Beyond Inclusive and Exclusive: Rethinking Church Boundaries
Over the past months, I have kept coming back to the words inclusive and exclusive, and specifically how these words are used to describe churches. It is too simplistic to say that some churches are inclusive and others are exclusive. Rather, it is worth considering the combinations of inclusive and exclusive. Placing them in a matrix, you get this.
From there, it is just a matter of fleshing out these combinations.
The Inclusive-Inclusive box. Because this group’s orientation is hospitable toward everyone, regardless of how they treat others, the group includes both inclusive people and exclusive people. This is the group or church that welcomes everyone - including the prejudiced and intolerant, on the understanding that hospitality does not depend on reciprocal action. This group is characterized by:
Unconditional hospitality
Exclusion itself is not grounds for exclusion
Emphasizes grace, openness, universality
We might call this box “Radically inclusive,” “Unconditional Welcome Group,” or “Universalist Community.”
The Inclusive-Exclusive box. This group includes inclusive people, but excludes exclusive people. Put another way, this group includes everyone, except those who refuse to include others. This is a concept sometimes referred to as the paradox of inclusion, which I encountered when Peter Rollins introduced me to Russell’s Paradox. You can read more of the inclusion paradox here. Still, the gist is that radical openness cannot survive if it refuses to set boundaries against forces that undermine openness itself. This group is characterized by:
Open to all except those who undermine openness
Inclusion is itself a moral boundary
Reflects the "paradox of tolerance"
We might call this box “Protective Inclusion Community,” “Boundary-of-Belonging Group,” or “Conditional Inclusion Community.”
The Exclusive-Exclusive box. This group is composed of people who exclude others, and the group also excludes inclusive people, because they do not share the group’s exclusionary values. Put another way, this group excludes others, and also excludes anyone who does not want to exclude others. For example, a white supremacist group excludes non-whites, but also expels members who object to the exclusionary project. This group is characterized by:
Identity protection or separation
Requires ideological conformity
Excludes both outsiders and dissenters within
We might call this box "Purity-Based Community,” “Closed Tribal Group,” or “Supremacist Community.”
The Exclusive–Inclusive box. This group sounds like the most complicated, but it seeks to exclude others generally. However, this group paradoxically includes people who are inclusive and excludes those who are exclusionary. To put it another way, membership is limited, but the members themselves are welcoming. As complicated as that may sound, think of the example of a private club or a monastery. Both of these groups screen applicants for specific interests (thus, the group has exclusive membership), but the group admits only those who themselves are socially welcoming and non-discriminatory. This group is characterized by:
The boundary is exclusive (not everyone permitted)
Those who belong are personally inclusive
Separateness without hostility
We might call this box “Selective but Hospitable Community,” “Covenantal Group,” or “Monastic Community.”
To summarize:
Or if we want to label the original matrix, we might get this:
This simple taxonomy of groups is helpful to help us define what type of group we are trying to create. Some of us in the UMC see the “radically inclusive group“ as the goal. Some in the UMC see that a “radically inclusive group” has a self-destructive feature embedded within it, and seek the goal of a “protective inclusive group”. The astute thinker can see there is a fine line between the inclusive-exclusive and the exclusive-inclusive groups. In an effort to create a “protective inclusive group”, the group can self police itself into a “supremacist group”. Likewise, there is a fine line from the “supremacist group” to the “monastic group” as the latter must hold firm to an internal check of filtering people in advance.
If we are going to be inclusive, then we have to deal with exclusion and its place. This paradox, this contradiction, this mystery is not only noble and beautiful, but it is the work of the Church.
