Too Much Bumper Sticker Theology

I feel like we have a little too much bumper sticker theology going round when it comes to the concept of “inclusion.” It might be useful to establish some facts.

First. Jesus does not preach a gospel of inclusion. He also preaches exclusion. Matthew 25:31-46 is precisely about exclusion from God’s Reign. Or Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30. And I’ve only scratched the surface. Rev. 21:8. Jesus preaches for decision, and decisions are meaningless if they don’t have consequences. It may be possible for a rich man to enter the Reign of God, because for God all things are possible (Mark 8:17-26), but in the short run the man cannot be a follower of Jesus.

And of course in the end it turns out the terms of inclusion for following Jesus that all but a few self-exclude from being his disciples. Indeed this is a common theme in the New Testament, how many self-exclude when the going gets tough. Quite frankly, if Jesus wanted to include everyone he wouldn’t have set such tough conditions on being his follower. But it isn’t just self-exclusion. Jesus himself cleanses the temple (John 2:15).

And I note, his disciples keep up the same practice of setting high standards and excluding. Think of Ananias and Sapphire. Or of Paul railing against the Judaizers. Or of Matthew and Paul talking about the principles by which persons will be excluded from the church.

This isn’t just a matter of revelation, its a matter of common sense. The Reign of God is a place of peace, security, justice, and righteousness. Its a place where you don’t get eaten alive by your beastly neighbors. (Matthew 7:15, Matthew 9:36, John 10:12) The word “sanctuary” comes to mind. And the only way to accomplish this is by exclusion, excluding those who rebel against God’s Reign by their refusal to follow God’s laws. (Mark 12:1-12)

 And yes, law is a relevant term here. Love your neighbor as yourself is a commandment. Jesus himself places it in exactly that context. (Mark 12:28-31) Love isn’t a sentiment, it isn’t an emotion that comes and goes in a rush of hormones, it is a command that we obey by the control of our behavior with our will. Now I’ve made my point from scripture, and what appears to me common sense. Let me suggest that common experience is the same, because inclusion always works two ways.

If as a general principle it means including me, it will also as a general principle mean including my enemies. And I frankly don’t want them included. Not if they continue to persecute me. I want the church to be a sanctuary, and I expect that is true of everyone. And this leads me to a lot of grounds for exclusion. I believe that neo-Nazis, white supremacists, persistent pedophiles, people who abuse their wives and children, those carrying guns and knives, child molesters, people full of violent invective against my loved ones, and a whole host of others should be excluded from the church so it won’t be a place where the weak are devoured by the nasty. The table is open to all, with the important caveat that they confess and repent. Otherwise they’ll just steal their neighbor’s food and elbow children off their chairs.

 And this gets us to the problem of equating “love” with “inclusion.” Somehow United Methodists have sung the chorus “Jesus take me as I am” so often that they’ve forgotten the whole “potter and clay” metaphor that comes with it. The loving potter molds the clay, she doesn’t leave it in an lump, or misshapen, or too thin and fragile to serve its purpose. As an iron monger she beats swords into plowshares, she doesn’t leave them as swords. The problem isn’t who to include, its what needs to be transformed. I can’t just say “include me untransformed or you don’t love me.” What I can say is that I don’t believe the transformation you demand is justified by scripture and theological definitions of righteousness.

 There is a final piece to this. All communities exclude, as has the church since the time the apostles, those whose words and deeds destroy the very foundations of the community. All communities must define those founding principles and defend them against those who would destroy them from within. Jesus talks about this in Matthew 7:15. He is talking about Israel, but clearly Matthew records the story because he sees Jesus speaking to the church. Paul is ever vigilant about false teaching, notable but not exclusively false exclusionary teaching (Galatians 2).

One of the confusions among US Christians is the idea that the founding principles of American democracy (freedom of speech and conscience) are founding principles of the Christian church. The Christian church is not founded on freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. It is founded precisely on the constraint of conscience by the teaching of God’s Word and the constraint of speech within the bounds of Christian teaching. I think we need to get rid of the condemnation of those who “exclude” as opposed to those who “include.”

Inclusion is not a Christian principle. And just as inclusion is not a Christian principle, so exclusion is not a violation of Christian principles nor the law of love. Indeed exclusion is the only way to protect those whom we love from wolves without and within. The commandment to love can compel us to include. It can also compel us to exclude.

 What we have in the UM is a disagreement about the nature of God’s Reign, a fundamental theological disagreement about what constitutes the ideal human community living under God’s command. It isn’t about inclusion versus exclusion, it is about who to include and on what basis, which transformations are essential to the Christian life and which are not, and where to exclude both to preserve the foundational principles of the church and peace and security of its members. Tossing around emotional bombs isn’t going to resolve these problems, or even in the end lessen our obvious anxiety and pain.