It’s been quite the wild ride lately in political rhetoric. With the politics of hope and joy birthing anew with the Democratic ticket, Biden having stepped aside, it might be easy to think that surely most if not all the right-leaning folks might just see reason and join the other side. Lest we grow complacent, though, I wanted to use this blog post to unwrap some theological maneuvers that help us all understand how the unhealthy folks manage to maintain a hold on some otherwise reasonable people–and specifically how they manage to demonize what is otherwise an excellent thing: inclusivity.

My Background and Standpoint

I’ll be grounding this post in some rhetoric around the recent Olympics, but the theological and rhetorical moves I’m outlining are also ones that go back to my right-leaning childhood.

As always, I’m coming at this as a former pastor’s kid who went on to study and teach about stress, trauma, and conflict communication as a communication scholar.

It’s funny now that I have taught interpersonal communication for years, including the ideas that good relationships are most often based in helping someone feel heard and included, to think back on the fact that inclusion and inclusivity was so often demonized in my youth.

That doesn’t mean that I believe you need to tolerate the intolerable for healthy discussions, mind you–but it’s interesting to trace back those now foreign but also familiar pathways to see how scary inclusivity of at least some types was made out to be, back in the day. I’ve written about similar matters here.

Ah, That Whole Dionysus/Last Supper Fiasco

I’m responding here to a post that an educated right-leaning acquaintance of mine published in response to the Last Supper/Dionysus controversy from the Opening Ceremonies of the recent Olympics.

The post was striking to me in a lot of ways.

Insistence on One’s Own Interpretation?

Not least of which that while it owned that the Last Supper might not be the source material for the sketch, it used the (white male) person’s expertise in media to try to justify the author’s hunch that it was really the source material.

Despite what the organizers said and the presence of plenty of other possible source material.

This isn’t just pedantry—it’s a great example of something that may look like expertise applying itself, but really is one man’s opinion insisting on something at the expense of other explanations, especially in context.

Back to the Old Saws—How Dare You Make the Lord’s Supper Seem Happy?

The context, of course, perhaps predictably to those who know white Evangelical rhetoric, is that the argument goes on to demonize inclusion as “the only article of faith.” Using terms like nihilism and arguing that the Last Supper “was no party for inclusivity, nor an open table,” the author highlights the sorrowful aspects of the original last supper.

Indicting a Straw Man….

In doing so, he indicts a straw man—in trying to make the Olympics Bacchanalian feast seem to set the wrong emotional tone–and as a result, being deeply immoral (and, you know unchristian, mind you)–he erases all of the real nuance in the situation.

Which includes the fact that the same Jesus he’s trying to make sorrowful in the piece also turned water into wine to make people drunk. And the fact that this same Jesus, at lots of other times other than the Last Supper, was known for drinking and eating with those the religious authorities of the day thought to be sinners.

Outcasts as Heroes—and Inclusion as the Kingdom of Heaven

The truth is that Jesus, in his parables, was constantly elevating those seen to be outcasts as the heroes of the story. And making this kingdom of heaven thing he was peddling a way to gather outcasts in inclusively.

Now, I can hear it now what the evangelical message would be in response to this—“but wait! Jesus was always telling them to go now and sin no more.” The thing is that this is a way less frequent message than Evangelicals make it out to be in what he actually said.

Inclusivity as Idolatrous?

The point of all of this is to say that the way this piece—and other white Evangelical rhetoric—demonizes inclusivity is by making it into an extreme, by making it seem deeply immoral by default, and by making it seem deeply unchristian.

At the heart, these moves mean that inclusivity looks both blasphemous and idolatrous. As though to make space for multiple views automatically means you’re either bowing down to other gods yourself or making space for other gods to win.

Siiiiigggghhhhhh.

The Undergirdings of Christian Nationalism

See, this boils down once again to a very hierarchical view of Christianity. And this is what lays the groundwork for Christian nationalism.

(Not to mention that it erases the important work of progressive Christians who are working hard on incredibly valid things like queer theology.)

In this view, the author’s view of things is right, and represents a God that has to rule over all else. Everything else has to submit to that view of things. No space for others to have differing views.

That Scene Where Simone Biles Bowed Down to Another

I was thinking about this a lot as I was watching coverage of other Olympic events, and realized this same thinking would be at play when I saw the iconic image of Simone Biles and her teammate literally bowing before the Brazilian athlete who had won the gold.

See, the voices from my right-leaning childhood were there in my head: “tut, tut! They ought not bow down to anyone but God!”

Waaaaiiiiiittttt Though….

Except, wait, my grownup brain responded—what about submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ? Why does that verse not apply? Or the ones about how we should serve the least of these because they have Christ in them?

My point here is that these authoritarian ways of viewing God are not even consistent with other parts of scripture.

The Point Is That I Voted Based on This Garbage Even When I Was Uneasy about It

Back in the day I knew the other scriptures, and feel uneasy about the dissonance.

Nonetheless, I remember feeling like I needed to keep them as structures for how I should vote for entirely too long. And I can see in retrospect why that was.

See, if you combine a fear of inclusivity as extreme, immoral, and flat out blasphemous, it’s much easier to buy it when the right goes around telling you that Democrats are awful.

Bringing It Back Around

Hopefully this at the very least helps you understand how this sleight of hand happens.

It’s odd to me in retrospect how I bought this all those years, but I’m thankful I can see it now, and have hope that more will do the same, emerging from the tunnel.

In the meantime, let’s continue on fighting for love and inclusion and equity. As the saying goes, if I’m going to be on the wrong side of something, I’d rather be chastised for inclusion than exclusion. Rather prevent trans deaths than be on the side that causes them.

A Final Charge

Go team #AssertiveSpirituality! Let’s continue to do what we can where we are with what we’ve got to speak up against the toxic crap toward a healthier world for us all. We can do this thing.

Want to help keep this work going? It’s been 5 years of this project, and I finally have tip jars set up at Venmo and PayPal so you can help keep the lights on and such (THANK YOU for whatever you can do!). Here’s the info:

Venmo: @assertivespirituality

PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=Q2QWKELCNATBE

Looking for more resources toward speaking up for what’s right and dealing with the conflict that results?

Boy, do we have got a free “Assertive Spirituality Guide to Online Trolls” for you. It actually helps you with conflict both online and off. To get it, sign up for our email newsletter (either in the top bar or by checking the appropriate box when commenting on this article). Once you’ve confirmed your email address, we’ll send you the link to the guide in your final welcome email. You can unsubscribe at any time, but we hope you’ll stick around for our weekly email updates. As soon as we feasibly can we’re hoping to offer more online courses and other support resources for those advocating for the common good, and if you stay subscribed, you’ll be the first to know about these types of things when they pop up.

Want More Specific Help Applying This Kind of Thing? Message Me at the Assertive Spirituality Facebook Page.