There is a lot of weight that is being brought to bear on churches to conform to the LGBTQ+ agenda. The charge against the Church is that “it is unloving,” “it is wounding the members of the lesbians gay bisexual transgender and queer people,” and so on. At a point of time, the United Methodist Church was facing the heat. A “prayer” went around that read thus “For courage for the United Methodist Church as they prepare to gather in convention to discuss a way forward into being a more inclusive and loving church and for all lesbians gay bisexual transgender and queer people who have been wounded by churches and continue to be wounded by having their worthiness and humanity be a topic of debate. Lord hear our prayer.” The key word to all this is the word “inclusive.” Since the charge of not being “inclusive” keeps popping up often I thought it would be wise to deal with the issue.

What is “Inclusivity.” There are several ways of looking at this word, but to understand it in the context in which it is being used in this article, I turn to the Oxford Dictionary.
“Inclusivity: The practice or policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those who have physical or mental disabilities and members of minority groups.”

Is Christianity not inclusive enough? Is it unloving towards the LGBTQ+ community?

I think not. God is THE MOST inclusive Person EVER. In His costly effort to include everybody, He sent His son to die on the cross for all kinds of sinners. The Bible says “For He (Jesus) himself is our peace, who… has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility who has broken down every wall (Ephesians 2:14). Not only did God factor all people into His plans, He made a way at great cost to reconcile people towards Himself. So, for over two thousand years, there is an open way back to a right relationship with God through the costly death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.  On God's universally inclusive side there is an open door, through Jesus, for all kinds of people including the LGBTQ+ Over the ages, this door has been used by millions, including the LGBTQ, to enter into the Christian Faith. Paul writes about this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 but he notes “such were some of you.” In repenting they put their past sins behind them.

This is the problem. The door that God  has opened through Jesus has a requirement. In Mark 1:15 He (Jesus) said “..repent and believe in the gospel.” Repentance precedes reconciliation with God. This is not acceptable to the LGBTQ+. So they want another entry.  You see, any other entry, outside of Jesus,  into the inclusiveness offered by God seeks to circumvent the need for repentance of sins. The Bible requires that all sins be repented of, not just homosexual sins, before we can make peace with God. An integration without repentance calls for a disintegration of Christian core doctrine. The fault is not on our side. The door is open but they do not want this kind of inclusiveness. So Christians need not labour under false guilt. We have a loving, inclusive God and an inclusive Gospel. So the charge against us is not valid.

For the sake of the Church, I want to  address some foundational aspects of the facts and fiction surrounding the “inclusivity agenda,” so that people can navigate these times. The “inclusivists” want the  Christian definition of marriage to be changed. They want same sex weddings to be conducted by Christian Churches. They also want the same for the Bisexual, Transgender and Queer individuals as well. The problem is that the Bible teaches us that originally God made human beings as “Male” and “Female.” Further marriage was instituted between man and woman. To demand a change in this entails throwing out the verses in the Bible concerning these things. So the issue is plain. Do we stand for the Bible or do we get pressurised by the LGBTQ+ lobby to edit Scripture? They have been given their space by society, should they try to invade ours? Here is some information regarding this “Inclusivity” lobby.

Fact 1: Their “Inclusivity” is not really inclusive.
Their posturing is like this. “We are the inclusive people and the Church is not.” What if we turn it on its head and ask these inclusivists “If you are so inclusive, why don't you include our core beliefs into your system and accept us?” They won’t. Because by inclusivity they mean “you include my belief system and jettison yours to accommodate this.” That’s not inclusivity you may say, but bigotry. Well, welcome to the world of doublespeak. “Inclusivity” merely means what they want it to mean (à la Humpty). This technique has been around in politics for a long time but in our times we are forced to deal with it in matters relating to faith.

Fact 2: “Inclusivity” in the sense in which it is being demanded, is coercion.
Their inclusivity is coercion in disguise. To explain it, I use the following example. Take the case of food. If one says “I am a Vegetarian,” Then another person cannot tell him “I want to be identified with your group and be called a Vegetarian, but I will eat meat!” Then the first person is justified in saying “vegetarians and non-vegetarians are uniquely different. One abstains from meat and the other eats meat. They are opposed to each other as belief systems. One cannot be assimilated into the other without losing its identity. You have the right to your choice and I to mine. You can't demand I change to accommodate you.”

This is the case for all groups. All groups have their right to their choice, but they do not have the right to force it on the others. An “inclusion” that forces change on the other group is not inclusion but coercion.

Fact 3: The Inclusivity lobby has changed the emphasis from “facts” to “feelings.”
The body of science moves forward because of objective facts. We send rockets into space not because of feelings but by empirical facts from various sciences. Arguments for and against propositions can be brought about by calculations and facts. But when you deal with the Inclusivist lobby, you will notice the distinct change from facts to feelings.

Let us take the gender identity issue. Current thinking on Gender Identity states that it is psychology and not biology that determines who you really are. Your biological sex does not determine gender, your feelings of who you are does. So if you are a biological male who “identifies” as a woman, you have been given the right to call yourself a woman. Feelings and not facts reigns here. The DNA spells “male” without equivocation but changing feelings trump this. We can have quite a few outcomes out of this kind of thinking. Other than transgenders, news coverage has been on several other categories. There is “Trans-species,” where a girl called Nano thinks she is a cat trapped in a human body. There is trans-age. Wolscht, who at age 52 discovered that he was really a six year old girl, so he “transitioned” to become one. In his present identity, he is trans-age as well as transgender. There is Rachel Dolezal, a caucasian white woman, who feels she is a “black” trapped in a white body, so she identifies as “black.” so there is trans-race. All based on feelings. In all cases, biology has no confusion. But then we are not dealing with facts but with feelings. But important real-world implications come out of this kind of thinking. For example, in Wolscht's case, should his employers reconsider their decision in the light of his current “age” lest they be accused of employing child labor? Have birth certificates become redundant? Should retirement periods be extended if an individual discovers he is younger by twenty years? The implications are huge.

The language of “feeling” will be heavily present in all their other arguments too. “You are not loving you hate such people” is a common accusation. How the fact that you hold a different opinion, morphs into “hate,” is a mystery to me. But the intension is to put the church on the back foot while dealing with these issues. Some in the “inclusivity agenda” use a heavily redacted “Church History” to further their ends. But it is just a cherry picked mosaic of data comprised of the failings of the Church. Those charges are at times true, and they are a shame. In a way it shames God’s name as well. His heart’s cry “because of you my name is defamed among the nations” (Romans 2:24) rang forth towards Israel and now towards the disobedient in the church. But then, wait! That’s not the full picture. There were also those in the Church who were obedient to the Word of God. They were change agents for enormous good. No one can challenge the phenomenal amount of good brought about by Christian workers in all spheres of life like health care, the fight against slavery, medical mission, fight against illiteracy, work among the marginalised and the downtrodden etc. It was Christian work that brought emancipation to children who were being given away as child prostitutes in south India. So we need not labour under any “guilt by association” that is being foisted upon us.

Fiction: “LGBTQ+ inclusivity” is a rights issue and not a moral issue.
That is not true, it is both. We have the right to our choices and there is also a moral dimension to our choices. It is widely promoted that altered sexuality is a sickness and not a sin. So by inference, If you are born this way you have no choice and therefore not sinful. Unfortunately this is not true. All of us are fallen and prone to sickness and sinfulness. We are subject to sexual temptation because we are born sinners. The heterosexual man, who is sexually drawn to a woman not his wife is as guilty as a homosexual drawn to a person of the same sex. The fact that we are born this way does not make these desires amoral.

In closing I want to acknowledge that the LGBTQ+ enjoys an integration into the mainstream, have access to scholarships abroad, quotas in jobs, etc. Many NGO’s are also receiving funds for work in their midst for their medical issues and so on. The ones coming under real pressure are the Christians who are being forced to capitulate to their demands. The weight of the law is being used against Christians in some countries, as in the case of the Christian Baker in the USA. Now the pressure is building up on the Church to relinquish core doctrines. Succumbing to this pressure is tantamount to betraying the Biblical position. The challenge for the Christian is the same through the ages. You can choose the worldly point of view or God’s perspective. You cannot have both. You have to relinquish one to have the other. Choose this day whom you will serve… (Josh 24:15) Our choices have eternal implications.