“Inclusivity” is defined on my computer dictionary as follows:
“an intention or policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those who are handicapped or learning-disabled, or racial and sexual minorities.”
The problem with this definition is putting disability in the same categories as race and sexual sin. There is really only one race, the human one, and levels of melanin are not results of disability but are part of our Creator’s glorious design. Moreover, sexual sin is put in the category of “minorities.” That is like saying we should include convicted criminals of violent crimes on the playground. It is ludicrous.
Inclusivity has its limits, and dictionaries should know better to not confuse categories and terms.
I am grateful for inclusive playgrounds and environments that think about those with special needs. There should be a greater sensitivity toward a large part of our population that must use wheel chairs and to children who are super sensitive to sounds and lights that would otherwise go unnoticed by others.
The disabled are image-bearers of God. That means that the God who is invisible and who is Spirit (That is, who has no physical body) made them in His image to bear His glory. They are able to respond to him, communicate, love, enjoy, etc. In fact, the disabled may be even more sensitive to do so in some respects. However fallen due to sin, they too need to hear from God and respond to God. They need to be included. That is inclusivity at its best.
Inclusivity is not the acceptance of sin or the construction of incomparably insignificant differences like skin color, but the including of the disabled. My computer dictionary needs a revision, and the world needs a revival of true inclusivity.