Missional Orders: Facing the Challenge of Necessary Exclusion
One such tension came with the issue of inclusion & exclusion. While we embrace the ideal of inclusion, there are aspect of our faith and its practices that are exclusive. For a group of people to embrace a shared set of practices, a rhythm of life and mission in a specific community, there is inevitably a level of exclusion that will result, even necessary. I said that we were attempting to make sure that any aspect of exclusion was that of the heart and not of means. By this I meant that we intentionally avoid requirements that are limited by financial means, social standing, educational/intellectual development, etc. Rather, if a person is to be excluded, it must be of their own choice or condition of the heart.
It is a real tension, especially in communities such as ours that have been crippled my poverty and systemic injustice. Generosity, grace and exceptions can bridge a lot of these gaps, but not all. For example, while conferences can & should be important gatherings for growth & relationship, they are largely unachievable by most of the urban poor we work with. Further, use of language and ideas that presuppose a level of understanding and education can also be exclusive (acknowledging that education/learning is part of our ministry to offset this).
With this in mind, my question to you all is this: How have you seen this tension navigated well? What practical examples can you give that we could learn from in this process?
I am eager to hear from you. Thanks!
It’s this very tension that drives me, on occasion, to want to become Catholic. I feel particularly the difficulty of navigating the various languages and dialects employed within different spheres of life and different socioeconomic cultures. For example, my wife, who is pursuing her phd, constantly feels the discomfort of relating her scholarly research to our northside Chicago neighbors. The women who show up at the weekly bible study she attends don’t care much for postcolonial theory or globalization lit, even if it is unbeknownst to them quite relevant to their lives.
What I turn to is a fuller embrace of the catholicity of the church. When God in Christ calls us together in community, he does so in our all our personal-ness, the specificities of who we are. If we have a truly global view of this community that Jesus started, we know that we do not bear the responsibility to do all things, for the Spirit gifts various people in various ways. While we all are compelled to show Christ-following, crucified love to our neighbors, the ways and spheres in which we do so vary with the particular places the Spirit has led us.
I guess this is all to say that the question is, What must love (or justice or peace or hope) look like in this context? rather than, How can we balance all the demands of all the possible ways in which we could be pursuing love, justice, peace, hope? This doesn’t provide a very good negotiation of the tension between inclusion and necessary exclusivity. But I hope that it place the tension in a more global, more catholic context.
Hey sagely,
Thanks for sharing. A well made point. However, the question you pose leads to some of the same challenges. For us, what love, justice, peace and hope look like (and how it comes into being) in our context means facing a very diverse group of cultures, experiences, socio-economics, etc.
I say this, not to disagree, but because I still struggle with this tension when embrace the specific idea of missional orders. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
This is really interesting, I do have one clarifying question though: would the main exclusive be sacramental community practises that are exclusive almost by definition?
Hey Liam,
The sacramental exclusion did come up in our conversation, which is another entirely fascinating conversation. However, I am think more of missional orders creating a two tiered community and the dangers of the approach. Great question though.
Peace,
Jamie
Jesus…happy to eat with the rich - not afraid to challenge them, happy to eat with the poor - not afraid to comfort them. He seemed to have a wide community, a closer community and a small circle. He’d be with the crowds, he’d jump in a boat with his buds, he’d get away by himself and be ok with it all.
It seems to me that commitment to friendship is the thing that will cut through any tension. I think I agree with you more than you do…generosity and grace can bridge ALL of these gaps…we just have to stick with each other through the awkwardness. Like get comfortable with it.
I’ve spent a whole day with homeless guys before and dropped them back off…home? And then went home to my actual home. It felt weird but ok…like…they were ok with it…happy to have been with us.
Levels of relationship are healthy…not that you keep people at arms length but instead, letting where you’re at in relationship lead the way (with, again, generosity and grace)…there is a homeless man that I would leave alone in my car with my kids, wallet and phone (in that order) on the dashboard. There are guys that all I have with them is “here’s some food, God bless you.” The guy in my car with my wallet used to be the “God bless you” guy. He responded to generosity and grace with the same. Now, he walks with me in ministry in a more profound way than I could have ever dreamed of on my own.
Excellent points all, Chris. I agree with you, especially because I know you are also committed confronting the causes of poverty, etc.
I think what I failed to do in this blog post was to explain what missional orders are. In that context, it is not about simply defining and allowing different levels of friendship, but rather defining requirements for participating in the missional community (as Jesus had several difficult requirements) that do not restrict a person based on means. Does that make more sense?
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
Great question. We’re considering similar issues in a (very small) inner city church plant in West Palm Beach. You can see our initial plan here: http://getting-free.blogspot.com/2008/05/making-disciples-of-jesus.html. What has happened since making that plan is that a more Jesus-centric version of the 12 steps has essentially become the predominant community ‘workout’ or rule. Which leads me to my thought: One example worth looking at (re: inclusion amidst a disciplined community) is AA. In our small church plant, even though the revised steps have become (and will likely remain) something of a community rule, people are certainly free not to work the steps with someone (as in AA, we just often suggest that they do so), but I can’t imagine someone continuing to be with us and never working them (just as in AA). They’re just becoming too much a part of our culture. There’s more to say here, but maybe in another venue. I’d like to hear more of you and your friends’ thoughts.
BTW, even though our current plant is coming out of a non-denom para-church ministry, I’ve got a strong Vineyard bent. We’re basically using the 12-steps to pursue true holiness, cooperation with God’s government, and love, and we’re using Wimber’s stuff to pursue and be ready to work with spiritual gifts.
Hey T,
Thanks for sharing. Interestingly, the 12 Steps have shaped our ethos here too (though not as explicitly as yours). The book “Understanding the 12 Steps” reads like a church planting manual. I’d love to connect more, so feel free to email me at jamiearpinricci AT gmail DOT com
Peace,
Jamie
Sorry, I will add this: one of the reasons I, at least, really dig the steps that deals with a concern in your post is that they are proven to be accessible (and effective for genuine transformation) by rich, poor, whomever, and tend to effect genuine co-working among very different people.
They also help us identify and overcome the ways in which each of us has participated with and been shaped by the evil within and without through following and trusting Jesus. ‘Addiction’ just seems to be an accurate way to talk about the core of our common problems in the inner city and the suburbs (not to mention those in ministry). Alright, I’ll quit now. God bless.
Excellent points. I agreed. Thanks again! And again, please drop me a line.
Peace,
Jamie
You are smart,only smart person can do such a smart job.
great capture,beautiful composition with rich colours.
Know that feeling all too well!
Wow look at all these comments your wicked popular I want to learn to get as popular as you are
Extravagance to an aion kinaorc was having a permanent place to live at all. They had been nomads or prisoners for buy cheap wow goldso long that the concept of “home” had been all buy gold wowbut lost. Several of the massive, greenish figures tilled a cheapest wow goldfield. Watching the tusked, brutish-looking workers, Krasus marveled at buy warhammer goldthe concept of orc farmers. Thrall, however, was a aion goldhighly unusual orc and he had readily grasped the ideas that would return aion kinastability to his people. Stability was something the entire world needed wow gold for salebadly. With another wave of his hand, the dragon mage dismissedwow gold cheapKalimdor, summoning now a much closer location—the once world of warcraft goldproud capital of his favored Dalaran. Ruled by the wizards of the Kirin Tor, the prime wielders of magic, it had been at the forefront of the Alliance’s battle against Wow Gold the Burning Legionhttp://www.game4power.com in Lordaeron and one of the first and most prized targets of the demons in turnma aion gold