Should there be a limit to Christian Inclusivity?

[LightlyRoamingOcelots]

Question for Mumsnet Christians.
Inclusivity is really important to me, our church is part of the Inclusive Church movement. I strongly believe that God loves each person equally and that being gay or having a diverse understanding of ones gender identity is no sin. (I do believe it's impossible to actually change sex but have no problem sharing Christian fellowship with those who believe otherwise because God doesn't require us to be in complete agreement on all matters of belief, only that we love God and love one another). However, my inclusive and accepting beliefs are, I have to admit, being tested because one member of the congregation revealed during after-service coffee chat that he is a "furrie" (he wasn't talking directly to me but to another person in a small group I'd been talking with) and although he didn't go into graphic detail, he said enough that I understood thar this is a sexual fettish. The context was that we had been talking about craft/knitting/crochet and he shared a picture on his phone of something he had made, which he was trying to explain was a representation of the creature he perceives himself to be. I didn't say anything at the time and to be honest I have avoided interacting with him since, I am having trouble articulating to myself how to reconcile my belief in inclusivity which surely ought to mean that everyone should be able to be their authentic self, with also believing that there are some fettish/paraphila identities which belong firmly behind closed doors in private. Are there actually limits on the extent to which "All are welcome, you can be your authentic self here" is true?

Perhaps we would disagree on what inclusivity means but I would say Jesus included and welcomed people but didn't include their sin. We know he said to people go and sin no more, after welcoming them.

If this person is in some kind of sexual sin, either in practice or in his mind, this is wrong. Again perhaps people would disagree on at what point it would be a sin but it's something important to think about.

I don't see Jesus hearing him talking about sexual fetish and not saying anything. Of course I don't know exactly what the fetish looks like for him but it's something to bear in mind.

Its not our job to judge people as christians. I am pretty sure that jesus would have been more than happy to go for a meal at this persons house or spend time with them and thats good enough for me.
Love the sinner not the sin.
However, most people have something that they struggle to accept in other people and that is totally normal. When i have had this previously i have prayed that God will show me the person through his eyes so i can feel compassion and love for them.

Do you worship Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour @LightlyRoamingOcelots ? Loving the sinner is 100% inclusive. This compels us to hate the sin because we must love the sinner.

I agree with what @ChristmasStars and @Geneticsbunny have both said.

Once we have given our lives to Christ we are instructed to 'go and sin no more'. The Lord knows all the darkest deepest secrets of our hearts and minds. He knows the secret stuff in which we indulge 'behind closed doors'. Christ Jesus knows our struggles and He alone is our Judge.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but the "love the sinner hate the sin" position is regularly explicitly rejected in my chirch in reference to distinctly non-inclusive attitudes to gay and lesbian Christians - being homosexual is not sin, having respectful and loving sexual relations within a committed homosexual relationship is not sin and homosexual Christians have had enough of being patronised by "love the sinner hate the sin" preaching which categorises them as firmly "less than" the heterosexual couple in the next pew. So in that context my struggle is whether the same is true for every other kind of sexual preference - I can clealy and without doubt see that paedophila and bestiary are sinful as they harm others and "love the sinner hate the sin" would apply there (though it would be very difficult to give that love) - but this case seems to be in the grey area in between. I do find @Geneticsbunny 's point helpful that yes of course Jesus would have been more than happy to go for a meal at this persons house or spend time with them and yes that should be good enough for me. But is it good enough that I should also be happy to take a young teenager to a church boardgames event where I know he'd be there? Am I being prudish to feel uncomfortable with someone bringing their "whole self" to church in this way when it's not about judgement/morality (he can do what he likes with his sex life if it harms no one and involves only consenting adults) but just that it feels inappropriate to be open about this. I don't know that I am actually going to get much more help on this thread if it's all going to be talking about "sin" rather than what's actually acceptable to share information about even if it's not sinful.

Apologies. I realise that phrase is often misused in evangelical circle but i meant it very much similarly to you, it is not up to me to judge someone elses actions as sinful or not unless they are clearly and obviously abhorrent (murder, paedophillia etc).

Our own personal boundaries also exist though. If my own instinct was telling me to keep my teenage child away from mixing with this man, then no religious quote or teaching would make me over ride that. There’s a reason you’ve found what he’s said/ shown troubling. Listen to your gut.

I dont think its appropriate for anyone to be talking openly about their sex life infront of random people unless you know them well so i think it would be completely fine to specifically say that you dont really want to talk about peoples sex lives in a social situations to this person.

I had a look at the word furry as I had never heard of it. This seems to be about cartoon animals in films and media if I am right. Things like Bugs Bunny. This may not perhaps have to be of an adult nature for everyone who has this hobby.

To answer your question more broadly. I think that yes as Christians people can love the person but not the sin. I don’t though think that instantly makes that concept for everyone 100% inclusive. People may have varying degrees of inclusivity with their opinions.

Like, I don’t think it is 100% inclusive to oppose to gay people to be in blessed relationships. That is up to the individual and they can have their personal views and my views are not important here. If you are opposed to it you don’t need to make the claim that they are 100% inclusive to me and you are entitled to your personal opinion and yes you can still be a Christian and respect the person.

Do you worship Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour @LightlyRoamingOcelots?

It’s a sexual fetish that has proponents who use the idea of it being ‘innocent fun’ to groom young people and autistic adults online to take increasingly sexualised images of themselves in cat ears, dog collars etc. It’s based on sexual play where one partner acts as the ‘owner’ and the other as the ‘pet’ who must obey their owner. Be glad you haven’t heard of it up until now. I wish I hadn’t.

It can be a challenge loving all people, it's important to distinguish loving the person from affirming their beliefs or behaviours if they're against Biblical teaching. Jesus accepts us all in our sin, but He expects us to change, we are to become more like Him as each day goes by, and He had provided His Holy Spirit to aid us in this (otherwise we'd likely fail).

If we simply accept everyone and there's no requirement for change, then what is the point of having a relationship with Jesus?

If it's clear this young man is involved in sexual things that deviate from being in a married relationship, then that's undesirable of course and you rightly cannot affirm that part of him.

Unfortunately one's 'authentic self' before Christ is very sinful and distant from God. I do not want to be that self. I died in Christ and am now being sanctified thanks to His grace and mercy. Everyone embarking on their own Christian walk needs to pick up their Cross and carry it, but as Jesus says in Matthew 11:28-30 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

I do think it's a bit childish, and St Paul tells us to put away childish things, that is, see things in their proper perspective. As for it being a sexual kink or preference, well, if someone wants to dress up as a cat for their spouse I don't see a problem. But, in defining himself by it I suspect your fellow congregant is giving it more importance than it deserves, that is in Christian terms setting up an idol.

Well, why accept sexual activity ‘within a committed homosexual relationship’ and not sexual activity within a one-night stand or cruising or a sex party where people are all dressed up as cartoon animals? Wouldn’t that be even more inclusive, if that’s your aim?

Realistically your church sounds like it will accept whatever the mainstream accepted a decade or two ago. So you might as well get used to it or move somewhere else.

In 10 years there will be a new sexual preference/identity/practice and you’ll be asking the same questions. If you’re unmoored from Biblical teachings on sexuality this drift will never end.

Followers of Christ cannot love sin. That would be the opposite of following Christ. Sin has no place in following Christ. It cannot be accepted and it doesn't matter what society says or the particular sin.

I find it disturbing that someone would be talking about this in church, showing photos etc in the middle of a totally unrelated topic. I would be contacting head of safeguarding. If they aren't concerned, as they should be, I would find another church after alerting parents.

Agree with this. It sounds like boundary testing. If nobody kicks up a fuss at the first ‘reveal’, he will probably get more and more bold with what he shares.

As someone also part of an inclusive church, and who believes that same sex raelationships should be held to the same standard as heterosexual ones (monogomous, stable, loving), I'd also be concerned about what this person was sharing. If it's based on weird power dynamics within a relationship and/or people under 18, then it's a concern.

Good point.

Luke 12 49 “I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

Matt 10 11 “Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12 And when you go into a household, greet it. 13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

Matt 10 34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘setj] a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.