The primitive church of the first three centuries practiced Radical Hospitality, and it thrived. The church of the twenty-first century must practice likewise or it will survive unrecognizable, and indistinguishable from any other religious ideology of human concoction. Christendom is no longer relevant, it is a bygone paradigm. The church today must be a living organism, not a lifeless organization. It cannot assume a common culture, but must take for granted the diversity in the mass of humanity and, therefore itself. We must return to the Radical Hospitality of Jesus Christ and the church He brought to life.

“Radical” is from the Latin word radix, meaning “root” (Isaiah 11:10; Rom. 15:12; Rev. 22:16). Today it is describes someone who “advocates violent change; a revolutionary.” But it originally meant “fundamental, or basic.” In chemistry a radical is a group of two or more atoms acting as a single atom. In math a radical is an equation where the root of a number is to be extracted. The root word, in Latin, for “Hospitality” is hospes (where we get the word “hospital”), and it means “good cheer, companionship, and good fellowship.” So, etymologically, we could say that the church is a basic, revolutionary place; a dispensary of holistic healing, where the whole acts as one and Jesus is the single root.

The church that practices Radical Hospitality (John 5:1-9) understands that humanity is hurting and broken; that it’s separated from one another and alienated from God. It realizes that at their core, humans are strangers to healing and wholeness. It gives these strangers a sense that the church really cares about them personally. And it reflects the truth of God’s love toward humanity. A church that practices Radical Hospitality does not simply place an “All Are Welcome” sign in front of the building, have a “covered dish” meal, and stand around waiting for the strangers to darken the doorway of their establishment (which strangers, by-the-way, never appear). The church is the people who, having answered the invitation to experience the transformation of Christ’s healing power, goes out in Christ’s transformation power inviting others to answer and experience the healing; having been reconciled, goes out to carry on the mission of reconciliation (2Cor. 5:18); having been made disciples, goes out and makes disciples (Matt. 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:45-49; John 20:21-23; Acts 1:8-11).

Radical Hospitality is not inviting people to be spectators at church, but participants in the church – the Body of Christ. It is not about an ideology that competes with other differing ideologies, but a reality which encounters no competition and is the fount of all truth. It is an invitation into the very heart of God; sharing God’s worldview in creation. While Radical Hospitality cares for those within the church, it is focused on those strangers who are without the church. Radical Hospitality is the church fulfilling its purpose as the image of God; offering the love of God (something people need) – Jesus Christ! It shows humanity that God loves them, that it is of value, that life has meaning and purpose, and that it is not on its own. Radical Hospitality teaches humanity how to love (out of God’s love). And it teaches us that we do not need to be told what we need, but we need to be shown what we need.

Hospitality is to always be Radical. It is always advocating basic revolutionary change. In the words of Edwards Deming, “A system produces what it was designed to produce.” No other results will occur if a change has not occurred in the system. We cannot continue to do things the way they have always been done and expect different results. We must return to the radical beginnings of the “original, basic, and native” church established by Christ. Church must be about a group of “atoms” acting as one single “atom” (Jesus!). Church must be a hospital where people are healed by the Great Physician. Church is to be an organism, rather than an organization, where its Root (Jesus) is extracted from its number (The People).

The notion that anything in the New Testament replaces anything in the Old is quite unintelligible. Likewise, the idea that Jesus left us – the church – with two commandments is a case of missing the point entirely. Matthew 22:37-40 (and Mark 12:29-31) deals with the question of which of the Commandments are the greatest, not which were left for the church to embrace. In fact, if this were about commandments (which it is not), then there would be simply one – Love (John 13:34; 15:12)! God supplies what God demands. To the point, Paul clues us in (Gal. 5:14), which has nothing to do with a commandment and everything to do with a single affection of the heart; not emotional, but purely logical. After a discourse on the irrational and irreligious (not to mention, theologically suicidal) notion of Christians adhering the Laws of Moses – to which he adds a rather graphic conclusion to such nonsense (Gal. 5:12) – Paul declares that the Law is fulfilled in (not replaced by) love.

The subject matter of Jesus’ discourse on this heading is not the commandments, but the love by which they are fulfilled. When God issued the commandments to the Israelites it was, then too, about love. The problem at hand for Israel was the fact that this love was precisely the unconditional and unmerited love of God, which outlet was only found in a shadowy set of commandments, ordinances, sacrifices, and simply mirrored in cultic worship. It was not until the Cross (and Resurrection) of Christ that the outlet for such love became widely accessible to all humanity. In Christ the two fulfill the others. Humanity needs only to live out of God’s perfect love, lavishing it on one another. In fact, this mutual lavishing of God’s perfect love on one another (“loving neighbor”) is the means to “loving God with all your faculties.” To be exact, it is God’s love for us collectively, which we accept individually and pour out corporately, by which we individually and corporately love God, thereby fulfilling all demands of the Law (which is not only written on stone, but on our hearts). There can never be a replacing of commandments (or all logic falls to the ground) and there can hardly be certain Mosaic Laws that are left for the church (which is highly irrational). It is love, however, which fulfills anything “old,” making it “new.”

The reason for the commandments was because of Law – the Law of Love, from the foundation of the earth. The Mosaic Laws were but a reflection of God’s original Laws – God’s worldview; God’s plans and purposes for creation – they are a reflection of who God is. Like the Natural Laws (i.e., for example, gravity) the Law of Love is older than humanity, let alone any commandments; for, it proceeds from the mind of God. The idea of “love” as a “law” does not concern a “command” but, rather, a foundational precept. God spoke creation into existence out of love, designed to express God-love within that creation. Love, having issued in a creative quality, is also experienced as a redemptive quality when humanity is healed by it. Loving God by loving neighbor is the work of God’s own love in creation. It is the image of God in us; the Law of Love at work in humanity, reconciling all things to God. The greatest commandments are fulfilled by love, and the Law of Love fills full (to overflowing) the image of God in creation.

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, lived about 200 years after John Calvin, but labored under the results of Calvinism. Likewise, as an original Protestant Reformer, Calvin labored under the results of Roman Catholicism. Calvinism is a movement out of a perceived works/righteousness of the Roman church. Likewise, Methodism is a movement out of a perceived idleness of Calvinism. 1,000 years before Calvin, Augustine of Hippo (of the Roman church) labored on the Doctrine of Election out of a perceived doctrine of works/righteousness. Calvin expanded Augustine’s work and Wesley worked to undo Calvin’s.  [This essay is an expansion of an earlier entry]

It (basically) boils down to the Doctrine of Divine Election to Salvation and/or Reprobation, and it’s Five Tenants:

1)      Humanity is in a state of Total Depravity because of the inherent sin nature of Adam.

All reasonable parties agree with this thought based on the Genesis account of the Fall of Humanity and according to the apostle in his Corinthian Correspondence and Letter to the Romans. Outside of Christ, humanity does not have the ability to choose God. The only possibility of salvation comes by the grace of God in Him first acting toward us.

2)      God Unconditionally Elects certain human beings for salvation; which logically, then, simultaneously elects the rest to reprobation (or, not-salvation – i.e., Damnation).

I find no reason to assume “Unconditional Election” because of “Total Depravity.” In fact, I believe it more rational that there is a conditional election because of Total Depravity. This necessitates a choice. “But how,” you may ask, “does one make a choice if that one is totally depraved?” John Wesley answers this question with what he termed Prevenient Grace. When Christ died for all humanity, all depraved humanity received the ability to, then, choose God (Prevenient Grace). But the choice is on each individual to receive this salvation. Calvin explains, likewise, that God shined His light of grace (as it were) onto the depraved of His choosing, thereby, unconditionally electing them. Augustine exclaimed, “There is no Free Will before Christ, but there certainly must be afterwards.” How does Calvin, here, agree with Augustine?

3)      Limited Atonement: Christ’s death was for the salvation of the elect and no other members of humanity. God chose whom He would save and Christ died only for them.

If, according to Paul, Adam brought sin to all humanity, then the Second Adam (Christ) brought atonement to all humanity [This conclusion rests on the Law of Opposites, as well]. All have been rescued at the Cross of Christ, but all have not received this rescuing act (unfortunately). If you do not believe that all have been rescued by Christ, then you cannot logically believe that all received the sin nature from Adam. Either all are condemned by sin and, then, rescued by Christ, or all are not condemned by sin and therefore not in need of Christ’s atonement. You cannot have it both ways; logic does not permit it. Christ’s death is sufficient for all (because death came for all), but efficient only for those who believe (because one must choose it).

4)      Irresistible Grace: The one God calls cannot resist the grace of salvation that God offers.

While it is true that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it does not necessarily follow that this hardening led ultimately to reprobation (or, damnation). God predestined Pharaoh to be the tool by which He would show His mighty strength. The idea that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart is altogether incidental to the argument of salvation and reprobation. It is a fine example of Divine Providence, but a philosophical stretch as an example of a salvation doctrine.

What of God’s “love for Jacob” and His “hate for Esau.” While both were still in the womb, before they could do anything right or wrong, God elected Jacob to be the recipient of His love and Esau He elected not. [The discussion of the divine love and hate is beyond the scope of this essay.] The fact that God loved Jacob and not Esau doesn’t necessitate that Jacob was, therefore, elected to salvation and Esau to reprobation. Scripture clearly explains that Christ would be the direct descendent of Jacob, not Esau. Thus, God, not concerned with the persons of Jacob or Esau, elected Jacob, and Esau He elected not.

5)      The Perseverance of the Saints: Whom God has chosen is saved for all eternity with no possibility of losing their salvation.

John Wesley (and Arminius – under whom Wesley formulated most of his theology) rejected the idea of the Perseverance of the Saints and insisted that one could lose the salvation for which Christ died. But this argument defies all known logic. Again, the Law of Opposites dictates that if one did not do anything to earn salvation, then one cannot do anything to lose it.

As such, then: God, in His Providence, has predestined certain folks for certain things and He has elected certain folks for certain things; but it is not logically or biblically necessary that either is for salvation and/or reprobation. He has elected that there would be a church, but he has not predestined who would belong to it (do not confuse Predestination with Foreknowledge). Humanity is totally depraved through Adam so that it could be totally rescued through Jesus; but it must choose Him, having been given the ability to choose correctly. And that rescuing which is not earned cannot be lost.