The loving and Inclusive deception

[retlaw]

Lately I've been seeing a lot of news stories where Christians are being attacked for attempting to deliver the truth. The attackers most often attack the message as being hate speech and stating that Christians are supposed to be "loving and Inclusive". (as if it's up to them to define what we should be)

They might have a point on the loving part. We are supposed to love one another and we are even taught to love our enemies but that has ZERO to do with salvation. We do that because we are commanded to but no such offer on our part will cover their sins. Even with the command to love we are also commanded to tell them the truth even if that truth upsets them. Then they say we aren't loving them because we upset them.

The inclusive part is just flat out wrong. God is many things but inclusive is not a word I would use to describe him. While the free gift of salvation is open to everyone and he would prefer we all take it, you miss this free ticket you're going to hell, that's not inclusive at all, Matthew 7:14 tells us that narrow is the gate that leads to life and few will find it, the 22nd verse tells us of the future when many will claim to know the lord and will be turned away. Not very inclusive. So where does this inclusive idea come from?

Thoughts?

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Could you please list some of the news articles?

God Bless

 

[retlaw]

Could you please list some of the news articles?

God Bless

one example:
Police launch probe into church sign that suggested non-Christians will burn in hell after ONE person complained | Mail Online

down in the middle is a quote: Robert Gladwin, 20, said: 'It is my basic understanding that Christianity is inclusive and loving in nature.

The other examples I've read were all from christian individuals or churches who maintain that homosexuality is a sin, they are usually attacked with saying that "christians are supposed to be loving and inclusive", as if Christians are quaint bald headed monks who sit on mountain tops and bang gongs while burning candles. None of that in the Bible either.

 

[soundwavesurfer]

Do you mean that as a Christian you wish to retain the privilege to discriminate against others that are not like you, as you see fit?

 

[BryanW92]

Do you mean that as a Christian you wish to retain the privilege to discriminate against others that are not like you, as you see fit?

LOL. I saw that statement coming from a mile away.

The failure of Christians to embrace sin of any type is viewed by the worldlings as discrimination. So a person who hates God by taking pride in their sin can call Christians "haters" for not embracing that sin (even if they love the sinner and try to help them stop sinning). In our culture, it is hate to ask people to stop sinning and it is love to enable them in their sin. That's how far our culture (and even the church) has fallen.

 

[abysmul]

So where does this inclusive idea come from?

Thoughts?

In my humble opinion, it comes from the fact that people don't want to be "judged"... so they point the finger and say that Christians are not being inclusive and loving when they talk about sin, because when you talk about sin you are judging people.

It's made up, and it's a word game people pay to point the finger at Christians with the desire to get Christians to "stop judging".

 

[soundwavesurfer]

I'd think "love your enemies" and "do not judge" are quite clear statements. So having a problem with the idea of inclusiveness sounds more like an attachment to the freedom to reject any "others" one might consider unworthy? I don't think inclusiveness equates to embracing or endorsing other's sins. We are all sinners for a start.

 

[BryanW92]

I'd think "love your enemies" and "do not judge" are quite clear statements. So having a problem with the idea of inclusiveness sounds more like an attachment to the freedom to reject any "others" one might consider unworthy? I don't think inclusiveness equates to embracing or endorsing other's sins. We are all sinners for a start.

I think that's the problem. The Christian doesn't see them as "enemies". We see them as sinners who need to change. The secular world sees them as "good enough" and thinks that no one should ever change--if it feels good, do it.

When I sin and a brother or sister sees it, I expect them to tell me. When a person of the world sins, anyone that tells them (especially a religious person) is guilty of "judging". A Christian who enables that lie is not helping anyone except their own sinful nature (because they don't want a brother or sister telling them about their sins).

 

[soundwavesurfer]

If we are to love our enemies, then who are we not to love? I think "love one another as God loves you" says it. We are to love all people. None is to be shunned or rejected. This does not mean enabling or endorsing their sins.

 

[retlaw]

Do you mean that as a Christian you wish to retain the privilege to discriminate against others that are not like you, as you see fit?

It depends on how you define "discriminate", for instance, a man and woman in the church go through a very public divorce. While the divorce is under way the man brings his mistress who he'd been having an affair with to church and they are physically affectionate, holding hands, hugging, even kissing. AT this point he has gone way out of bounds of acceptable behavior and if I were a pastor (which I'm not) I would definitely ask him to refrain from bringing his girlfriend to church until his divorce is final. They may not like it, but to flaunt your sin in Gods house is just unacceptable.

Example 2. A woman shows up at church who is fall down drunk. Does she need help? yes, Should they attempt to get her help? yes, Does she belong in the church service? Nope.

If I have standards who I let enter my own home is it such a stretch to think that God has standards as to what goes on in his? What was the one thing that made Jesus mad enough to become violent?

 

[Loudmouth]

The inclusive part is just flat out wrong. God is many things but inclusive is not a word I would use to describe him.

We don't live in a christian theocracy. Surely our society can include non-christians.

 

[RBPerry]

We don't live in a christian theocracy. Surely our society can include non-christians.

You are mixing spiritual beliefs with secular. America is a country that welcomes people of all beliefs, or at least we are suppose to. Christianity does not, there is only one way and that is with Jesus Christ, and non believers are not included. Others may not like that belief but that's the way it is.

 

[retlaw]

We don't live in a christian theocracy. Surely our society can include non-christians.

There is room in society for non-christians obviously. But Christians are not required to accept all in their churches. The churches primary mission is to strengthen Christians and bring glory to Christ. Marginalizing our morals to fit in or to make the government happy does neither.

I believe the term "different" is being used to cover both sinful and unsinful behavior. For instance when I was a kid we were required to wear a suit to church. Today I wear jeans and a T-shirt. If I wore jeans and a T-Shirt to my church in 1975 I would have been considered different to the point of not being worthy of regular membership, certainly not leadership. But wearing jeans and T-shirt was not (even then) considered a sin.

Compare this to an open homosexual. They might think the word "different" should cover them in the same manner as someone wearing Jeans, or someone covered in Tattoo's or a girl with a shaved head. different is one thing, living in open, willful disobedience to God's word is something entirely different.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are mixing spiritual beliefs with secular.

How so?

America is a country that welcomes people of all beliefs, or at least we are suppose to. Christianity does not, there is only one way and that is with Jesus Christ, and non believers are not included. Others may not like that belief but that's the way it is.

As an American, should you be inclusive of homosexuals in our society?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is room in society for non-christians obviously. But Christians are not required to accept all in their churches.

With hate speech, we aren't talking about church membership. We are talking about a movement that wants to prevent homosexuals from gaining secular freedoms and rights, as well as calling for the execution of homosexuals in some areas of the more virulent movements.

Marginalizing our morals to fit in or to make the government happy does neither.

Do you think it marginalizes your morals if a non-christian is allowed personal freedoms that may go against biblical teachings? Do you think the freedoms of non-christians should be limited so that they fall in line with christian morals?

 

[RBPerry]

As an American, should you be inclusive of homosexuals in our society?

We are forced to, it is the law of the land. As a Christians I would not wish to exclude homosexuals from the American way of life. However I would not include them in church leadership and in many churches they would not be allowed to join the membership.

Each church has a right to include or exclude whomever they wish, if they don't have that right, they don't have religious freedom and our constitution gives us that freedom.

 

[Loudmouth]

We are forced to, it is the law of the land. As a Christians I would not wish to exclude homosexuals from the American way of life. However I would not include them in church leadership and in many churches they would not be allowed to join the membership.

You feel forced to allow non-christians the same freedoms you enjoy?

 

[BryanW92]

We don't live in a christian theocracy. Surely our society can include non-christians.

The OP is about the church being called non-inclusive for our stance on sin. The church certainly IS a Christian theocracy, with Christ as our king and leader of our church. There is no commandment for us to embrace and enable sin. We do not have to mirror society. In fact, we are warned to NOT be of this world.

And before you say what always comes next in this case, Jesus followed that with "Go and sin no more."

 

[Loudmouth]

The OP is about the church being called non-inclusive for our stance on sin. The church certainly IS a Christian theocracy, with Christ as our king and leader of our church. There is no commandment for us to embrace and enable sin. We do not have to mirror society. In fact, we are warned to NOT be of this world.

And before you say what always comes next in this case, Jesus followed that with "Go and sin no more."

I see nothing in the opening post that restricts it to just church membership. As we can see in the US right now, there is a christian backlash against secular rights being given to homosexual couples. It has nothing to do with trying to join a church.

 

[BryanW92]

With hate speech, we aren't talking about church membership. We are talking about a movement that wants to prevent homosexuals from gaining secular freedoms and rights, as well as calling for the execution of homosexuals in some areas of the more virulent movements.

Umm. That's Islam that executes gays.

As for those "rights": I can't marry my sister or add a second wife, so the "right to marry whomever you love" is already a non-right.

As for the "right" to join a church or be a pastor, there are already denominations that permit gays to join (all of the mainlines, at the very least), hold lay leadership positions (all of the mainlines), and be a pastor (ELCA, PCA, PCUSA, UCC, TEC, and probably some others).