The Church Is Not Inclusive

Today I sat and heard a message on why the Church should be more inclusive.   It came from someone that I love and respect very much, but I am convinced that the message was in error and they are very wrong in their interpretation.  Let me say here, at the outset, that the situation with most believers who preach tolerance and inclusiveness is not that they do not believe in the Gospel, it is that they tend to be so filled with compassion that they are confused and impute things to the faith that were never intended. The essence of the message was that the reason that sinners are not drawn to the Church is that we (the Church) are too dogmatic and a turn off. Evangelicals in particular are to blame.

As I was sitting there listening to this message I had two immediate and overpowering thoughts. 1) The Church is not inclusive, it is exclusive to the saints.  2) The Church does not tolerate, It enthusiastically EMBRACES whosoever will come into the fold.

The examples used to show how the Church is supposed to be tolerant were Adam and Eve hiding from God and blaming someone other than themselves for their fall, Jesus' acceptance of Zacchaeus, His interaction with those who caught the woman in adultery and finally, the prostitute who fell at Jesus' feet and washed his feet with her hair. While these are each examples of God's love, compassion and forgiveness, they are not examples of inclusion and tolerance. Let's look at the example of Adam and Eve. While this example sounds good, warm and fuzzy, it leaves something very essential and critical to the message out. Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden, separated from God and condemned to a life of work and then death.  Wow, that's kind of harsh and intolerant of God isn't it?  In His compassion God offered, through His grace, a way back to Himself and life eternal but only after He separated mankind through Adam and Eve from His presence. Then let's look at Zacchaeus. While Jesus told Zacchaeus to come down so He could eat at his home,  Zacchaeus afterward said he would give half of his wealth and restore anything he took falsely. In other words Zacchaeus, acted upon his encounter with Jesus.  In the case of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus ended that encounter with the words “go and sin no more.”  Finally in the case of the prostitute who came to Jesus and washed His feet, by the context, she wept because she had received forgiveness and was showing by her actions that she understood and wanted to express her gratefulness for the grace and forgiveness Jesus offered. The fact that Jesus said “much is forgiven,” indicates that she wanted out from the burden of some great sin.

There was another example shared; that Jesus ate and drank with sinners, which is true,  but here is where I believe the mistake is made. We, as believers have two responsibilities.  First, as members of the Body are to assemble with “the Saints.”  Secondly, as ambassadors we are also to go into “the world” and make disciples. Did you catch that? I will state it in reverse order. We are to go into the world and assemble with the saints. This is no little matter and should not be confused.  The mistake is in confusing going into the world and congregating or assembling with the world.  The church has become a “come ye” vs. a “go ye” proposition. Jesus said “go into the world and make disciples,” not, go bring people to church.  I worked with Youth With A Mission in Amsterdam for several years, where we did “Friendship Evangelism” in the red light and drug district of the city.  We would go into the streets and minister to the prostitutes and drug addicts and dealers. One of the things we did if a prostitute or drug addict wanted to come to Christ, was to remove them from their environment. We had specific facilities set up to deal with and minister to them. We did not bring them into the general body of believers until they were able to understand what they had experienced and were not a threat to the members of The Body. I know there are some who would say what threat and why should we be afraid of bringing people in. Jesus and Paul each warned about those coming into the assembly or among the flock. Wolves in sheep clothing comes to mind.  I could tell you many stories of pastors who did not feel a threat at letting certain people into the midst of the congregation who sorely regretted it later. In a small tight group it is not as much of a threat but as the various entities grow larger so does the threat.

This leads me to a simple question regarding this message I heard today. I know that the message was directed at certain segments such as homosexuals, cohabiting couples and possible those wrestling with addictions. But if one wants to get real and take it for what it is worth, would we not have to and include pedophiles, serial adulterers, and drug dealers, not just users (who have or are sinning much) in those we need to reach out too and tolerate? What are we tolerating or including?  Should we tolerate and include this behavior as well?

Finally, I take issue with the assertion that the Church is unable to attract people because we are not inclusive. Could it be the opposite? Could it be because we accept too much? That there is no longer a standard by which we are to live? As I said, I have seen friendship evangelism, but that is evangelism and not accommodation.  I encourage believers to go and reach out to any and all sinners. Compel them to come into the Kingdom of God, but also what that means.  If one wants to join the congregation or assembly of saints let them understand what saint means.  As Jesus said, “go and sin no more,” and you are more than tolerated, you are not just included, you are fully embraced by the body of saints.

A Question of Theology

A great many of the issues America faces today may seem economic or political, but they are in fact moral and theological issues.

The American government’s response to our current economic woes, as well as the themes of “change” epitomized by this most current election cycle (government usurpation of healthcare, wealth redistribution, etc.), are resulting in America accelerating head on into the depths of Socialism.

No honest electoral mob would consent to Socialism if they were not enticed first to break the 10th Commandment and covet what is not theirs.

What rapidly follows is a breaking of the 7th Commandment through confiscatory entitlement programs under the force of government.

Breaking the 1st Commandment brings up this pack of sins as government replaces God as a source of providence.

Ludwig von Mises and other economic and political philosophers are clear that you can’t have Socialism without totalitarianism.

The reason Socialism requires totalitarianism is that Socialism, by definition, will always unfairly burden the population.

Also, it has been shown historically to always fail in what it attempts to deliver.

Hence no clear thinking individual would tolerate the state coercion required by Socialism for a moment if they were not forced to submit to it.

There would be constant rebellion to Socialism unless you had totalitarianism.

To increase the socialist composition of American government necessitates a proportional increase in totalitarianism.

Any rise in totalitarianism comes with a corresponding decline in freedom. Where does one say “Enough!” as we slide across the spectrum from freedom to slavery?

Make no doubt about it, the loss of freedom in America today and the source of decay from which, God forbid, America’s demise would result, is due to a failure in the pulpit. America’s troublesome political and economic condition is merely a symptom. This begs these questions, especially relevant on a Sunday morning:


- Where are the pastors of America today teaching the theological fundamental of the 10 Commandments and convicting their congregations with their individual culpability as these sins are played out in the public and political square?


- Who would deny that sin is increasingly finding itself codified into law and government policy and who will take responsibility for permitting this?


- Where are the pastors today teaching their congregations that America’s founding principles are in fact Christian principles? Are they unaware of this connection and are they educated enough to teach it?


- Where are the pastors today teaching their congregations that they have a responsibility both as Christians as well as American citizens (who are the ultimate authority in our American form of government, not our representatives) to be knowledgeable of, and to unashamedly stand up for, American principles?


- Where are the pastors today teaching their congregations that Christian charity is based upon love, and by definition can only arise from individual acts, not legislated or delegated to government?


- Where are the pastors today ranking the threats faced today by both America and the Body of Christ and prioritizing which message they chose to deliver from their pulpit on Sunday?


- Do I even need to mention the 6th Commandment, as we have become a society which calls the murder of the unborn “choice,” as though someone were choosing liposuction?


I ask you all to prayerfully consider what I have said and would welcome any discussion of it. I have also attached some relevant commentary (c.f.: below).

For more on this issue see: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=81027


Michael J. Del Rosso