Cultures of Exclusivity (And What To Do About Them)

One could not be alive and living in America during November 2011 and not have heard about the sexual abuse case taking place at Penn State University. At one time I only knew the name “Sandusky” as being a small town in northern Ohio. Now, I know the name primarily as someone charged with having repeatedly abused young boys in and around the Penn State campus. As the media scrum reached its frenzied pitch, a powerful byline of the assault story emerged:  that Penn State and its multi-million dollar sports program actually fostered and maintained a culture of secrecy and exclusivity. It is alleged that while young boys were innocently victimized that “higher ups” at Penn State, and the larger community, in general, colluded to cover-up their criminal actions. Lots of people from coaches, to campus police, to university administrators, to educators in the community at large knew of or about the heinous crimes being perpetrated in their midst, but no one, for fear of reprisals from the all-powerful Penn State, would speak out. When those who could no longer keep their silence spoke out, the story, and the accusations brought forward, generated a deep sense of tragedy, moral failure, as well as a shocking view into the predatory behaviors of a high profile, public, serial pedophile. Such cover-ups are not uncommon in institutions where the power is so extreme that those who belong to the organization are set apart or immune from any systems of accountability beyond or outside the institution itself. Penn State, for example, is now considering a review panel made up of persons with no ties back to Penn State. More than likely, this is too little, too late. 

Those of us old enough to remember also recall the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. “The Watergate scandal was a political scandal during the 1970s in the United States resulting from the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. and the Nixon administration’s attempted cover-up of its involvement. Effects of the scandal eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, the President of the United States, on August 9, 1974; this has been the only resignation of a U.S. President. The scandal also resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of several top Nixon administration officials.” [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal]. 

Still not convinced? Yet another example of a similar nature to the Penn State story is that of sexual abuses that have occurred in the Roman Catholic Church. The explosion of reports against the Roman Catholic Church allege a culture of exclusive secrecy dating back decades, in numerous countries, worldwide, involving thousands of victims. “In 2001, lawsuits were filed in the United States and Ireland, alleging that some priests had sexually abused minors and that their superiors had conspired to conceal and otherwise abet their criminal misconduct. In 2004, the John Jay report tabulated a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse had been made.” [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#cite_note-newsweek.com-12] The last example is particularly noteworthy since the Church of Jesus Christ—no matter its branding or denomination—ought to be above reproach and beyond allegations where institutional power is used against the weak and powerless in a predatory fashion. But the fact that such crimes have occurred in the church only evidences that churches can also be cultures of exclusivity where those that are different from “us” can and are routinely marginalized, abused or mistreated. 

So, at Christmas, it is particularly important to ask what can be done about such “Cultures of Exclusivity” where others (children, the poor, minorities, the hungry, addicts of every kind, and the smelly) are kept out while people of choice and privilege (usually, but not always, middle to upper-class whites) are reified in their places of exclusivity. The exclusivity that I refer to is the intentional keeping out that those seeking a church home often have to face when visiting a congregation. The insiders maintain and protect their systems of privilege while simultaneously blocking and giving the cold shoulder to those who wish to enter and experience the grace of God. Of the majority of churches I have led over 20 years, most have told me that they wish their congregations to grow—what is usually meant by this statement is that they preferentially wish their congregations to grow with people who look like them, act like them, talk like them, have children like them, live in neighborhoods like them, etc, etc. The raw truth, however, is that this is usually never the case. Most people who are not “like us” are definitively not like us. We cannot want growth, on the one-hand, and then demand of God, on the other hand, the kind and quality of growth that it will be. 

The answer, of course, to this rampant and damnable exclusivity, that subtly, but powerfully exists in the church is to remember that at Christmas Jesus Christ comes to the entire human race; indeed even to creation itself:  to lowly and meek Shepherds, to powerful political leaders, to earnest kings that seek, to working class inn keepers, to young children, to people of different races and creeds, and even the animals in the cradle stall. Into all that we would do to keep others out, Jesus comes as our Grand Provocateur to invite EVERYONE in. How dare He? But, despite our protests, He does! As it bothered the Scribes and Pharisees, it bothers us, too. Why should those who are different, difficult to understand. the lost or lower-class sit at the same table or share the same pew with me? Because love is not exclusive, that’s why? John 3:16 is a passage that speaks of the Christmas Incarnation. At Christmas, especially, we announce the Good News that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever . . . .” God’s love is not exclusive:  it is not just available for those who think that they deserve it. And it is certainly not denied to those on the Outside just because those on the Inside say that they can’t have it. God’s love is not selective based on race, gender, economic circumstances, etc. If God offers His love to all, are we to do any less? If Christmas isn’t just about “us,” but about “everybody,” should we not become the People of Inclusion rather than exclusion; the people of transparency, instead of secrecy, and the people of light instead of darkness? Christmas says, yes, we should.