College Hill Presbyterian Church near the TU campus in Tulsa is going through a challenging phase in its history. A number of years ago, they chose to become a “More Light” congregation: one that is affirming of gays and lesbians, working within the church and in society for gay rights, marriage, and ordination. “More Light” congregations and other congregations that sympathize strongly with them elevate “inclusivity” as one of the high values that unites them. Such congregations frequently describe themselves as inclusive and express frustration with congregations that are “exclusive.”Several months ago, College Hill began reaching out to the Hispanic community near it. What some of the members hoped could become a Bible study reaching 10-12 adults has quadrupled expectations with about 40 people being touched on a regular basis with the gospel. What was envisioned as a small outreach on the periphery of the church has become much more, with non-English-speaking Hispanics showing up in significant numbers for Sunday worship and showing interest in joining the church.
From what I hear, the church is responding admirably. Spanish classes are being offered to help the members be able to communicate with these new visitors. A recent sermon was given in Spanish with translation into English. “Listening sessions” are being held where members can openly express their anxieties about the church changing, about what they’re afraid of losing, about their discomfort with trying to cross racial, linguistic, cultural, and educational lines all at once. Members are admitting that perhaps what they meant by “inclusive” was still pretty limited in terms of who they actually were happy to include (i.e. white middle-class folk, whether gay or straight). And members are remembering the anxiety they faced as the church debated its stance on homosexuality a number of years back. The memory of wondering whether they would be considered “good enough” to be fully welcomed into the church drives some of the members to try harder to embrace their new guests.
In reality, I don’t believe any human community this side of heaven is capable of being “inclusive” of all people. Communities are built on shared beliefs, shared practices, and shared priorities. As new members join the community and as existing ones go through experiences that change them, the central interests around which they formed their community will come under attack or be gradually altered if either the boundaries aren’t fixed or the center isn’t clear and compelling.
Thus, some communities will draw sharp lines to define where their boundaries are. They do this out of a mix of pragmatism and fear, I believe. Pragmatism, because defining the boundaries helps keep central priorities in place. Fear, because the communities are fearful of being changed or absorbed by the larger culture. Fear may also arise from a lack of confidence that the center is compelling enough to withstand change at the edges.
This emphasis on defining the boundaries can help clarify who the community is and what it stands for. However, it nearly always results in people being excluded from the community who would like to be a part of it. Another problem is that when communities focus on their boundaries, they can inadvertently recruit new members who share their concern about a particular boundary or issue but that do not focus their lives around the same center as those in the community. Before long, the community’s central purpose can get lost as energy and resources are poured into skirmishes at the margins. Ironically, the very effort to protect their central focus can end up as the thing that destroys it.
I experience this happening in the church in our battles over homosexuality. With our emphasis turned to a boundary skirmish, people with a dog in that fight are drawn into our congregations. Whether they stand on the left or the right of the political spectrum, they are not so interested in focusing their lives around Christ as they are interested in finding religious support for their stand on sexuality. Ultimately, for many that stand is more central to them than their commitment to Christ.
Jesus repeatedly criticized the religious leaders of his day for trying so hard to protect the boundaries that they lost sight of the center. His ministry was marked by his single-minded focus on the heart of the Law—loving God with heart, mind, soul and strength and loving neighbors as oneself. In his zeal to return the focus to the center of Jewish faith, he welcomed all kinds of people who were cut off by the careful boundaries that had been erected to protect the faith. Lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, Gentiles—all kinds of “outsiders” were welcomed in by Christ and lifted up as examples of faithfulness.
Christian communities ever since have been challenged to imitate Christ in this way. We are to steadfastly hold to Christ as our center and welcome all to come into our community and share that focus. There is still a haunting sense of being an “outsider” experienced by those who never come to share the central commitment to Christ (many of whom will be “good religious people” in our day just as they were in Jesus’ day). But the boundary of our community must be more permeable and we must remain forever open to being surprised by the people the Holy Spirit brings into our midst.
Let us hold our brothers and sisters at College Hill in our prayers as they walk through this challenging time of wrestling with issues of inclusion and their central commitment to Christ. May we strive to be open to allowing the Spirit to surprise us with new brothers and sisters that it is drawing into our midst to enrich us, teach us, challenge us, and focus us. May we trust that our center in Christ is compelling enough to hold us together when our boundaries prove too rigid. And may we imitate Christ in all that we do.
