menu

The Bible Doesn’t Support Inclusion

The Bible Doesn’t Support Inclusion January 7, 2014

Sorry-Closed-SignIt could be that the current move toward a more inclusive church is itself anti-biblical. To be truly biblical may mean we need to move to greater exclusivity.

We may need to institute genitalia checks on every man who comes in. The Scriptures clearly state, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord” (Deut 23:1).

We also need to check and make sure no woman who is menstruating is allowed anywhere near our worshipping communities, for indeed, “When a woman has a discharge of blood that is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening” (Lev. 15:19).

It may also be  that we need to stop accommodating for the physically handicapped, for the Bible says, “No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles” (Lev. 21: 17ff).

As for female clergy (or fashionable clothing) we are way out of line: “the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim 2: 9-15).

Clearly, the woman’s role is to have lots of children and hope that the process of childbearing will lead to her salvation. All who are childless,whether by choice or not by choice, need to know they have no hope.

As for the divorced: they’ve got to go.  Period. For the Scriptures say, “To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

Let’s stop all this inclusion nonsense and clean out the church.

Inclusion, after all, is not mentioned outright in the Bible.  It is only inferred, and done so primarily by Jesus, who had this unfortunate tendency to hang out with the marginalized and unclean. But we all know what happened to him–not a nice ending at all.

I think we can just toss Jesus out as a bad example.

Then, and only then, we can call ourselves “biblical.”  Of course, we might not be holy or kind or graceful or filled with the Spirit of God which fell freely upon even the “unclean.” But we’d be biblical.

And, after all, that’s what we want, isn’t it? To live by the letter of law, and make sure that those who make us uncomfortable stay away?


Browse Our Archives