Missional Orders: The Necessity of Exclusion?
In the past two days I have had meeting with two people- one representing the Mennonite Brethren community, the other from the Vineyard- both of which have been exploring the idea of developing a missional order. I found it very interesting, as it was not the intention of either meeting to discuss these ideas, but rather “just came up”. Further, all three of our communities are rooted in Winnipeg’s inner city neighbourhoods. While each of us is still wrestling through what we mean by “missional order”, we had a lot of common tensions.
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!
Patrick Oden on 31 Jan 2009 at 12:37 pm #
I love your emphasis on inclusion. I’m sort of in between the two worlds, reflecting an included status in some ways but excluded in many others (such as a financial state that precludes travel and conferences). So, I get the importance of what you’re doing.
I think a big practical approach, that can apply across the board in many directions, is trying to do conferences, discussions, formation, tools, etc. in-house as much as possible. This might not result in always the highest quality but it does a couple of things. It naturally keeps the conversation within the bounds of the community’s ability to grasp it. It also builds investment, making the sorts of people who are generally targets into becoming full participants. Then as they engage the questions with their own contributions they will better appreciate, and understand, the answers others have given.
I’ve been through a lot of different church programs and conferences, with large and with small churches. Consistently if you give people a chance to explore their own creativity in producing tools and training for ministry they end up offering surprising contributions.
There’s still a place, I think, for those teaching at the highest levels, but we shouldn’t immediate jump to those as our first, and considered only, option.
Jamie Arpin-Ricci on 31 Jan 2009 at 4:46 pm #
Thanks Patrick. I agree with you about doing smaller scale, local gatherings. While it may lack the glam and quality of larger gatherings, I think it would bring a personal dynamic that would be great. Further, rather than hotel based, offering genuine hospitality into our homes would further the connection.
This is not to say the traditional conference will be gone (or should be), but rather that it would step back from its place as our central model of learning gatherings.
Great input. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie