Tag Archives: General Assembly

“You Can Come” vs. “You’re Invited”

invitation

While at General Assembly, I was blessed to participate in a panel luncheon hosted by Covenant Network of Presbyterians. The theme of the luncheon was “Toward a Truly Inclusive Church.” In my portion of the discussion, I offered an illustration that one of the attendees encouraged me to share on my blog. So, I share it with you now!

Imagine that you are in a grocery store doing some shopping and you run into someone you know. This is someone you respect and like and who you’d probably call a “friend.” In his shopping cart, he has all manner of steaks, ribs, burgers, hot dogs, buns, and condiments, more than one family can eat in a single sitting. It’s clear he’s preparing for a big gathering. You remark about the contents of his cart and he says, “Yeah, I’m having a cookout tomorrow. Oh wait, you can come if you want!”

Now, what if, when he first started planning the cookout weeks ago, this friend had called you personally and invited you to his cookout? What if he had asked then if you had any dietary restrictions that might impact his shopping list? What if he’d had you in mind from the beginning?

In the first scenario, the invitation is passive and you are clearly an afterthought (perhaps not maliciously so, but an afterthought nonetheless). In the second scenario, the invitation is active. You are and have been part of the equation. There is intention behind the invitation, and that has been informed by your relationship to the friend.

When it comes to being an inclusive church (or any other institution), there is a difference between “you can come,” and “you’re invited!”

Often, we want people to come join with us in what we’re already doing. We have in mind what we want or how we expect a thing to look. Except, including others and sharing voice with others automatically changes how the thing will look. If you invite a vegan to your cookout, you might have to try a new recipe, which likely requires you to step out of your comfort zone. But you do so because not only is their presence important to you, but so is their participation. It is the same with the church that seeks to be inclusive. We must be mindful of the ways in which we extend our invitation. Switching metaphors now, how can we move from asking people to board the bus we’re already on and instead work together to figure out which is the bus we should be taking?

Since that luncheon, I’ve been thinking about passive vs. active invitation and inclusion. Who has been an afterthought to me? I hope that before every, er, “cookout” we plan, we ask this very important question. I don’t expect us to get this right every time. I certainly won’t. But it’s a habit we must form if inclusion is truly important to us.

The PC(USA)’s Multicultural Conundrum

Photo Credit: http://pcusa.org
Photo Credit: http://pcusa.org
The following post was my submission to a special post-General-Assembly edition of the NCP Monthly, an editorial publication of the National Capital Presbytery. You can read the original issue here.

The 221st General Assembly of the PC(USA) has now concluded. Do you know how many times the ethnicity of our new Vice-Moderator has been brought up? A few too many for my comfort.

In case you’re not aware, Elder Heath Rada and the Reverend Larissa Kwong Abazia were elected General Assembly moderator and vice-moderator respectively. Let me say that anytime a woman/person of color/woman of color is lifted to a position of influence and visibility is, even in 2014, remarkable and worthy of celebration. But the conversations surrounding her ticket’s election leave me feeling that our still very white denomination is flailing awkwardly in this sea of diversity. On one hand, I hear her rightfully lauded for her work in making the PC(USA) a denomination that is now much more amenable to multicultural ministry and cooperation. On the other hand, I hear commissioners and observers alike crediting her race, her pastoral leadership of a multicultural church, and her “charisma” with handing her ticket a victory, which, if there is any merit to that, suggests that the PC(USA) might be hungrier for the appearance of diversity than truly achieving it.

I can’t begin to know what went on in the hearts and minds of commissioners from 172 presbyteries from across the country as they sought the Holy Spirit’s will in identifying our GA leadership, and I trust that the Lord’s will was truly done. But these suggestions about the election are triggering for me, simply because those of us who find ourselves in the margins often feel that when we are spotlighted, the intention is to say, “We’re not just white – Look at how diverse our denomination is!” It also brings to mind the micro-aggressions I’ve experienced right here in National Capital Presbytery from otherwise well-meaning sisters and brothers, such as when I was mistaken for a member of Christ the King Church at the stated meeting in which their chartering was celebrated. I found it curious that, even though there are a number of churches in our Presbytery that are either completely or significantly comprised of Blacks/African Immigrants, I was assumed to be a member of the one that was particularly visible on that day (it may be of note that I came to the stated meeting in my service to a predominantly Asian congregation). Whether it’s hearing Black Presbyterians United referred to as a “subgroup” (as opposed to the important witness it is within our denomination) to witnessing the lack of understanding of just why Korean churches often need to assert their autonomy, it’s very often clear to me that we have so much work to do in order that we may truly understand one another. And yet, I’m not entirely convinced that my brothers and sisters in the majority have that understanding.

This Reformation Sunday, Presbyterian churches have been encouraged to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Knox by uplifting “our” Scottish heritage. No offense to any church or Presbyterian who intends to do so, but the mere suggestion that we celebrate “our” Scottish heritage (even if we don’t mean personal or ancestral heritage) alienates a number of congregations who do not identify with a European/Western ethos. You probably won’t see any tartans hanging in a BPU church. No bagpipes will likely be played in an Indonesian church. What seems innocuous to many of us unintentionally ignores or disenfranchises others of us.

I can’t say enough how proud I am of this Presbytery and this denomination’s efforts to foster multicultural cooperation. However, I fear that we’re stumbling over our own feet to prove to ourselves that we are indeed multicultural, and if we’re not careful we will instead promote tokenism and create terms that are favorable to the majority. We have a long way to go, and I truly believe that’s okay; we will get there. It’s just going to take a lot of humility, a lot of listening, and a lot of courage. God be with us.