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.

One Church Model as Yeast

The Nicene and Apostle's creed both have a line that affirms belief in the holy catholic church and if we read it too quickly then we overlook the mystery of that phrase. 

I was reminded not long ago in a meeting with church leaders the meanings of these words. 

• holy - set apart 
• catholic - throughout the whole
• church - the body that comes together in order to be sent out

If the point of the church is to be sent out, then why would it come together to begin with? Some might even call this a paradox others might see this is really inefficient. If the point is to be sent out, then are we not going against the point when we come together? Many of us see the benefits of coming together in order to be sent out and are not hung up by this paradox. However, fewer of us are able to reconcile the paradox of something that is both set apart and throughout the whole. 

We like to think that we are able to hold two ideas in our heads at the same time and give them equal weight. We like to think that we do not privilege one side over the other. We like to think that we are able to hold the paradox, but more often than not we will place one position over the other. Despite our inability to hold paradoxes, we continue to try because we know that life is never one or the other, but full of contradictions and paradoxes. 

For instance, are you a parent or a child? What color is the dress? What do you hear? Maybe the most basic paradox - "this sentence is false."

The divisions in the church these days might be understood as our unwillingness to attempt to hold these tensions together. Some elevate the role of the church as holy (set apart and different) while others elevate the role of the church as catholic (though out the whole or sometimes understood as universal).

Photo by Drew Coffman on Unsplash

You may recall that Jesus attempted to address this paradox of being set apart and through out the whole by speaking of yeast. Yeast is different form the whole and yet in order for yeast to function it has to be through out the whole batch. 

The UMC faces a number of decisions in February 2019 around how to include LGBTQIA+ people in the church. It seems to me that the option that is most like the church as yeast is what is called the "One Church Model." This model gives the decision about ordination and marriage to the most local body able to make the decision. Conferences decide who they are going to ordain as it is now, pastors decide who they are going to marry as it is now, and churches decide what types of ceremonies are allowed on church property now.

If we allow the the decision of how to include LGBTQIA+ persons to be spread through out the whole of the church then, paradoxically and mysteriously, the yeast retains its holiness. It seems clear to me that if the status quo remains or if there is a dramatic change in the current stance, then we move closer to being holy OR catholic. 

This is one more reason why I believe the "One Church model" not only is in line with the creeds, but is in line with our historical and Wesleyan tradition of affirming the holy, catholic church.

A Difference in a Sermon and a Speech

It is important that preachers pay attention to their context. For instance, if your ministry is in a college town and the parishioners are college-educated people who place a premium on learning, then you know that you are going to have to have a teaching element in the sermon or no one will listen to you. If you are in a context where people value being a church of "Go" then by goodness, you need to be sure to have a call to action in the sermon. 

Context matters, but it is not king. Christ is King. In this sense that means the contextual must be in service of the transcendent. A sermon that is trapped and cannot transcend the context is not a sermon in my book. 

Sermons are those declarations of Good News that speak to the context but then transcend it. So if your community values learning, then the sermon must not be only about teaching. It must include a teaching element and then transcend it so that there is a call to service. The church of "Go" needs to hear the sermon that calls to action but transcends that call to include a call to worship and be still. 

Sermons that are trapped in their context are just that - trapped. There may be a good word shared, but it is not Good News. It may make the community feel good, but if the proclamation does not include and transcend the context then it is a public speech, not a sermon.*

---

*This post is specifically directed to all the preachers named Jason Valendy.