Inclusivity and exclusivity

I recently listened to a Timothy Keller sermon on Acts 8:26-40 which describes the encounter that Philip had with an Ethiopian eunuch who had gone to Jerusalem to worship. Keller describes how much of an outsider to the Jews/believers the eunuch is, from his origins to his status - both in his work as a treasurer to the queen, and his physical state.

And yet, Philip accepted him and baptized him. This serves as a reminder to us that we are to embrace all who come to accept Christ, no matter their origins. The easier example to recall is of course the person who was crucified with and defended Christ. All he asked was "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and Christ assured him "Truly, I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

There is no additional context provided, or at least none that we need to know. We don't know the background or history of this person, whether he was already a believer, but we know he was a criminal for he said, "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve." It was probably a pretty serious crime if he accepted that crucifixion was justified.

And yet, Christ assures him in no uncertain terms he will be saved. No pre-conditions or caveats, just a simple declaration. "Today" He said. Not sometime soon, or somewhere in the future. Sceptics will of course disagree but as believers, we accept Christ is Lord, and therefore His words have the full weight of truth.

So Keller makes the point that Christianity is one of the most inclusive, if not the most inclusive of faiths. Regardless of race, status, and any other orientation. Christ does not care who you were and where you came from. He only cares where you want to go.

Keller however makes the point that Christianity is also the most exclusive of faiths. He posted this on Facebook - "The gospel is an exclusive truth but it's the most inclusive exclusive truth in the world." What did he mean?

First he deals with the idea popular in some circles that all religions are equal because we are like the blind men touching different parts of an elephant, each claiming to know the truth. Keller quotes Leslie Newbigin (who wrote a book "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society") who was suddenly hit by the insight that people who claim that we are all only seeing one part of the truth (the elephant), must be claiming that they can see the whole truth or else how could they make such an assertion? This is of course an arrogant position that the most fervent omnists and atheists will also push, based on a perspective very prevalent today in society in which people define their own truths. All based on the idea that we are better off if everyone was free to choose their own paths.

This has been the most ruinous idea in the last few years. Are people happier? The current idea that we must be inclusive and embrace diversity (the big elephant in the room - how far do we go? Let's make serial killers, pedophiles et al feel welcome) is not something borne out of altruism (at least not for everyone) but is largely political. So people who argue for the Church to officiate same-sex marriages, that LGBT people must be represented, are seeking to change the status quo in pre-determined directions.

We have to be careful here because left-wing agendas today seek to make everything a black and white argument. If you are against their idea or position, it is hate speech. Which makes the whole inclusive argument redundant. So clearly not everyone (especially those with differing ideas) should be included, only who they want and that I think is the very definition of what is political.

I am always reminded of the related argument of representation (another political argument) that only gay actors should portray homosexuals in movies - clearly then, directors would have a hard time getting mass murderers, psychopaths and assorted criminals released from prison to reprise their real-life experiences. So many of the ideas about diversity and representation become a bit murky when you dive deeper into them.

The left-wing establishment is trying to make the argument that inclusiveness is somehow a morally superior position. The truth is that it is but a slogan or brand that people can arm themselves with to prove or show that they are more enlightened, more cultured, less fanatical than religious "zealots" - we are easy targets. Inclusivity is in a sense, a fraud because it is a term that seems 'fair' and unchallengeable to mask the real intent. It would be far better, and also more honest for the LGBT community to simply argue their case more directly but that would weaken their political ground.

Christians and their communities need to understand this distinction so that they can have better conversations when pressed on the subject. I didn't say we should have a better argument because that implies someone wins and someone loses the argument. This is where Christianity is inclusive, and in fact is more inclusive than the LGBT community in a sense. We welcome all into the fold, so long as they love God and are willing to repent. Gays may accept Christ and will continue sinning (whether it be on the issue of sexual relations or other sins) because they (and us) cannot save ourselves.

What then is non-negotiable and exclusive? Surely it must be that Christians accept Christ is God, and that His word is the truth. And my layman reading of it (supported by most mainstream Christian views) is that homosexuality is forbidden. However as a non-scholar of the Bible, I would be the last to claim that this interpretation is definitive - I respect the view of those who claim the Bible has a different view about homosexuality. If they want to form their own 'church' with such views, that's their prerogative and we can only try to show love and hope they come to see the real truth. We are then from mutually exclusive communities that agree to disagree. And if both do so out of love, that is the best outcome in my view.

However there are those who hold radically different views from the mainstream and claim that only they know the truth and that the Church must conform to their view. From a liberal inclusive perspective, they can't have it both ways. They cannot insist we only see one part of the elephant, but that they see it in its entirety. This is where the Church must maintain its stance because to do otherwise would be to put the foundations of the Church on sinking sand (as the line in the hymn goes).

I may need to hear all the arguments from the LGBT community that want the church to embrace them to understand them better, but at least one version of it relies on seeing things in a certain context. This to me seems a slippery slope. There are then many things that one could justify based on context - including the persecution of those who do not conform as the history of the church shows. Slavery is another difficult topic. Maybe best left to another day.