Radical Welcome

Tonight at church after some work in the garden and a delicious dinner, I went to the first in a series of discussions about “radical welcome,” based around Stephanie Speller's book of the same title. The basic idea is that society has power structures, and those power structures naturally tend to show up in churches as well, with the same people who are marginalized in society as whole often being left out in church. More specifically, there's the issue of “doing for” as opposed to “doing with.” If someone is hungry, of course it's good to provide them with a meal, and even with shelter and job training and child care. But also important, and perhaps in danger of being forgotten, is that people also need relationships and community and the opportunity to contribute. To say that anyone can come into the church and join the worship service is necessary but not sufficient. Necessary because the alternative is to exclude people, which is just unacceptable according to the Gospel message. But insufficient because it's only allowing people to take or leave what's already been decided – not inviting people to be co-creators of the community.

One one hand, I think this is really, really important. On the other hand, I think it can be really, really hard. Hard for the simple reason that if you truly integrate people into the power structure who historically haven't been part of it, then in all likelihood people are going to use that power and are sometimes going to use it differently from how you would use it. And that can mean change, and change can be difficult. In some ways, I think that change might be especially difficult in a church. I chose the church I attend because it worked for me – the style of worship, the values expressed by the congregation, the sorts of activities carried out by the church. There's always the chance that changing something to meet someone else's needs might mean changing something away from the way it currently meets my needs.

But I do think it needs to be done. And the reason I think it needs to be done is that the message of Christ is more important than my specific preferences. One of the big, major points of the Gospel is that there is no outgroup where God is concerned. Jesus took time for people his society didn't look twice at, people his culture condemned, people who were unpopular, people he, as an observant first-century Jew, had no business being involved with. And he told his disciples to do the same. Historically, the church has often been very bad about doing this; my guess is ever since Constantine made Christianity the official religion, the very human people that make up the church have had some investment in the status quo. The church was for people who “belonged,” those who were accepted as part of mainstream society, which is about as upside-down as you can get from the idea that the whole point of the church is that everybody belongs.

One of the interesting parts of the conversation for me was hearing how my own church has changed its views on gay people and on the Liberian community within the parish. In both cases, the church has moved over the years towards greater acceptance and inclusion, so that by the time I joined, I had no idea that things had ever been different. Of course gay people are welcome here! Of course the Liberian community is a joy to the whole parish! How could it be different? This gives me hope that eventually we'll be able to cast a wider net, and 20 years from now people will say of course that's how it is – of course there are people from the homeless shelter next door singing in the choir. Of course there's a member of the substance abuse recovery program on the vestry. Of course our music reflects the diversity of styles valued by different members of our community. Of course. The Gospel is for all. How could it be otherwise?