brian D. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. [GO]
[2] GO, back cover.
[3] GO p.26, where the “Someone” is identified something in the church that he loves, i.e. Jesus.
[4] Webber, Robert. E. The Younger Evangelicals. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.
[5] McLaren, Brian D. A New Kind of Christian. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
[6] Carson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. [BCEC]
[7] For example, Carson, D.D. The Gagging of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
[8] GO, p.33
[9] GO, p.74
[10] GO p.73
[11] BCEC, back cover.
[12] BCEC p.172-177
[13] GO p.220
[14] GO p.128-130
[15] Anglican is the equivalent to Episcopalian. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney is one of the few thoroughly Reformed evangelical Anglican dioceses in the world. Their seminary, Moore College, produces many works in the field of Biblical theology.
[16] Two of Sydney’s leading evangelical writers, Philip D Jensen and Tony Payne, feature in “Telling the Truth – Evangelizing Post-Moderns” edited by Carson, published by Zondervan 2000.
[17] Carson probably agrees with McLaren’s assessment of many fundamentalist churches and other expressions of so-called “evangelicalism”, yet he never admits as much.
[18] GO p.132
[19] Carson DA, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2003 p.89 provides an example of Carson’s particular emphasis in biblical theology.
[20] BCEC, p.51
[21] BCEC, p.55-56.
[22] GO, p.118.

Hungry in the Desert - Part Six

And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.' But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

"But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."
[Matthew 22:1-14, ESV]

What does this parable have to do with being “hungry in the desert”? After all, Jesus spoke this parable in the temple in downtown Jerusalem, not in the wilderness. It was directed against the Chief Priests and Pharisees whose hearts were hardened against him, not to eager followers. It concerns the most exciting of celebrations – a (royal) wedding – not a famine. Yet it speaks to us as we experience spiritual dryness and as we pursue the kingdom of God.

The first thing to note is that Jesus repeatedly uses this picture of a wedding feast as a description of the kingdom of God. We are often tempted to think of the kingdom of God as a poor and needy thing – something we need to prop up with our giving and our labour. This is especially true when we are experiencing spiritual dryness ourselves. Everything we do, every act of service, every prayer, even cracking the cover on our Bible, feels like a chore. But this isn’t true! It is a fabulous feast, a celebration. It is not dour. It’s not a long drawn out meal dominated by a dreary, and slightly embarrassing, speech made by tipsy Uncle Bob. It’s not an eight hour TV special with exclusive pictures licensed to a particular tabloid. It is more like the story from the 1987 Danish film “Babette’s Feast”.

Babette’s Feast

“In 19th century Denmark, two adult sisters live in an isolated village with their father, who is the honoured pastor of a small Protestant church that is almost a sect unto itself. Although they each are presented with a real opportunity to leave the village, the sisters choose to stay with their father, to serve to him and their church. After some years, a French woman refugee, Babette, arrives at their door, begs them to take her in, and commits herself to work for them as aid/housekeeper/cook. Sometime after their father dies, the sisters decide to hold a dinner to commemorate the 100th anniversary of his birth. Babette experiences unexpected good fortune and implores the sisters to allow her to take charge of the preparation of the meal. Although they are secretly concerned about what Babette, a Catholic and a foreigner, might do, the sisters allow her to go ahead. Babette [who had been a famous chef in Paris] then prepares the feast of a lifetime for the members of the tiny church and an important gentleman related to one of them.”

[Babette’s Feast, http://www.imdb.com/]

The struggle to follow Jesus here and now may cloud our perspective of the true nature of the kingdom of God. We can extrapolate our present experience into an endless future and fall into despair. But the beautiful picture the Bible presents of a glorious royal wedding feast awaiting the guests should draw us forward. The true destiny of those who pursue Christ, who pursue the kingdom of God here and now, through times of abundance and spiritual drought, is to arrive at a celebration when the kingdom of God is consummated that is beyond imagining.

Anyone who watched the last royal wedding will realise that the money spent on clothing – the wedding dress, the clothes of the attendants, and the guests – and the ceremony, and the feast that follows was extravagant. It was a massive celebration, not just for the family but for the whole nation. And the royal marriage feast of the lamb will cause any earthly royal wedding to pale in comparison.

Read this story from BBC.com about the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer on 29th July 1981:

Crowds of 600,000 people filled the streets of London to catch a glimpse of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer on their wedding day. The couple were married at St Paul's Cathedral before an invited congregation of 3,500 and an estimated global TV audience of 750 million - making it the most popular programme ever broadcast. Britons enjoyed a national holiday to mark the occasion.

Lady Diana, 20, arrived almost on time for the 1120 BST ceremony after making the journey from Clarence House in the Glass Coach with her father, Earl Spencer. She made the three-and-a-half minute walk up the red-carpeted aisle with the sumptuous 25 ft (7.62 m) train of her Emmanuel designed, ivory taffeta and antique lace gown flowing behind her.

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Robert Runcie led the traditional Church of England service, but he was assisted by clergymen from many denominations. The bride's nerves showed briefly when she mixed up the Prince's names - calling him Philip Charles Arthur George, rather than Charles Philip. Charles, 32, in the full dress uniform of a naval commander, slightly muddled his vows too, referring to "thy goods" rather than "my worldly goods". After a brief private signing ceremony, the Prince and Princess of Wales walked back down the aisle to the refrain of Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance.

The newlyweds took the open-topped state landau to Buckingham Palace where they emerged on the balcony at 1310 BST to give the crowds the kiss they had been longing to see. Afterwards Charles and Diana retired from the public gaze to enjoy toasts and a wedding breakfast with 120 family guests. A "just married" sign attached to the landau by Princes Andrew and Edward raised smiles as the married couple were driven over Westminster Bridge to get the train to Romsey in Hampshire to begin their honeymoon.

In comparison we have John’s prophecy,

Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure"-- for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."
[Revelation 19:6-10, ESV]

A royal wedding is a major affair. It is a celebration that everyone in the country takes part in, even though only a relative few may be invited to the feast. It carries national and political significance. After all, the reason King Solomon got into so much trouble was because marriage formed the basis of so many of his international alliances. In Jesus’ time the feast was not just a “breakfast”, but a seven or fourteen day marathon of feasting! The point to focus on and remember is that the kingdom of God is a major affair, a celebration, with huge significance for the whole of humanity.

But Jesus’ story is not about the royal wedding feast itself. It is focussed on the invitation to attend the feast. The king’s leading subjects in a city were invited. And they rejected that invitation. This amounted to rejection of the king’s authority, to rebellion. The mistreatment of his messengers was public humiliation of the king. This parable was told, in the first place, against the leaders of the Jews. The nation of Israel had been chosen to be God’s people. Through the prophets they had received lots of advance notice about the coming King. But when the long-awaited Messiah arrived in the form of Jesus, they rejected him. The chosen ones had proven themselves unworthy. The destruction of the city in v.7 must clearly be understood as a prophecy against Jerusalem itself, fulfilled in 70AD.

The invitation is then extended to both “the bad and the good”. This is a reference to the inclusion of the Gentiles. It emphasises the universal or unconditional nature of the kingdom of God. It is not just limited to the Pharisees and other religious leaders. It is not just limited to God’s chosen people, Israel. It is extended universally to all people everywhere. But this had always been God’s intention.

We can jump back to the story of Abraham and review the promise that God gave him,

Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
[Genesis 12:1-3, ESV]

The climax of God’s promise to Abraham was that all the nations (or families) of the earth would be blessed. Abraham, and his descendents - the nation of Israel - were chosen to be the source of blessing to all nations. Their failure to live up to that role, caused by focussing on themselves, led to the hard-heartedness that brought God’s judgement – upon the nation, and upon the leaders in Jesus’ day. What does the selfishness of the people in Jesus’ parable look like? Some were apathetic to the invitation to the feast and just went about their own business. Some were filled with antipathy or hostility to the king and abused his servants and killed them. The Greek word translated as “treating them shamefully” is the word we derive the English word “hubris” from. Hubris means “arrogance” or “insolence”. Both apathy and antipathy brought judgement.

What does apathy look like in today’s society? What does it look like in today’s church? What does it look like in my life?

What does antipathy or arrogance look like in today’s society? What does it look like in today’s church? What does it look like in my life?

After seeing the troops sent in to quash the rebellion among the elite, the general populace are more than willing to attend the king’s sumptuous feast. The invitation is indiscriminate. It was offered to anyone who was walking on the roads through, in or out of town. It was extended to those who were honest, hard-working farmers and to the slimey tax collectors. It included the hard-working wives and the promiscuous prostitutes. It included residents and foreign travellers. Both good and bad were invited to join the celebration. The leaders had proven themselves unworthy. These guests were not presumed to be worthy, they were just invited.

This is helpful for us to remember when we are experiencing a spiritual desert. In Part One we spoke about the frequent encounters with God that his people experienced in the desert. The reason these encounters were so special is because the usual blessings of God are not present in the desert. In fact, the desert or wilderness was usually seen as a place inhabited by evil spirits (c.f. Jesus temptation from Satan in the wilderness, the man possessed by a legion of demons). The desert fathers spoke about how Satan loved to point out their shortcomings, sin and failure during their desert fast. Those of us who wander through a spiritual desert can feel like we are outcasts from God’s kingdom. We can feel unworthy of any spiritual encounter with God. We can experience a heightened awareness of our sin and feel even more distant from God. This parable, with its driving message of the universal, unconditional invitation of the kingdom of God should encourage us to keep pursuing it even when we are most aware of our sin.

The invitation is universal, but it is not unconditional. The second part of this parable makes that clear. The change in tone of the king’s encounter with his guest has caused commentators some confusion. Some think of this as a later story added to the end, or a second parable independent of the first. It definitely makes a different point to the first part of the parable, but it complements the first point. The second point is that to be accepted at the wedding feast, the guests must accept the king’s gracious provision of wedding clothes.

The man spotted by the king must have refused the garments the king supplied to all the other guests. He thought that the invitation was all that was needed. He considered himself worthy of attendance, just because he had been invited. He didn’t act as though the wedding feast a special occasion. He ignored the fact that it meant submitting everything he had to the king. To refuse the king’s offer of appropriate attire was an act of “hubris” too.

In the same way, all are invited to enter the kingdom of God. There is no one who is excluded, unwelcome or left out. But accepting the invitation means surrendering ourselves totally to the Father and accepting all that he has provided for us through the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is a response of faith, demonstrated through obedience.

“God has provided the feast of the kingdom. It is the wedding feast for his Son. The invitation goes out far and wide. If you reject it, you miss the party. If you think you can get in relying on your own fitness, you will be thrown out.”
Michael Green

"Only our refusal to trust him . . . can hinder his purposes in our lives."
Joni Eareckson Tada

There is a difference between experiencing a spiritual desert and being cast out into the place of outer darkness. In the desert we are humbled, seeking after God’s righteousness. I have been there – aware of my sin and yearning for God’s empowering presence. In the outer darkness we are filled with angry hubris and mourning at our lost opportunity. I have seen a friend go there – angry at God, filled with darkness, yet still shaking his fist and arguing that God can’t exist. What is the condition of my heart?