Exclusive-Inclusive Church

What does it mean to be an ‘inclusive church’? Are there really any ‘inclusive churches’ at all? In practice, the term is deployed to refer to those so-called ‘progressive’ churches, which want to ‘include’ LGBT+ people in their fellowships, in conditions of full acceptance and affirmation of their sexual orientation and practice. So, are such churches actually ‘inclusive’, for real?

Not really. All churches, whatever terminology they use to describe themselves, are both ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive’. They have to be. For example, a same-sex attracted Christian, committed to following through on Biblical teaching, and therefore celibate or married to a member of the opposite sex, would not find pastoral support for their stance in an ‘inclusive’ church.

Such a church simply could not, would not, support them in their fight against temptation, if only because they would not regard it as temptation, but as being true to their real self, if they ‘came out’ and sought a relationship with a member of the same sex. Such a person would, effectively, be on their own, in their struggles, in an ‘inclusive’ church.

They probably would still be welcomed in the church. But would there be a limitation on what they are permitted to do, how they could serve? I think so. The ‘inclusive church’ would presumably have a statement on their beliefs and values. Bible study leaders, preachers, everyone in leadership really, would be expected to sign up to, or at least agree with, the position of the church.

How would it be if a leader began spouting opinions contrary to this church’s doctrine? It would confuse those who had joined thinking it was accepting and affirming, and threaten their feeling of belonging in the church. As a visiting preacher, I wouldn’t expect, to be invited in the first place, or to have freedom to speak on controversial topics.

That’s not to say debate would be unwelcome. Rather that authoritative teaching would come from a single viewpoint. But would membership be open to a celibate same-sex attracted Christian? Perhaps, in a spirit of acceptance and tolerance for diversity. Though in practice, they might feel uncomfortable, in that their ‘option’ would not fully embraced or affirmed, but seen as an unnecessary and self-harming position.

In addition, for those churches which still practice some form of church discipline, and I know there are fewer and fewer of those, there might still be issues where even the most liberal church might feel obliged to take action. For example, if the person was active in a ministry toeing the Biblical line on sexuality; and especially if they spoke openly about it, perhaps even trying to persuade people to join, or commit to this stance as the only legitimate Christian option.

We all want to be ‘inclusive’, to welcome everybody. Nobody wants to be known as an ‘exclusive’ church’. But we all are, just for different things. The problem is that those who first coin a term, get to be ‘good guys’, appropriating its positive vibes.