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.

"The Lonely American Man" and The Church

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Listening to podcasts is my stereotypical millennial habit. Of the podcasts I listen to, Hidden Brain is among the most consistently good and I would recommend every episode Hidden Brain puts out. However, I believe the March 19th episode is one that I would recommend for you to listen to right now. In fact you can click the audio player below and listen right away.

The show has two titles - The Lonely American Man and Guys, We Have a Problem: How American Masculinity Create Lonely Men. 

I was convicted in listening to this episode as a church leader because much of what is missing in the lives of men is present within the walls of a church. We as a church have failed not just to "make disciples for Jesus Christ" we have and are failing at the basic levels of community. 

At this time I do not have any solutions to what ails us, but I was struck at one study cited in this episode. Specifically the people in the study do not have a fear to have a conversation with a stranger, but there was an overwhelming fear to start a conversation with a stranger. 

I am not sure how others start conversations, so perhaps if you have gotten this far you can leave a comment about how you start conversations with people.

Choosing Conflict Over War

War is often thought of as the ultimate conflict. Of course there is great loss of life and civilization in any war, there is great devastation and destruction in war. As it has been said, war is hell.

However, according to Peter Rolins, war is not the ultimate conflict but the absence of conflict. Meaning that we would rather see the eradication and elimination of the other person(s) than be in conflict with them. As such, war is what happens when groups/people refuse to have conflict and wish the destruction of the other.

Photo by Jordy Meow on Unsplash

The United Methodist Church has been in conflict for a long time. For some it is exhausting and no longer worth the fight. Some believe that we have irreconcilable differences. Some feel that we cannot be united as long as the Book of Discipline is not changed or if it is not being followed. Some believe that we are better off apart than together. 

Put another way, there are many who would rather not have see or interact or be in conflict with others in the denomination. There are some who choose war because it gives a false comfort. We believe that no conflict means comfort. No conflict means war. Even the building of peace has conflict. The difference in peace and war is that peace puts conflict in its proper place and war banishes conflict all together. 

I choose conflict over war. 

I choose to be in conflict with those I disagree with. Those who I feel are being total jerks and those who think that I am a jerk. I choose to be in conflict with those who break the Book of Discipline and those who desire it to remain unchanged. I choose to be in conflict with those who think I am a heretic and those who think I am saint. I choose to be in conflict because I choose relationships (even conflictual ones) over war.

The Uniting Methodists are people who understand that conflict is nothing to fear. In fact, conflict means we all are alive! If there is no conflict then the "others" have been eradicated. If there is no conflict then there is only war. I pray the UMC will come to see that the long conflicts of our denomination are signs of health and engagement. Let us not fall victim to the false comfort that comes from the sirens calling us to war.