Luke 13:31-35

³¹At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.”

³²He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ ³³In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

³⁴“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! ³⁵Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Last week we focused on Jesus’ words in v. 24, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” I left you with two big questions: 1) Precisely what is the narrow door we are supposed to agonize to enter? and, 2) Is God fair for excluding some from the kingdom of heaven?

The reality is that there are billions of unsaved people in the world right now, almost half of whom have never heard the gospel. If we cannot reach them in time (and we cannot, seeing as over 3000 people will enter eternity during the time I preach this morning), is it fair that they are excluded from Heaven? Isn’t there another way to be saved? I am certain all of you have wrestled with these questions at some point in your Christian walk. These kinds of questions arise out of a compassion for the lost. They arise out of an innate sense of fairness. After all, where do you think that sense of fairness comes from? God gave it to us. You can call it common grace, natural law or human instinct, but God placed this sense of fairness and justice within us Therefore it is not wrong, but natural to want an answer. The problem is that we can be led down the wrong path in our search for an answer.

For example, last week I read a quote from Tony Campolo which stated that he no longer believes in the exclusivity of Jesus Christ for salvation—that there are other ways to find God. I don’t mean to malign the good reputation of Billy Graham, but this quote from him is a little disturbing. “I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived." (May 31, 1997, during an interview with Robert Schuller)

Finally, here is an interview between Larry King and the pastor of the largest church in America.

“KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?
OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...
KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?
OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.”

This pastor seems to be saying that if you love your Hindu or Muslim God and you are sincere, then you have found the narrow door. He is trying to answer this question of fairness, but his answer has led him down the wrong path. He and others like him are arguing for a form of salvation called “inclusivism”. Let me define three terms so that you have a context for understanding.

Universalism—is the belief that all people to go Heaven because there is no hell. This belief is very common among mainline churches and is obviously held by Unitarian Universalist churches. Inclusivism—is the belief that anyone can be saved by appropriately responding to nature or to their non-christian religion. Like Osteen said, if you sincerely love one of your millions of Hindu gods then you can be saved. I have found that many Christians hold to this belief secretly and they are afraid to admit to it. One of my goals is to show you why this is such a dangerous belief to hold. Exclusivism—is the belief that only those who trust in Christ alone can be saved. This is the Biblical and historical position held by Jesus, Paul, Peter and most Christians for the last 2,000 years. This is what I believe, this is what our church officially believes and this is what I want to make sure is clear to each of you.

Some of you might be thinking that this is merely an academic issue, but this is more than mere semantics. What is at stake is nothing less than God’s character and the salvation of countless souls—including your own. If God is not fair and just, then he is not worthy of worship or even capable of saving anyone. But fairness that is defined as “anything goes” leads one into dangerous territory.

God is fair because people will respond to the gospel from every corner of the globe. Verse 29 says, “People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feats in the kingdom of God.” Just prior to his ascension Jesus said that we would “be his witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1.8) This was not an overly optimistic vision statement from the leader of an obscure religious cult. This was a verifiable promise from the risen Son of God and Savior of the world. We see this reality in Revelation 7 as we are privileged to have a glimpse into the future kingdom of Heaven. “I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count from every nation, tribe, people and language.” I want everyone to stop for a moment and look at the back of your hand. If your skin is white, you will be a minority in heaven. If you have blonde hair you will be an extreme minority in heaven. Dark-skinned, dark-haired people will be the majority in heaven because dark-skinned, dark-haired people are the majority in the world. Now don’t misunderstand me—I am not saying that light-skinned, blonde-haired Norwegians cannot be saved, there just won’t be as many of you there! J

The point is that salvation is not reserved for white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The gospel will not only go to every nation, tribe, people and language, but we are guaranteed that people will respond from each of those groups. How close are we to this goal? The missiologists who study this tell us that we have a ways to go yet. This chart shows the Global Status of Evangelical Christianity by the number of people groups[i] (www.peoplegroups.org). There are nearly 6,000 people groups that are less than 2% evangelical Christians. We have a long way to go, but we also have a promise that God is no respecter of persons—the good news will be preached to all people and believed in by representatives from all people.

The second reason we can know that God is fair is because no one grieves over the lost like Jesus. His lament in v. 34 is an example of genuine and deep sorrow for the lost who refuse to come to him. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” Abraham grieved for the lost. Remember how he bargained with God over the lives of the people in Sodom. Abraham was grieved over the Sodomites and ‘haggled’ God to agreeing that he would not destroy the city if only ten righteous people lived there. Moses grieved over the Israelites that were worshipping the golden calf. Moses said to God, “Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.” (Ex 32.12). The apostle Paul likewise grieved for the lost. He wrote, “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.” (Ro 9.2-3). How about you? Do you grieve over lost people? I hope that is an emotion that God is developing in each of us, but chances are good that none of us grieve as much as Abraham, Moses and Paul, and certainly no one grieves like Jesus.

Why was Jesus grieving? Because his own people were not willing to come to him. Do you see that his grief is proof of his fairness? If the good news is offered and rejected, then the one who is offering the good news cannot be blamed. If you had been caught on the roof of a house during Hurricane Katrina, I could not be held accountable if I tried to rescue you and you refused my help. Jesus is grieving precisely because his offer of salvation has been rejected by the majority of Jews in Jerusalem, and by extension, the majority of people in the world. This is why only a few are saved because so many reject Jesus.

Jesus’ grieving is also further proof that not all are saved—in other words, Jesus denies the possibility of believing in inclusivism. Why would Jesus waste his time grieving and mourning over lost souls if their strict Judaism was going to save them anyway? Jesus was mourning because many will be outside the feast of the Kingdom where they will be in a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Does that sound like they are going to enter through the narrow door? One of the main problems with inclusivism, other than that it does not have Biblical support, is the fact that inclusivism cannot logically leave anyone out. If you say that someone can be saved through their non-Christian religion, as long as they are sincere, then that would apply to most of the world. Not even an atheist can be excluded from an inclusivist standpoint because they can be sincere and loving. Therefore, in an attempt to defend God’s ‘fairness’, inclusivism becomes just another form of universalism. Those who hold this belief end up denying the Biblical reality of hell and mistakenly concluding that all are saved. Furthermore, inclusivism eliminates all missionary and evangelistic work. Why should we spend billions of dollars on missionary and outreach efforts if the world can find God apart from trust in Christ? Inclusivism is dangerous to the destiny of countless souls.

Theologian Roger Nicole explains this well. He said, “My surprise might be to find in heaven more people than I expected; I shall be happy about this. [The inclusivist’s] surprise may be to find substantially less”—including millions of people never reached with the gospel because of inclusivist indifference to missions. “On balance,’ Nicole says, “I prefer my potential surprise to theirs.”[ii]

The third reason we know that God is fair does not come directly from this passage. God is fair and just because we are incapable of perfect justice and fairness. Here is the Webster’s Dictionary definition of fairness: “playing by the rules; impartial, just, in accordance with rules and standards.” As I said earlier, we have this innate, God-implanted sense of fairness, but are we in any position to determine absolute fairness for all people throughout all of history? To think that we do would be arrogance of the highest order! If fairness is playing by the rules, then don’t you think that the One who made the rules is capable of perfect fairness? The justice system in every nation of the world is broken because humans are incapable of being truly impartial. We are incapable of perfect justice and fairness. Did you see that call the ref made in the last minutes of the Steelers-Colts game last week? Man, that was awful. I don’t even like the Steelers, but I was glad they didn’t lose because of that bad call. You see, fairness is part of our everyday lives and it constantly reminds us that life is not fair. There is only One who is perfectly fair and just and it is arrogant to think we know better than him.

“You call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially.” (1 Pe 1.17)

“The Lord loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.” (Ps 33.50

I understand why Christians are drawn toward inclusivism. I have felt the tug myself at times because I hate the idea of eternal punishment. Your inner longings for fairness are God-given, but an inclusivist belief leads to the following errors.

1. Ignorance—In order to hold to inclusivism, you are forced to ignore most of the New Testament. It’s not just the specific verses that teach that only faith in Christ will bring salvation, but it is the purpose of the entire N.T. Jesus commanded his followers to take the gospel to the whole world. The book of Acts records the spread of the gospel throughout the Roman world and the rest of the NT is written to churches that were formed as a result of obeying the command to go. If faith in Christ were not an absolute necessity, then the whole NT crumbles away to dust and meaninglessness.

2. Arrogance—An inclusivist thinks he or she has a superior sense of fairness. God says that many will not choose the narrow door, but you believe that they can enter the narrow door another way. Who are we to correct God’s theology? This is sheer arrogance.

3. Disobedience—Once you buy into the “anything goes” mentality of inclusive salvation, then you cannot help but disobey countless, Biblical commands to share the gospel with others. Missions and evangelism become irrelevant and unnecessary—a waste of time and resources.

Now let’s get to the question of the narrow door. Obviously we hold to the exclusivist position that necessitates faith in Christ alone for salvation, but last week we also saw that a person can be familiar with Jesus and even do genuine ministry in the name of Jesus but still not enter through the narrow door. I believe the narrow door is beautifully illustrated by verse 34. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” Jesus intentionally chose a picture of the strong bond of mother love to illustrate the narrow door.

Think about this from the perspective of the chick. The chick needs protection and warmth. The chick knows that these things can be found near and under the wing of its mother. It is the best of all places for a baby chick to be. Do you see how this applies to the narrow door? We can know all about Jesus and even do real ministry in his name, but still not be willing to come under the “wing” of his protection. In other words, we can be a rebellious chick. To come under his wing requires submission. It requires us to come under his commands. It requires us to continually acknowledge that he is the king of the universe are we are not. Most people like Jesus, many even know his teaching, but they refuse to submit themselves to his leadership and sovereign rule. I don’t mean the daily struggle with disobedience that we all experience, but I am talking about the person who stubbornly refuses to submit himself or herself to Christ. It’s the person who has the word of God on their lips, but their hearts are far from him. So the most important question is this—Are you a rebellious chick, or are you under the ‘wing’ of Christ, submitted to his care and commands? Do you trust that God is perfectly fair and just? Do you trust that he will do the right thing in regard to your unsaved family and friends, and that Muslim family on the other side of the world who has never heard the gospel? Do you trust him, or do you think you know better than he?

[i] For strategic purposes, a people group is the largest group through which the gospel can flow without encountering significant barriers of understanding and acceptance (www.peoplegroups.com).

What is a People Group?
Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins

A "people group" is an ethnolinguistic group with a common self-identity that is shared by the various members. There are two parts to that word: ethno and linguistic . Language is a primary and dominant identifying factor of a people group. But there are other factors that determine or are associated with ethnicity.

Usually there is a common self-name and a sense of common identity of individuals identified with the group. A common history, customs, family and clan identities , as well as marriage rules and practices, age-grades and other obligation covenants, and inheritance patterns and rules are some of the common ethnic factors defining or distinguishing a people. What they call themselves may vary at different levels of identity, or among various sub-groups.

Multi-Lingual Ethnic Groups

There are numerous examples of people who speak multiple languages but still consider themselves one ethnic group. There are several in the China-Nepal-India area.

The Dinka of Sudan speak a range of dialects comprising five separate languages, yet clearly consider themselves to be one people.

The Beja in Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt are another example. Among the various groups that all consider themselves to be Beja, different groups of them speak three languages: Tigre, To Bedawie (Beja) and Sudanese Arabic. Some are bilingual or trilingual, while some are monolingual in one of the three.

Multi-Ethnic Language Groups

At the same time there may be different peoples who speak the same language but distinguish themselves because of different histories, other factors causing enmity, an endogamous marriage pattern, differing political alliances, or separate self-name or loyalty to a different common ancestor or leader of a common source people group in history.

An example of this in the East African area are the many peoples who speak mutually intelligible varieties of the Swahili language, like the Arabs and the Shirazi (Afro-Asians).

Arabs

In East Africa the Arabs have for over a century spoken Swahili as their sole mother tongue, as have the Shirazi in Mombasa for centuries.

But the Arabs have maintained their self-identity as Arabs, both by name and culture, and maintained contacts with Arabs from Oman, Yemen and other Arab countries, some even learning Arabic as a second language.

Thus the Shirazi Swahili and the Arabs speak the same language, and compared to the traditional Bantu cultures of Kenya, Tanzania and Somalia, they are quite close in culture and religion. But they definitely distinguish themselves from each other. Part of the distinction is political, due to the discriminatory history of British colonialism, which tried to distinguish various groups of people as "native" or "non-native," placing the Arabs in the latter and the Shirazi in the former.

Monolingual Enemies

Some people groups find their worst enemies in other ethnic groups speaking the same mother tongue. One example demonstrating radical, inimical differences within one language group may be found in Bosnia. Three traditional enemies there, the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims, all speak Serbo-Croatian. Yet clear boundaries of culture, history, religion and self-identity separate them.

Likewise the Tutsi and Hutu inhabitants of East Central Africa now have a common language and culture and yet have maintained distinct social identities for almost 2000 years.

Thus various ethnic factors must be considered in addition to language for a full ethnolinguistic profile.

Gospel Strategy

For gospel strategy purposes, a key principle is to define a strategy for the largest ethnolinguistic segment or affinity group within which the gospel can spread through "natural" social networks . Where barriers are identified which would hinder or prevent the further spread of the gospel, we have identified the effective boundary of the ethno-linguistic segment, or people group.

Thus, a group of separate peoples who speak the same language might need to be identified separately for strategy purposes, because the other factors of self-identification and social organization for internal communication would keep the gospel from naturally being spread from one group to the other even though they speak the same language.

In other cases, the self-identification of the specific people group might be flexible enough that they would freely exchange cultural knowledge across their other ethnic factors so that the gospel could spread from one group to the other. To some extent that is the case with Swahili in the coastal regions of East Africa, because of the strong positive association with the language across otherwise separate peoples.

Nevertheless it is usually more effective to conduct gospel access in their own tribal language. It is in that deep, mother-tongue level where personal identity is developed and life decisions are made. But again, leadership training of believers can be effective in a shared language, because you are dealing with expansion of the accepted Christian worldview that they are already committed to sharing.

Multi-lingual ethnic groups maintain, or will develop, mechanisms or strategies for the transfer of information or cultural change across the language boundaries within their own ethnic groups, and perhaps for closely-related groups in the broader affinity groupings.

Ethnic Identity

In summary, ethnic identity does largely depend on a people's self-identity. This centers in relational and social groupings, not just naming systems. Further, language is a key factor in this group self-identity.

The western access worker or strategist brings a cultural problem to this task. Because of the western cultural thought-forms, we take a "systems" approach, which is abstract in approach.

We take a name for a people and proceed to define who can be called by that name. In investigating people group identities in the Horn of Africa, one access worker was reporting some initial findings. His comment read "the people themselves ... believe they are ...." The problem with that phrase is that it is a circular argument. This assumes already that they are a people by a certain name, so that we can refer to members of the predefined group.

Inductive Investigation

An inductive approach would be more valid, starting with the individuals to determine who they feel related to. This approach begins with the concrete relationships and natural social groupings of individuals, families and the larger society. So the operative question is "Who does this individual, family or social group feel related to?" What other families or groups do they consider themselves related to and in what ways?

It is necessary to ask (by observation, investigation and direct questioning where possible) how individuals or smaller communities commonly identify themselves. Then following that relational path, what is the largest such relational grouping within which ideas are exchanged and social obligations are maintained . Find out what the group call themselves at each relational level. A clue to the primary grouping for self-identity and the larger affinity groups is the various names that related sub-groups call themselves and each other.

This investigation of relational groupings will be the starting point for the strategic access person to determine the people group.

A major factor to keep in mind is the relationship of individuals who speak the language to the larger group identified with the language. Similarly, it is necessary to verify whether smaller groups speaking the same language share any supposed universal identity.

This is a simplified scenario of a very common and very complex pattern of human social ethnolinguistic identity.

Orville Boyd Jenkins, Ed.D., Ph.D.

Last Updated 01 April 2002

Orville Boyd Jenkins, Ed.D., Ph.D.
Personal Web Site: Thoughts and Resources
Email: research@ottawa.com

[ii] Ronald Nash, Is Belief in Jesus Necessary?, Christian research Journal, 2004.