PART ONE OF TWO POSTS
Since the church’s inception, controversies involving sexual related issues have defied the spiritual resolve of the church and its leadership (ref 1 Cor 5). Today, with the advent of instant, accessible information, these controversies have multiplied exponentially and impacted the church’s ability to conduct balanced outreach.
GCM Watch and other ministries have documented repeatedly how the social and political demands embedded within homosexual activism has challenged the church like no other issue before it. While some have drawn inferences to the issue of accepting blacks and women, there remains nonetheless, a fundamental and striking difference. Gender and skin color are immutable traits, whereas sexual conduct is not.
Under the umbrella of heresy and apostasy sits the inclusion doctrine. The contemporary inclusion theory really began in the world as diversity and somehow transmorphed itself into a religious ideology. Given its origin, it doesn’t work in the Kingdom paradigm because the Kingdom (of God) is intentionally exclusive; allowing entrance only to those who have been washed, sanctified and justified by the blood of Christ. Jesus taught an radically exclusive doctrine with himself as the prime example (ref John 14:6). While John 14:6 does not prohibit anyone from approaching Christ, it does prohibit anyone from going forward from that point should they reject him upon discovery.
The two tables
Inclusion is probably one of the most loaded euphemisms of our time. Ironically, inclusion applies to exclusive list of of sexual aberrations which are now declaring themselves “acceptable” on an as is basis. Acceptable not just to society (and all life is worthy of respect) but acceptable to God and his church. Acceptable not just to attend a church, but to govern and lead it. While all are welcome to attend church, all are not qualified to lead and govern. Thus, our conflict.
Inclusion is a regentrified expression of universalism, an old doctrine which was rightfully branded heretical and rejected by the early church fathers. Synergizing it (in a religious context) with homosexual rights, has given it new life. Religious homosexuals and their allies believe that everyone is equal in the church based on such scriptures as John 3:16. While true in its broadest application its artfully mixed with a substantial amount of lies. What’s more, the motivation for the lie accounts for the aggressive nature of the doctrine.
Inclusion supposes that Jesus rejects no one and accepts everyone “at the table”. True, but the question isn’t does Jesus reject people, but what is the table. This analogy and usage of the table is drawn from the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:15-23.
The inclusion doctrine ignores two critical about the table parable: one is in the passage, the other in a supporting passage. First, the setting for the parable is “the Kingdom of God” (vs 15). Secondly, we find that no unrighteous will inherit the Kingdom of God. Thus, if the table is set in the Kingdom perspective, no one who is unrighteous will be present to eat its fare. All are welcome to come to the table, but this coming represents what Paul taught was being “washed, sanctified and justified” in the name of the Lord Jesus by the spirit of God (1 Cor 6:11) after arriving at the table. True spiritual equality is only attained once a person has, through repentance, been cleansed from their sins and declared righteous by a holy God. Yet, religious homosexuals exempt themselves from repentance by declaring that their “orientation” is natural not requiring any change.
The table is transported by inclusionists out of the kingdom of God and reset in a socio-political-religious kingdom. Here’s the main problems with inclusion and their table of equality:
- Inclusion mixes a partial truth with a sinful motive
- Inclusion does not acknowledge man’s sinful nature and his need for repentance
- Inclusion treats grace as deserved rather than unmerited
Armed with this information, homosexuals then challenge the church. Please note that the challenges cut sharply at the foundational beliefs of the church such as sin, repentance, justification and redemption. This, in turn has prompted an increasing number of churches to redesignate themselves “welcoming and affirming” a fast track accommodation to those who are “denied” a seat at the table.
The doctrine of inclusion relies heavily on what I call replacement allegory. Replacement allegory is a theological trick which gives the individual the unrestricted freedom to remove real or apparent contradictions between Scriptures and current beliefs.
You can read more about that here in Bishop Yvette Flunder’s retelling of wilderness story in Exodus.