Another thing that Bartley mentions (in passing) near the beginning of the book (mentioned here) is the way the church could exclude people, and through exclusion exercise power and control.
This is a very limited form of control, by exclusion one is not actively controlling the life of the excluded, one is simply controlling one’s own life (or a group are simply controlling their own lives) and choosing not to spend much/any time with that particular person.
However, to exclude someone, a tough judgement has to take place: Is this person so bad/far gone that it isn’t wise to spend time with them? That isn’t a nice and easy question to answer, it has hard repercussions. It is also a fairly public judgement that can have a negative effect on oneself (alongside the positive effect of not being adversely influenced by that person).
It’s a tough thing to do, but I do feel that it is a choice that we must continually make. Yes, it is part of the concept of exclusive church (hopefully alongside inclusive mission) and also we can’t expect exclusion to be perfectly exercised – there will always be the ‘weeds’ amongst the ‘wheat’.
I expect that Bartley will cover this more in the rest of the book – so maybe there will be more comment to come on this.
Exclusion could take place if a roup, ie a church felt that they could not cope with certain people and their issues. the reality is, that within any gorup we gravitate towards some and not towards other, and yes, maybe this could lead to a particular kind fo exclusion. does this then mean thatwe need to stop trying to have a one sze fits all church, and maybe look to having a variety of churches in any one partiuclar area to cover all the people within that particular area. If exclusion takes place, then there should be an alternative, we can’t just exclude just because we may not be able to cope. Lets realise that certain people gravitate towards their own kind, and therefoe lets maybe look to providing a variety of options rathethan one size fits all. Andy