I am a Catholic and I notice there has been a growing movement within the Catholic Church to accept anyone who wants to join the Church regardless of whether or not they will go to Confession or regardless of the lifestyles that they choose to live. Basically, for this movement, the Catholic Church needs to become a church of unquestioned inclusiveness. This has made me wonder if this movement is acceptable to God. Moreover, it makes me contemplate **what was the primary purpose of God sending His only Son to the Earth to save sinners**? God sending his Son to the Earth to save sinners implies that God does not approve of Sin and thus does not approve of people committing sins and/or leading a lifestyle that is sinful in the eyes of God. (Recall what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.) God decided to send his Son to the Earth and Jesus did the Will of the Father by preaching a message that people should not sin, for sin and sinful lifestyles are displeasing to His Father. Yet, God also sent Jesus to take away the sins of the world and this was accomplished through His Passion and His Crucifixion. This makes me wonder why was it necessary for the Son of God to come to the Earth and to tell people not to sin and to not lead sinful lifestyles if the Father's Plan of Salvation was for all of mankind's sins to be forgiven by Jesus's death on the Cross. This is an apparent contradiction by God because by Jesus taking away everybody's sins means that everybody can commit an unlimited number of sins and/or lead sinful lifestyles yet everybody will go to Heaven. **Was Jesus sent to the Earth so people could commit sin and lead sinful lifestyles yet still go to Heaven?** I am seeking to get answers from other Catholics, but I am also open to answers from those of other Christian denominations.

What does it mean for the Catholic Church to be inclusive ? Does inclusivity mean that of race? From one of the links: The St. Louis Mosaic Project Ambassador School program encourages member schools to reinforce an internationally welcoming and inclusive culture through pledges unique to each school. St. Margaret of Scotland is proud to be an Ambassador school.

In the wider hope/inclusivist theological framework, very simply put, people who have not heard the Gospel are not necessarily lost and destined for hell. Given that understanding, why does the Church exist and why has it lasted as long as it has? For example, one commonly stated purpose of the church is to evangelize the lost. But is that actually necessary in a wider hope/inclusive framework? ([see related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/41420/21576)) If not, then what is the purpose? Is the purpose that God is waiting to bring a certain number of people to salvation? That doesn't seem to follow either, since he could have simply saved more people before the coming of Christ, or done a mass conversion the day of resurrection and then immediately enter into the next age. Given the amount of suffering that has gone on for the last 2,000 years, it seems like God would need a good reason to allow the church age to continue the way it has. But I don't see such a reason. What do wider hope/inclusive theologians say about this? To them, what is the purpose of the church and why has the church age lasted so long?

I read [*No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized* by John Sanders](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579108342?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00) . I am persuaded about a wider hope for salvation other than exlusivism provides. I grew up in plain ole Baptist North Carolina and I was already suspicious of the exclusive position ("if people aren't evangelized they go to hell"), and this book cemented my belief that this thinking is wrong. However, now my foundation for missions is on shaky ground. I don't even know what real missions looks like any more. In a "wider hope" (inclusivist) framework, what is missions and how is it implemented?