In her extraordinary speech last week, Michelle Obama cast a vision of hope, joy, and hard work. It is a brilliant offering from one of the greatest orators and thinkers of our generation, so densely wise and beautiful that it will be quoted for decades.
I keep thinking about these lines:
Regardless of where you come from, what you look like, who you love, how you worship, or what’s in your bank account, we all deserve the opportunity to build a decent life. All of our contributions deserve to be accepted and valued.
It is that last sentence that sticks with me most: all of our contributions deserve to be accepted and valued.
When "all are welcome" is a bait-and-switch
Welcomed contribution, no matter who you are, is the glaring omission at churches claiming that "all are welcome." Too often, when a church assures you that you are welcome, what they actually mean is that your attendance is welcome (and so, of course, is your tithing). Beyond that, any of your contributions—your ideas, your gifts, your interests, your joys, your celebrations—are blocked, ignored, or subjected to steady suspicion and surveillance.
(It is no coincidence that attendance and money also happen to be the primary two metrics that the modern church uses to gauge its success.)
That is not welcome. That is a bait-and-switch, a promise of community to draw you in, only to be withdrawn after the hook is set. It is devastating to those who experience it. That is why the first statement on the Find a Faith Community section of our AQ Database is a warning about welcoming churches.
And that is why Affirming Quakers joins leaders who have shouted the dangers of "the welcoming church" for over ten years.
Why "all are welcome" doesn't work
Lutheran pastor Angela Denker wrote about "all are welcome" for Sojourners in 2014: "Three ways 'all are welcome' is hurting the church." In addition to warning that "all" often proves to be too small a category, she also warns that "all" can be too big. If all are welcome, then bullies are welcome, too. "Because all are welcome, pastors and lay leaders are afraid to confront these church bullies or to reprimand them for the damage they've done to the church body," Denker warns.
When it refuses the basic task of supporting its people against bullies, a faith community shrinks to a gilded shell, an echoing chambered nautilus stripped of the prophetic courage it claims to emulate.
Jen Hatmaker writes about the cruelty of half-baked welcome in her 2022 Instagram post, "I can still sing these old hymns in a church that didn't break me."
In my opinion, churches that are outright hostile to LGBTQ people are the better category. Look, just say it up front. At least you have integrity. You say what you mean, and your policies are clear: you aren't here for their sexuality, their relationships, their marriages, their gifts, their contributions to the church (except tithe money), or their families. Got it. We at least know where you stand.
It is the "friendly, welcoming churches" that shatter LGBTQ hearts more. The ones that hug gay couples and have "All are welcome" slogans. The ones that emulate a wide front door but are quietly breaking LGBTQ people behind the curtain: denying them the right to lead, preach, serve, mentor, chaperone, host, marry. It is gut wrenching, and they limp into our sanctuary constantly, betrayed and denied by their friendly, welcoming churches.
To be clear, all are NOT welcome at Affirming Quakers. For example, we use a "screenshot, block, then report" policy for inappropriate Instagram comments, and it works. We carefully curate the resources that earn inclusion on our database.
Perhaps you have noticed that our Creative Director Madi designed the Affirming Quakers logo to look a bit like a table. Ours is like any table: you are welcome to join us, but wash your hands first, and please, let's all agree that you shouldn't prop your muddy boots next to the silverware. Once bound by rules of common decency, then—and obviously, only then—join us!
Using clearer language than "all are welcome"
It is time to abandon the language of "all are welcome." At the very least, it is time to call it into meaningful accountability. The people who use and believe it are those most insecure about their community's future. The rest of us don't buy it, not anymore.
It is time to be clear. If a community does not accept the contributions of LGBTQ+ people and their allies, say so. If it does, say so. If a community has tried for inclusion and failed, it falls into the first group, not the second: so, say so.
I am impressed with resources in our database that prioritize clarity. The language developed by Pride in the Pews, for example, is more accurate and even forward-thinking in its recognition that affirming churches also have room to grow. According to their work, a church moves through five phases:
The Antagonizing Church
The Avoiding Church
The Accepting Church
The Affirming Church
The Advocating Church
Another resource is Church Clarity, which scores faith communities based on clear language in two areas: LGBTQ+ policy and gender egalitarian policy. From the Quaker world, I highly recommend the Marriage Minutes and Minutes in Support of Transgender Concerns at Friends of LGBTQ Concerns. These are records of straightforward minutes that declare their inclusion, gathered from Quaker organizations, some dating back 35 years.
Queries
Have you experienced the bait-and-switch? How are your spirits? Where are you in the grief and recovery process?
Do you use the word "welcoming" or still find it helpful? How do you define it?
What are practical options for those who are in a church where "all are welcome" but know that they themselves may not be?
More resources:
Quakers Today podcast, "Quakers and Welcome"
QuakerSpeak video, "What's the difference between a welcoming and inclusive space?"
Comments