Mercy not Sacrifice: How the psychology of holiness as boundaries easily undermines the welcome of Jesus and the missional life of the church; and how classic Vineyard “both/and” thinking obscures this reliable social phenomenon
In the position paper Pastoring LGBT Persons the authors write on behalf of the Vineyard USA executive committee: “First, we must be committed to both mission and holiness.... At times, it can feel as if these two principles are mutually exclusive. But we are convinced they are not. It is possible to offer the radical welcome of Jesus while calling people to high standards of discipleship.”
I will be thinking with the Vineyard about position papers and bringing the Vineyard into conversation with Richard Beck’s Unclean. Following Beck, I will argue that the inherent tension in holding “mission and holiness,” together is not primarily a logic problem generated by a false dichotomy, (mission or holiness), but rather that the feelings of mutual exclusivity are more fundamentally rooted in empirically demonstrated biological influences on our social interactions. Since this mutual exclusivity is not a “logic” problem, classic Vineyard “both/and” thinking in the context of foul lines obscures more than it reveals. With Beck, I see Jesus framing an actual affective antithesis and siding with the “mission/embrace” side of the antithesis in urging his opponents to learn the meaning of: “I desire mercy not sacrifice.” Following Beck I will argue that Jesus is framing holiness and purity as matters of the heart that move us towards others. This is holiness via inclusion.
The full paper is attached to this post as a PDF.
Note from administrator: Your SVS membership dues (https://www.vineyardscholars.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=subscriptions) must be up to date in order to see the attached file.
A message from @Caleb Maskell (https://www.vineyardscholars.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=254):
John West’s paper is here presented in substantially revised form. John chose to revise his paper in order to most clearly bring the theological insights of Richard Beck’s Unclean into dialogue with the habits of theological both/and thinking. John’s revised paper foregoes discussion of the recent controversies in Ann Arbor in order to clearly focus on its central theological contribution. In any ongoing forum dialogue, please respect John's revisions, and avoid speculative or contentious discussions of recent Vineyard controversies that are inappropriate for this forum. Thanks!