INCLUSIVITIOUSNESS

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Credit where credit is due; I applaud Neil Christopher’s honesty. According to him, if your church really wants to be considered inclusive, you’re just going to have to nut up and be willing to tell some people to hit the bricks:

By defining themselves as being inclusive, they had to make a conscious decision to separate themselves from and make a stand against those whom would disagree with this choice. Furthermore, they had to take steps to protect those people they have decided to now embrace. What good would come from saying that someone from a different race was allowed to dance in your establishment if once there they were abused and mistreated by the other patrons? No, in order to be truly inclusive, they were obligated to make sure that anyone there was truly safe and secure. To not do so would be actually excluding those people you say you are including by your non-action. By allowing them to be attacked, even if through silence, you are actually excluding those you just opened your doors up to.

For in order to be inclusive to both gay people and straight people one must by definition be willing to let those who hate the idea feel excluded, and to not offer aid, protection or have consequences set up for those who attack one part of your group is actually taking the side against them, driving them out.

Yeah, pretty much.

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

If you think homosexual activity is a sin, why are you still sharing a tradition with people who think you’re a contemptible bigot for thinking that? And if you fervently believe that homosexuality is morally neutral or indifferent, why do you continue to associate with churches or provinces that teach that homosexual activity is an abomination?

Seems a tad inconsistent to me.