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.

Against "Equipping and Empowering"

While working and living at Shawshank, Andy Dufresne had a supervisor named Samuel Norton. Samuel was very deft at utilizing Andy’s accounting skills and intelligence. He empowered Andy to manage his and other supervisors’ taxes. He empowered Andy to tend to the company library. He equipped Andy with paper and postage and empowered him to write to the state legislature to request more money for the library—which was eventually granted. He empowered and equipped Andy to help his co-worker, Tommy, pass the GED. Samuel even saw Andy beyond his brain and equipped him with tools and a team to re-tar a roof. Andy did so well in his work that Norton approved some beers to be given to Andy and his team. Perhaps one of the most remarkable decisions was that Samuel Norton empowered and equipped Andy to have full access to the entire organization’s financials. Andy was so good at this work that he was able to move the organization’s money around so that Samuel Norton had more funds to use at his discretion.

Samuel Norton was not always one to equip or empower Andy, to be sure. He often overlooked Andy, punished him for insubordination, and revoked privileges when Andy abused them. Samuel Norton was the leader of the organization and had other responsibilities that Andy did not know or understand. Andy would often ask for days off, but Samuel Norton could not allow it. A few times, Andy would even appeal to the board, only to be turned down each time. Andy saw other co-workers “get out” of the system, but it did not always work out well for them. Andy was heartbroken when he learned that his friend and mentor at the library, Brooks, died by suicide after he left the organization run by Samuel Norton.

In case it was not mentioned, Samuel Norton was the Shawshank Prison warden. Andy and his friends, including Brooks, Tommy, the rooftop team, and his most faithful friend Red (played by Morgan Freeman), were all inmates.

In the United Methodist Church, and perhaps elsewhere, there is an idea that leaders should “equip and empower” others. It is so common in our lexicon that in many ways it is either taken as gospel or a thought-terminating cliché.

“Equipping and empowering” has the stickiness of alliteration, but that does not mean it is necessarily faithful to what church leadership modeled on Jesus should prioritize. Equipping and empowering might sound like they are ways to upset the status quo, but rather they are often used to maintain the status quo.

“It is not that equipping and empowering others is too radical, but rather that it is not radical enough.”

Often, in the hands of human beings, equipping and empowering are extractive practices. We equip those who are going to do work for the organization and are disappointed when the tools we provide them are taken elsewhere. The assumed goal of equipping and empowering is to help the other produce something. We empower those who are aligned with the leader(s), not those who challenge the leader(s). The leader decides who is worth equipping and empowering, thus organizational power remains in the hands of the leadership.

Scripture highlights that the work of equipping and empowering is best done when it is the role of the Holy Spirit. One of the most apparent examples of the Holy Spirit equipping and empowering is found in the story of Pentecost. In Acts 2 we read the disciples are equipped with new communication skills and empowered to leave their place of hiding.

The Holy Spirit equips us with the teachings of Jesus (John 14). The Holy Spirit equips the body with different gifts (1 Corinthians 12). The Holy Spirit equips us with different “fruits” (Galatians 5). The Holy Spirit is remarkable at equipping us with what we need when it is needed. The Holy Spirit also empowers us. It was the Holy Spirit that empowered the disciples to preach (Acts 4). It is the Holy Spirit that empowers the follower to worship (Ephesians 5). The Holy Spirit empowers us to enter places that require courage to go (Acts 16). It really is remarkable when the Spirit does her work, because she is tasked with equipping and empowering.

Leaders who prioritize equipping and empowering risk pushing the Holy Spirit out of the office. The only power that the leader has is a gift from the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit that gives power, not the leader. And the Spirit is often located with the marginalized. This is why most church leaders know that the power of the congregation comes not from the pastor but from the body found in the pews. It is ironic to hear church members say things like “this is my church” but operate as though the pastor is the royal ruler. Laity know how much power they have and become hesitant to use it, which is why laity end up asking the pastor if they can do things so that there is a buffer in the event things go sideways - people can ask the pastor why the “let” this happen.

Leaders who focus on equipping may also overlook that what we think would be good equipping is often not for the work of God. David was not equipped by his family to be a leader (1 Samuel 16:11-13). Esther was not equipped to be queen (Esther 4:10-14). Moses could not talk good (Exodus 4:10). Isaiah had unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5). Paul did not even think he deserved to be called an apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9). All of these people would have been considered underequipped for their calling. Often the one who is being called is “under-equipped” but is overly called.

It is also common that leaders who prioritize empowering and equipping do not themselves have to undergo change or transformation. The change is expected in the one being equipped and empowered. Jesus Christ asks us to be transformed by taking up the cross, why do we elevate an approach that expects others to change around the leader? Samuel Norton did not change in any way regardless of who he equipped or empowered. He was still the same person who held all the keys and ensured order was upheld.

It is not that equipping and empowering are not good but they are often insufficient. Prioritizing equipping and empowering associates sin as a symptom of being human, not a condition. If the leader could just provide the right resources and tools, then the follower could change. If a follower could just be given the permission or power to do something, they would. It assumes sin as a symptom that can be treated with some combination of equipment and empowerment. Prioritizing equipping and empowering fails to account for the times when one is equipped and empowered but still does not or cannot act. Paul was equipped and empowered, and yet it was Paul who also wrote in Romans 7:

“I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.”

Even with the tools and the power, our condition keeps us from doing even what we say we want to do. Unlike a symptom, sin is like being in prison—it holds us captive. We can have all the power and tools we desire, but if we are still kept in the shackles of sin, we remain imprisoned.

Norton equipped and empowered Andy in many ways, but in the end, Andy, and all of his friends, were still in prison. No amount of equipping or empowering could change that. Norton could use the tools of equipping and empowering for the sake of maintaining the status quo, protecting the institution, and demanding very little change from the leader himself.

It is not that equipping and empowering others is too radical, but rather that it is not radical enough.

If church leaders no longer prioritize equipping and empowering, what alternate priority would be aligned with the Gospel of Christ? The next post will offer an alternative.

Disgust Will Kill the UMC and GMC

Within the United Methodist Church, the conventional wisdom is that differences divide and similarities unite. Therefore we need to create churches of like-mindedness because a church that has differences cannot walk together. It is the conventional wisdom that differences are obstacles to relationships, and so those obstacles must be removed or we must end the relationship. It is naïve to suggest otherwise. It is seen as ridiculous to suggest the opposite - that differences are what unite and our similarities are what divide.

And yet, I read this parable in Luke 18:9-14 in the Common English Bible:

9 Jesus told this parable to certain people who had convinced themselves that they were righteous and who looked on everyone else with disgust: 10 “Two people went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself with these words, ‘God, I thank you that I’m not like everyone else—crooks, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week. I give a tenth of everything I receive.’ 13 But the tax collector stood at a distance. He wouldn’t even lift his eyes to look toward heaven. Rather, he struck his chest and said, ‘God, show mercy to me, a sinner.’ 14 I tell you, this person went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee. All who lift themselves up will be brought low, and those who make themselves low will be lifted up.”

The Pharisee and the tax collector are both in the temple praying, but they are separated. Why are they separated? Because the Pharisee is disgusted with the tax-collector who is a heretical, stealing Jew who, from the perspective of the Pharisee, does not have a high view of scripture. Because if the tax collector did have a high view of scripture, they would know that it is a clear violation of scriptural to work for the Romans who worship other gods and enslave people. Disgust is an expulsive response humans have when we encounter disgusting things. It is why we push a plate away when we taste something bad. The Pharisee chose, for the sake of Orthodoxy, to separate himself from the dirty, lying, unclean tax collector.

Then notice, that when the two finish their payers, the parable reads, “I tell you, this person went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee.” The word in this parable translated as, “rather than” in Greek is the word, “par”. Par means “alongside”, as in “parallel” parking. At the end of the parable, the two men left the temple side by side.

Something happened in their prayer that removed disgust and the two walked alongside one another. They each were converted from their own disgust. The Pharisee no longer is disgusted by the tax collector and the tax collector is no longer disgusted with himself. The Pharisee is brought low, as in brought down to the proper level since he thought to greatly of himself. And the tax collector was lifted up, as in brought up to the proper level since he though too little of himself. And they walked out alongside one another.

We have no proof that either man changed how they prayed or how they lived. We may assume that the each went back to their work and their lives. We may assume they each went back to interpreting the scriptures the way the had before the prayer session. We may assume they have many differences even to this day, but they walk alongside one another.

The Pharisee and the tax collector understand that it is their differences that bring them together. It is their differences - not their sameness - that attracts one to the other. They understand that they could walk along side each other, even with their fundamental disagreements. The only thing keeping them apart was disgust.

The UMC is splintering, breaking, tearing or whatever word you want to use. The argument is that we have fundamental differences about the authority of scripture, the sovereignty of God, the role of the church, the human condition and the nature of sin. For the sake of argument, lets assume that the UMC and the WCA really do have such fundamental differences (we don’t, regardless of leadership suggesting otherwise). Are we to accept that the differences between the UMC and the GMC are so vast and so much greater than that of the Pharisee and a tax collector? If you think so then I would encourage a re-read of the Gospels.

After prayer, the Pharisee and the tax collector can walk alongside the other, not because one convinced the other, but because in prayer we let go of disgust.

Ultimately, from where I sit, the reason for the turmoil in the UMC is not because of any of the stated reasons, but it is because of disgust. We are disgusted with each other. You see this disgust in all the digital ink spilled as the GMC makes a claim about the UMC and then the UMC makes a claim about the GMC. We grow more and more disgusted with one another and, disgust is an expulsive action.

The GMC is pushing the UMC plate away. The UMC is pushing the GMC plate away. Neither of us will be justified when we come down our little mountains of self-righteousness.

If you read this parable and think, “The tax collector is doing it right and shame on the Pharisee for doing it wrong” then we are doing the very same thing that the Pharisee is doing in the parable. Could this parable be, at least in part, a call to see that it is only when we walk alongside those who are different from us that we have the chance to convert from our disgust. If we do not overcome or even befriend our disgust then we will always be enslaved to it. The more we break into the “likeminded” communities the more disgusted we will be with others. And the most disgust we experience the more we will expel.

At which point it is only a matter of time before we expel Christ from our churches.