包容加强信徒参与

保罗·亚伯拉罕，博士，宣教学博士，南亚基督复临安息日会副牧师，现居美国 马里兰州 银泉

摩西（译者注：不是《圣经》中的摩西）从小在基督化家庭中长大，那时，他也雷打不动地和父母一同参加聚会和安息日学的学习。到十几岁时，教会之外的朋友对他的影响越来越大。他开始觉得教会成为了一种负担，对教会的志愿服侍也逐渐失去了兴致。在他看来，教会即伪善又虚假，轻看人的价值。教会的信徒和领袖喜好论断，时常指责他的穿着。他因被人忽视，就离开教会四年之久。

他的校友大卫察觉到了他的离去。一天，大卫在商场遇到了摩西。他们一同谈论往昔在教会度过的美好时光时，大卫邀请摩西回到教会，但摩西将自己当前的感受告诉了大卫。几周过后，大卫还偶尔打电话鼓励摩西回到教会。后来有次安息日，摩西和他的朋友去冲浪，但在那之前他们决定先去一下教会。于是一整群人带着冲浪装备拥进教会，令他们感到意外的是，牧师欢迎他们，信徒们也热情地问候了他们。他们开始偶尔参加聚会，且每次都会有一种归属感。

牧师更进一步。他听说摩西和朋友们还喜欢篮球，就在每周二小组祷告会后，在教会的体育场组织了篮球比赛。他们参加祷告会后又打篮球，就开始觉得教会也是他们的教会了。这份归属感帮助他们更加充分地融入教会。如今，摩西娶了一位美貌、敬虔的姊妹为妻，上帝还赐他两个儿子，他将自己的全家都带入了教会。

归属感：人类的基本需求

人类生活在一个寻求包容和归属感的关系框架中。¹对归属的需要是人类最强烈的动机之一。²出于对社交关系的渴望，我们会投入大量精力发展和维持这种关系，任何伤及这种关系的事物，都可能是有损的。³

马克·利里指出，那些与他人相互支持、珍视友谊的人，比独居的人更容易成功。归属于一个群体通常会带来积极的体验和情绪；反之，遭遇排斥时，会引发消极的反应，如悲伤、孤独、嫉妒、恼怒、羞耻和焦虑。⁴

排斥的类型

排斥可能与个体相关，也可能与集体相关。个体排斥有两种主要的形式：即排斥和污蔑。被排斥的人会变得悲伤易怒，并伴随着归属感、自尊心和自控力降低。^5被污蔑则会使人感到被玷污和轻看。⁶

个体排斥包括限制晋升、降低影响力和限制参与权等玻璃天花板现象。他们在专业与教育上的成就可能被视为威胁与竞争，而不是丰富和补充。个体排斥是觊觎你天赋的同时，又否认你在餐桌上的席位。

集体排斥会产生一种被边缘化的感觉。抛弃和社会排斥几乎等同于排斥。在集体排斥中，当你质疑自己在集体决策中的权重不足时，你可能才会受到欢迎。这就是被欢迎但又不被接纳的悖论。当一个人感觉没有被完全接受时，就会质疑自己在集体中的地位。⁷进而导致他们退出。

集体成员的身份极其重要，因为它们满足了人们对归属感和安全感的需要。虽然集体应当为其成员提供庇护、支持和集体归属意识， ⁸但仍会因为某些成员与旁人不同而将他们排除在外⁹

教会中的排斥

一般而言，我们认为教会不是排斥、污蔑或边缘化的地方。但有些信徒可能因为自己的种族、婚姻、经济等原因而感到被排斥或不被接纳。他们觉得就连神职人员有时也有厚此薄彼的倾向。那些被排斥的信徒因为感受不到归属感，他们的身心都远离了。

有些人认为是多元化助长了排斥。但事实未必如此。如今，多元化已经成为了大多数宗教组织的共同特征。皮尤研究中心的观点表明，在美国，基督复临安息日会是最具多样性的宗教团体。¹⁰ 多样性本身并不消极。它可以激发创造力，提升团队的运行能力。¹¹但若是缺少包容，它就毫无益处。多样性若能生发包容，集体就会因此更加成功。¹² 

当人们不被欢迎或接纳时，他们的反应是不同的。有的人会实际地离开教会。有位信徒说，即使真的离开教会，她仍然会交纳什一。有的人会与同样被排斥的其他信徒一起离开。如果他们觉得自己受到了不公、不当的排斥，他们会在心理上离开教会，并与他人抱团。因此，接纳与包容必须成为教会生活的基本组成部分。

我们需要合一感

南亚基督复临安息日会就是一个多元集体的例子，它是南亚移民和其他国家的外国人敬拜的场所，他们在其中保持了自己的身份。南亚因其丰富的语言和文化，极具多样性。这种多样性既能产生包容，也能产生排斥——包容形成不同类型的集体，而排斥又将那些看似不“适应”集体的人排除在外。但是，即使人们各有不同，教会仍然尽力使我们在基督里合一。

保罗在林前12:12–27中写道，教会是一个身子：“就如身子是一个，却有许多肢体；而且肢体虽多，仍是一个身子；基督也是这样。 我们……都从一位圣灵受洗，成了一个身体……身子原不是一个肢体，乃是许多肢体……” 

“但如今肢体是多的，身子却是一个……上帝把肢体俱各安排在身上……免得身上分门别类，总要肢体彼此相顾。”

亚伯拉罕·范德比克认为“圣父、圣子和圣灵不是三位神。祂们是独一的上帝，世界上教会的合而为一使我们得见这位上帝的合一。” ¹³ 教会是基督的身子，有许多肢体，他们的性格各异。因此，我们不应相互排斥，而应享受多元，将所有信徒看作是一个身子的肢体。

合一感在教会中至关重要。家人和朋友的影响是人们加入教会的主要原因。¹⁵ 而与家人和朋友保持联系又是人们留在教会的原因之一。¹⁶ 一项最近的调查报告表明，许多人走进教会或决定在特定的教会聚会，是因为朋友或家人。¹⁷ 而家庭纠纷又是人们不按时参加聚会并最终离开教会的原因。因此，虽然家庭关系和教会友谊都对人们加入教会起着积极作用，但家庭纠纷和朋友不和又会导致人们远离教会。我们必须提升教会的合一感，以确保信徒始终感觉被包容，不受家人与朋友的影响。

人们加入教会寻找归属感。¹⁸ 教会若想拥有最完整的归属感，就需要将其不同的团契逐个汇聚到同一个包容性的网络中，从而加强信徒的参与。

在《圣经》框架中，我将包容性和合一性的概念划分成以下三个部分：

《圣经》框架

1.“‘税吏和罪人的朋友’”（太11:19）。福音书8次记载了耶稣与罪人和税吏交往。宗教领袖鄙夷罪人的违律和税吏的恶行，而耶稣却与他们同在一处。耶稣和他们一同坐席（可2:15）并拜访他们（路19:1-10）。耶稣以祂的包容将当时被社会排斥的人带入上帝的国中。

2.“不分犹太人、希腊人”（拉3:28）。不同种族、国家、语言和不同阶级、社会和文化群体的人在基督里共同组成上帝的国度。保罗神学认为，保留个性固然重要，但在基督里，种族、民族、支派、种姓、阶级、性别、才能、年龄和信仰的专权观念和优势壁垒将被打破。愿我们的教会也能如此。

3.“凡物公用”（徒2:44）。早期的基督教会是一个敬拜、团契和社会化的网络。教会中充满了归属感。他们的属灵社交网是当今教会学习包容的典范。

这理应成为所有实体教会的愿景。在就业、敬拜、团契、祷告、赞美和晋升等方面，我们应当效学早期教会包容的榜样。长久以来，许多人感到被利用甚至被滥用，被雇佣却未被接纳，被需要却未被想要。有了包容，信徒参与将得到强化，人们将受到珍视，千千万万个摩西也将重返教会。

1.多米尼克·艾布拉姆斯、迈克尔·霍格和何塞·马克斯合编。《包容与排斥的社会心理学》(纽约州，纽约市：心理学出版社，2005年)，1。^

2.罗伊·F·鲍梅斯特和马克·R·利里，“归属的需要：人际依赖的渴望是人类的基本动机”，《心理学公报》第117期，第3期(1995年6月):第497-529页。^

3.艾布拉姆斯、霍格和马克斯，《包容与排斥的社会心理学》，64页。^

4.马克·R·利里，“对社会排斥的反应:社交焦虑、嫉妒、孤独、抑郁和低迷的自尊”，《社会和临床心理学杂志》第9期，第2期(1990年6月):第221-229页，https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.221.·^

5.艾布拉姆斯、霍格和马克斯，《包容与排斥的社会心理学》，58页。^

6.欧文·戈夫曼，《耻辱：身份破坏的管理笔记》（纽约州 纽约市：西蒙&舒斯特，1986），3。^

7.艾布拉姆斯、霍格和马克斯，《包容与排斥的社会心理学》，91页。^

8.艾布拉姆斯、霍格和马克斯，191。^

9.艾布拉姆斯、霍格和马克斯，190–216。^

10.迈克尔·利普卡，“国种族差异最大和最小的宗教团体”，皮尤研究中心，2015年。^

11.伊丽莎白·曼尼克斯和玛格丽特·尼尔，“何种差异会带来不同？组织中多元化团队的承诺”，《公共利益中的心理科学》第6期，第2期(2005年10月1日):31。^

12.马丁·N·戴维森，“被包容的价值：对组织中多样性变化倡议的审视”，《绩效促进季刊》，第12期，第1期(1999年):174页。^

13.亚伯拉罕·范德比克，“一位上帝和一个教会”，载于《教会的统一：艺术的神学观点及超越》，编辑。爱德华·范德堡(荷兰莱顿:布里尔，2010)，266页。^

14.凡·德·比克，255页。^

15.爱德华·劳夫，《人们为何加入教会：探索性研究》(纽约，纽约:朝圣者出版社，1979年)，第72页。^

16.劳夫，72岁。^

17.作者在富勒神学院博士生的研究。^

18.托姆·S·赖纳，《各种方法中获得的惊人的见解》（密歇根州 大急流城：佐德万，2001年），第96、97页。^

Inclusivity strengthens member engagement

Paulasir Abraham, PhD, DMiss, is an associate pastor at the Southern Asian Seventh-day Adventist Church, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States.

Brought up in a Christian home, Moses regularly attended Sabbath School and church with his parents. As he grew into a teenager, the influence of his unchurched friends began to increase. Feeling that church was being forced upon him, he began losing interest in volunteering for its ministries. Moreover, the church seemed to him hypocritical and disingenuous, not valuing people as he thought they should. Its members and leaders appeared judgmental and often scolded him about how he dressed. Overlooked by everyone, he drifted away from the church for four years.

But then his schoolmate, David, noticed his absence. One day he met Moses at a mall. As both spoke about the good times they had once had in church, David invited Moses to come back, but Moses told him how he now felt. A few weeks passed. David occasionally called Moses and encouraged him to return. Then one Saturday, Moses and his friends planned to go surfing but decided to stop by the church just briefly beforehand. The wheir surfing gear, and—to their surprise—the pastor welcomed them. The members warmly greeted them. They began attending sporadically, and every time they did, they felt included as part of the congregation.

The pastor went a step further. Hearing that Moses and his friends were interested in basketball, he arranged games at the church gym every Tuesday after the small-group prayer meeting. They came to the prayer meeting, then played basketball afterward. They began to feel the church was their own. The sense of belonging helped them more fully engage with the membership. Today, Moses is married to a wonderful, godly woman, blessed with two sons, and the whole family is deeply involved with the church.

SENSE OF BELONGING: A BASIC HUMAN NEED

Human beings live within a framework of relationships in which we seek inclusion and a sense of belonging.¹ The need to belong is among the strongest of human motivations.² Desiring social connections, we will exert considerable energy to develop and sustain them, and anything that adversely affects such relationships can be harmful.³

Mark Leary states that those who have supportive and sustained relationships with others are more likely to thrive than those who live alone. Belonging to a group frequently leads to positive experiences and emotions but being excluded typically produces negative responses, such as sadness, loneliness, jealousy, anger, shame, and anxiety.⁴

TYPES OF EXCLUSIONS

Exclusion can be either individually or group related. Two prime forms of individual exclusion are ostracization and stigmatization. Ostracized individuals become sad and angry and report a lower sense of belonging, self-esteem, and control.⁵ On the other hand, stigmatization makes a person feel tainted and insignificant.⁶

Individual exclusion includes the reality of the proverbial glass ceiling that limits promotion, curtails influence, and restricts involvement. Professional attainments and educational achievements may be viewed as threatening rather than enriching, and competing rather than complementing. Individual exclusion is denying you a seat at the table while craving your gifts in designing it.

Group exclusion creates a sense of being marginalized. Rejection and social exclusion are almost the same as ostracism. In group exclusion, you may individually be made to feel welcome while you question the underrepresentation of persons like you in decision-making roles of the organization. It is the paradox of being welcomed but not accepted. When someone does not feel fully accepted, it threatens how they see their place in the group.⁷ It can cause them to withdraw.

Group memberships are vital because they meet the human need to belong and feel secure. While groups are supposed to provide shelter, support, and a collective sense of self for their members,⁸ they can exclude some participants because of what they consider differences from the rest.⁹

EXCLUSION IN CHURCHES

Generally, we do not consider churches as places of ostracization, stigmatization, or marginalization. But some may feel excluded or unaccepted because of their race, marital status, economic situation, or other reasons. They may feel that clergy also tend to respect some members and ignore or reject others at times. Such excluded individuals do not feel as if they belong and, as a result, they pull back both psychologically and physically.

Some believe diversity contributes to exclusion. But that may not necessarily be true. Diversity is a common feature in most religious organizations today. According to the Pew Research Center, Seventh-day Adventists form the most diverse religious group in the United States.¹⁰ In itself, diversity is not negative. It can lead to creativity and enhance group performance.¹¹ But it is not beneficial without inclusivity. If diversity is used to create more inclusiveness within an organization, it will make the organization more successful.¹²

When people are not welcomed or accepted, they may react in different ways. They may withdraw physically from church relationships. One member commented that, even though she was physically absent, she still supported the church through tithing. People may also withdraw by affiliating with others similarly excluded. Should they feel their exclusion is unjust and undeserved, they retreat psychologically and bond with others. Thus, it is imperative that acceptance and inclusivity be a fundamental part of the fabric of church life.

THE NEED: SENSE OF ONENESS

An example of diversity within a group would be the Southern Asian Seventh-day Adventist Church, organized as a place for South Asian immigrants and people of other nations to worship and sustain their identity. Southern Asians themselves are diverse, for they comprise several languages and cultures. Such variety can create both inclusion and exclusion—inclusion in forming groups of different types and exclusion of those who seemingly do not “fit” into the groups. But even though the people are different, the church works hard to make sure that we are one, the body of Christ.

Paul gives a description of the church as one body in 1 Corinthians 12:12–27: “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. . . . For in fact the body is not one member but many. . . .

“But now, indeed, there are many members, yet one body. . . . But God composed the body . . . that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another” (NKJV).

Abraham van de Beek observes that “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three Gods. They are one and only God, and the unity of this one God is visible in the world in the unity of the one church.”¹³ The church is one body of Christ with many members who all have their own characteristics. Therefore, members should not exclude one another but rather enjoy the diversity and consider all as part of one body.¹⁴

Having a sense of oneness in a church is critical. One of the primary causes of people joining is the influence of family and friends.¹⁵ One of the reasons people remain is to maintain their ties to family and friends.¹⁶ A recent survey found that many reported that they attended church or decided to worship in a particular congregation because of friends and family members.¹⁷ On the other hand, others pointed to family disputes as a cause for irregular attendance and eventual withdrawal. Thus, while family ties and church friends are both positive forces in church participation, family disputes and strained relationships with friends can lead people to drift away. We must bring the sense of oneness to a level at which all feel included irrespective of whether family and friends also attend.

People join churches in search of community.¹⁸ To endow a congregation with a sense of community in its fullest sense requires bringing its various groups together in an inclusive network or web that will strengthen member involvement.

I present three components of a biblical framework for the concept of inclusivity and oneness.

A BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK

1. “ ‘Friend of tax collectors and sinners’ ” (Matt. 11:19, NKJV). The Gospels present eight occasions of Jesus associating with sinners and tax collectors. While the religious leaders despised the sinners as guilty of transgressing the law and tax collectors for their unethical behavior, Jesus mingled with them. He went to parties with them (Mark 2:15) and to their homes (Luke 19:1–10). Jesus included in God’s kingdom those excluded by the society of His time.

2. “Neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28, NKJV). In Christ, people from all kindreds, nations, and tongues, and diverse hierarchical, sociological, and cultural groups comprise God’s kingdom. Paul’s theology maintained that while distinctiveness was to be preserved, in Christ, concepts of supremacy and walls of superiority regarding race, ethnicity, tribe, caste, class, gender, ability, age, or religion, would come tumbling down. May that be so in our congregations.

3. “All things in common” (Acts 2:44, NKJV). The early Christian church was a network of worship, fellowship, and socialization. A sense of belonging filled them. This web of spiritual socialization is an exemplary model of inclusion for the church today.

This should be the vision of every church entity. In employment, worship, fellowship, prayer, praising, and promotion, we ought to emulate the early church’s inclusivity. For too long, many have felt used and abused, employed but not embraced, needed but not wanted. With inclusivity, personnel engagement will be strengthened, people will be valued, and the Moseses may return.

1. 1. Dominic Abrams, Michael A. Hogg, and José M. Marques, eds., The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion (New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2005), 1. ^
2. 2. Roy F. Baumeister and Mark R. Leary, “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation,” Psychological Bulletin 117, no. 3 (June 1995): 497–529. ^
3. 3. Abrams, Hogg, and Marques, Inclusion and Exclusion, 64. ^
4. 4. Mark R. Leary, “Responses to Social Exclusion: Social Anxiety, Jealousy, Loneliness, Depression, and Low Self-Esteem,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 9, no. 2 (June 1990): 221–229, https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.221. ^
5. 5. Abrams, Hogg, and Marques, Inclusion and Exclusion, 58. ^
6. 6. Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1986), 3. ^
7. 7. Abrams, Hogg, and Marques, Inclusion and Exclusion, 91. ^
8. 8. Abrams, Hogg, and Marques, 191. ^
9. 9. Abrams, Hogg, and Marques, 190–216. ^
10. 10. Michael Lipka, “The Most and Least Racially Diverse U.S. Religious Groups,” Pew Research Center, 2015. ^

Elizabeth Mannix and Margaret A Neale, “What Differences Make a Difference? The Promise of Diverse Teams in Organization,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6, no. 2 (October 1,

1. 11. Martin N. Davidson, “The Value of Being Included: An Examination of Diversity Change Initiatives in Organization,” Performance Improvement Quarterly 12, no. 1 (1999): 174. ^
2. 12. Abraham van de Beek, “One God and One Church,” in The Unity of the Church: A Theological State of the Art and Beyond, ed. Eduardus Van der Borght (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2010), 266. ^
3. 13. Van de Beek, 255. ^
4. 14. Edward A. Rauff, Why People Join the Church: An Exploratory Study (New York, NY: Pilgrim Press, 1979), 72. ^
5. 15. Rauff, 72. ^
6. 16. Study done by the author for his DMiss studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. ^
7. 17. Thom S. Rainer, Surprising Insights From the Unchurched and Proven Ways to Reach Them (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 96, 97. ^

原文链接：https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2021/09/Inclusivity-strengthens-member-engagement