Are All Welcome?

Walk past almost any church, browse the website or bulletin, and you’ll likely find some version of the same phrase: “All are welcome.”

It’s become one of the most common slogans in modern Christianity. And yet, if we’re honest, many people hear those words and quietly think: “Really?”

Because too often, what churches actually mean is: “You are welcome, as long as you become like us.”

You are welcome, but only if you dress like us.

You are welcome, but only if you talk like us.

You are welcome, but only if you behave like us.

You are welcome, but only if you vote like us.

You are welcome, but only if you love like us.

You are welcome, but only if you believe like us.

The invitation is extended, but belonging remains conditional. The message becomes clear…you can come through the doors, but you won’t truly be wanted until you conform.

I wonder if that’s one reason so many people have walked away from institutional Christianity.

Over the years, I’ve had countless conversations with people who no longer attend church. What’s striking is that many of them haven’t abandoned Jesus. In fact, many still strive to follow him faithfully. What they’ve left behind is an environment where they felt there wasn’t room for them.

I’ve heard people say: “There wasn’t room for my questions.”

“My LGBTQIA+ friends weren’t actually safe there.”

“My political views caused people to question my faith.”

“Tradition became more important than the movement of the Spirit.”

“I felt like I had to pretend to be someone I wasn’t.”

These stories should break our hearts. Because when we look at Jesus, we see someone who consistently created belonging before transformation.

The tax collectors belonged before they changed. The fishermen belonged before they understood. The doubters belonged before they believed. The sinners belonged before they repented. The disciples themselves belonged long before they fully understood who Jesus was.

Jesus rarely demanded that people get everything right before entering relationship with him. Instead, relationship became the context through which transformation happened.

Yet the Church often reverses the order. We ask people to believe before they belong. Behave before they belong. Conform before they belong. Agree before they belong.

But what if belonging comes first? What if people don’t need to earn a seat at the table? What if being welcomed isn’t the goal at all? What if being wanted is?

There’s a significant difference.

Many churches are willing to welcome people. Far fewer are willing to genuinely want people exactly as they are. To want them before they change. To want them before they agree. To want them before they understand. To want them before they fit neatly into our expectations.

What if our churches became communities where people could bring their whole selves…their doubts, questions, fears, wounds, identities, convictions, struggles, and hopes, and know they would still be loved?

Not tolerated. Not managed. Not treated as projects. Loved.

At First Wayne Street, I’ve often said that I want us to become known as the most loving place in Fort Wayne. Not the largest church. Not the most influential church. Not the church with the best programs. The most loving church.

Imagine if the criticism people had of us was, “Those people are just too loving.”

I could live with that.

Of course, genuine inclusion isn’t easy. In fact, inclusion is often misunderstood.

Many people support inclusion until they encounter someone they disagree with. But true inclusion means making space for people whose views, experiences, backgrounds, and convictions may differ from our own.

If we’re only willing to include people who already agree with us, that’s not inclusion at all. That’s uniformity.

Real community requires something deeper. It requires humility. It requires curiosity. It requires listening. It requires the willingness to sit at tables with people who see the world differently than we do. Most importantly, it requires love.

The kind of love Jesus demonstrated over and over again. A love that didn’t begin with agreement. A love that wasn’t conditional. A love that crossed boundaries. A love that made room. A love that transformed people not through coercion, but through relationship.

Perhaps it’s time for churches to move beyond saying “all are welcome.” Perhaps the better message is: You are wanted. Not because you’ve figured everything out. Not because you believe all the right things. Not because you vote the right way. Not because you fit our expectations. But because you are a beloved child of God. Because hospitality is not inviting people into our comfort; it’s making room for people in God’s family.

Making room often requires us to surrender our comfort. It asks us to loosen our grip on assumptions, preferences, traditions, and expectations that may unintentionally communicate who belongs and who does not. Genuine hospitality isn’t about protecting our way of doing things while allowing others to observe from the edges. It’s about expanding the table so that more people can find a place at it. And if we truly believe that, then our churches should be places where people experience belonging before they ever experience agreement.

To aske it again…what if our churches became communities where people could bring their whole selves, their doubts, questions, fears, wounds, identities, convictions, struggles, and hopes, and know they would still be loved?

After all, that’s what Jesus did.

And maybe that’s what the Church was always meant to do.

Permission to Hate?

Indiana Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith recently declared, “I hate Islam. It’s a demonic death cult,” and encouraged Hoosiers to become comfortable with “hating again.” He attempted to soften the statement by insisting that he loves Muslims, while hating Islam itself. These remarks were made publicly and have since been repeated and defended in subsequent interviews and social media posts.

As a Christian pastor, I believe those comments deserve a response. Not because I am interested in another round of partisan outrage. Not because I believe Christians and Muslims agree on every theological question. They deserve a response because making hatred acceptable is never acceptable.

When a statewide elected official, who is also a pastor, tells people they need “permission to hate again,” Christians should be among the first to object.

To be clear, I do not believe Micah Beckwith is the root problem. He is a symptom.

People do not arrive at this kind of rhetoric in isolation. They are shaped by theological systems, media ecosystems, political movements, and church cultures that reward fear, division, and certainty over humility, compassion, and relationship.

For years, a growing segment of American Christianity has been discipled not by the Sermon on the Mount but by outrage. Not by Jesus’ command to love enemies, but by the conviction that enemies must be defeated. Not by the way of the cross, but by the pursuit of cultural dominance.

What we are witnessing is not simply one politician saying something inflammatory. We are witnessing the fruit of a movement that has increasingly confused Christian faithfulness with political warfare.

The rise of Christian nationalism did not happen overnight. It was cultivated through decades of messaging that taught Christians to fear demographic change, distrust religious pluralism, and view those outside the faith as threats rather than neighbors.

Micah Beckwith did not create that system. But he is one of its most visible products.

Some Christians will undoubtedly defend Beckwith by pointing to Romans 12:9: “Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good.”

At first glance, that seems straightforward enough. The problem is that Scripture was never intended to be read one verse at a time.

Romans 12 is not a manifesto for cultural hostility. It is one of the New Testament’s most beautiful descriptions of Christian love.

Consider the surrounding verses: “Love one another with mutual affection…Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them…Do not repay anyone evil for evil…If your enemies are hungry, feed them…If they are thirsty, give them something to drink…Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Paul’s concern is not teaching Christians how to hate people more effectively. His concern is teaching Christians how to love in a world filled with evil.

When Paul says “hate what is evil,” he is not giving believers permission to baptize their personal prejudices, political opponents, or religious disagreements with divine approval. He is calling Christians to reject the forces that destroy human flourishing: violence, oppression, cruelty, exploitation, greed, injustice, and hatred itself.

In Romans 12, hatred is directed toward evil. Love is directed toward people. That distinction matters.

Jesus understood evil better than any of us ever will. He confronted religious hypocrisy. He challenged political power. He exposed injustice. He overturned tables.

Yet nowhere do we find Jesus teaching his followers to cultivate hatred toward entire groups of people or entire religious communities.

Instead, we hear difficult commands: Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you.

These teachings are not sentimental. They are revolutionary.

Jesus understood that hatred has a way of consuming the person who carries it. Hatred rarely remains focused on ideas. Eventually it spills over onto people. History has demonstrated that reality again and again.

When leaders normalize hatred, communities become more fearful. When communities become more fearful, they become more willing to dehumanize others. And once people are dehumanized, all kinds of harm become easier to justify.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this dynamic deeply. One of the central principles of nonviolence is this: Attack forces of evil, not persons doing evil.

King believed we must resist injustice with everything we have. But he also insisted that we never surrender the humanity of those with whom we disagree.

In other words, we oppose racism without hating racists. We oppose violence without hating violent people. We oppose injustice without hating those caught up in unjust systems.

Why? Because people are always more than the worst thing they have said, done, or believed. And because hatred cannot heal what hatred creates.

Dr. King understood that the goal is not the destruction of opponents. The goal is the creation of beloved community. That wisdom feels desperately needed today.

What is equally troubling is the silence from many of Indiana’s political leaders.

Governor Mike Braun and numerous Republican officials have largely avoided publicly challenging these remarks. Braun’s comment basically stated that Beckwith probably regrets how he phrased it. Not that he regrets the thought…just the phrasing! Perhaps that silence is political calculation. Perhaps it is fear of alienating a particular constituency. Perhaps it reflects agreement.

Whatever the reason, silence in moments like this carries its own message. Leadership is not only about speaking when it is easy. It is about speaking when it is necessary.

If an elected official can publicly encourage citizens to embrace hatred toward a religious tradition practiced by millions of Americans and billions worldwide, and fellow leaders remain silent, that silence becomes part of the story.

The church faces a choice. We can continue down a path where fear is mistaken for conviction and hostility is mistaken for courage. Or we can return to the difficult teachings of Jesus.

The teachings that command us to love neighbors. Love strangers. Love enemies. The teachings that refuse to reduce people to labels. The teachings that insist every person bears the image of God.

Christians can disagree profoundly with Islam. Christians can proclaim Christ as Lord. Christians can hold deep theological convictions.

But Christians cannot make hatred a virtue. Not if we intend to follow Jesus.

In a culture looking for permission to hate, Christians should be known for giving the world a reason to hope.

The Question Isn’t Whether Homelessness Exists Here

The ongoing conversation surrounding the proposed Anchor Resource Center at 333 E. Washington in Fort Wayne has revealed something important about our community. People care deeply about Fort Wayne.

Many of those raising concerns about the project are doing so because they genuinely care about safety, quality of life, local businesses, schools, churches, and neighborhoods. Those concerns should not be dismissed. Questions about implementation, security, staffing, transportation, and community impact are legitimate questions. Any project of this scale deserves careful scrutiny.

But legitimate concerns should not become an automatic barrier to action. At some point, every community must decide whether difficult realities will be addressed or simply discussed.

One of the recurring arguments against the proposed center is that it will bring homelessness and related challenges into the area surrounding Barr Street and downtown.

Yet that claim overlooks a simple reality: The area is already home to some of Fort Wayne’s most significant services for vulnerable populations.

The Rescue Mission has been located nearby for several years. St. Mary’s Soup Kitchen serves individuals experiencing food insecurity and homelessness in this area. Matthew 25 provides healthcare and support services to many who are struggling. Numerous churches, ministries, and service organizations already engage with vulnerable populations throughout downtown.

In other words, the need is already here. The people are already here. The services are already here.

The proposed resource center is not introducing homelessness into downtown Fort Wayne. It is an attempt to better coordinate responses to a reality that already exists.

That distinction matters.

Some opponents have expressed concerns that the center will negatively impact the Barr Street Farmers Market or other downtown destinations. Those concerns may feel understandable, but they remain speculative.

If the mere presence of people experiencing homelessness inevitably destroys public spaces, one might reasonably ask why that has not already happened.

The organizations serving vulnerable populations have existed in this area for years. The people they serve have been present in this neighborhood for years. Yet the Farmers Market continues to thrive and expand. Downtown continues to attract residents, visitors, businesses, and events.

Predictions about what might happen should be weighed against evidence of what is actually happening.

Another common suggestion has been that the resource center should simply be moved elsewhere. The challenge, however, is that “somewhere else” is rarely defined.

As city leaders have repeatedly acknowledged, there is no perfect location. Every potential site will have neighbors. Every potential site will have stakeholders. Every potential site will generate concerns.

To date, many who oppose the current location have called for an alternative site without identifying one.

That raises an important question: If every location is unacceptable, what solution is actually being proposed?

Sometimes communities unintentionally communicate that they support helping vulnerable people, as long as the help happens somewhere they do not have to see it.

Effective services cannot be hidden away from transportation routes, healthcare providers, social services, and the very resources people need to access. Relocating services farther away from existing support systems may make some people more comfortable, but it often makes it harder for vulnerable people to receive the help they need.

Perhaps we should ask different questions. Why is it assumed that people experiencing homelessness should always be the ones expected to move Why should those with the fewest resources bear the greatest burden of inconvenience?

If relocation is the preferred solution, perhaps the burden should not automatically fall on the “have nots.” Perhaps those of us with homes, businesses, churches, schools, vehicles, and resources should reflect on what sacrifices we are willing to make for the good of our community.

That may be an uncomfortable question. Yet communities are often defined by whose comfort they prioritize.

For people of faith, this conversation carries an additional layer of responsibility. Fort Wayne proudly refers to itself as “The City of Churches.” It is a beautiful nickname. But it becomes meaningful only when it shapes our actions.

The measure of a community is not how it treats the powerful, the connected, or the prosperous. The measure of a community is how it treats those who are struggling.

The proposed resource center will not solve homelessness. It will not solve addiction. It will not solve mental illness. No one is claiming that it will. But it represents an effort to respond to real needs with greater coordination, dignity, and compassion.

Reasonable people can debate the details. And, they should.

But we should be careful not to mistake discomfort for danger, speculation for evidence, or caution for compassion.

The question before Fort Wayne is not whether homelessness exists here. It does.

The question is whether we are willing to respond to that reality with courage, responsibility, and a commitment to care for our neighbors.

That is a conversation worth having.