The Council of Orange: Necessarily Exclusionary

I introduced you to my conceptual Council of Orange a few weeks ago. Inspired by the TCBS’s Council of London, this meeting or, more likely, series of meetings would be dedicated to the pursuit of greatness. I suggested that this kind of greatness does not necessarily have to look like J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary greatness that produced some of the best literature of the 20th century. Rather, I suggested a more modest proposal for the Council of Orange. The commitment to the pursuit of greatness, in whatever capacity that looks for different people, is the necessary condition for this exercise to be a success. Without that dedication and desire, these meetings would not fulfill the purpose that I believe needs to emerge from the Council of Orange.

I wanted to expand on this topic today because I suggested that the Council of Orange going to be exclusionary by nature. I recognize that there are very few things you can say in the public square that are more inflammatory than to suggest that exclusion might actually be a virtue.

Exclusion necessitates the existence of a dividing line. Some people are included while other people are excluded. That prevents fluidity. The existence of a line suggests that there is not a continuum where you can be 60% committed and 40% not committed. If you step over that line, you are indicating your willingness to commit to the mission at hand. One might be picturing William Travis at the Alamo. While the literal historicity of this event is disputed, the story lives on in our culture as a picture of grit and determination. Crossing the line meant committing to defend the Alamo to the death, and making the voluntary decision not to cross the line meant surrender or, optimistically, an attempt at escape.

What purpose does drawing a line in the sand serve? It tells those in leadership that whoever has decided to cross the line is willing to stand up for its cause. Leadership can make plans based on those souls that have made the decision to subscribe to the group’s purpose. Without this necessary evaluation of commitment, without excluding those who do not embrace whatever cause is being advocated for, the leadership cannot have any sense of what the group is prepared for and can actually achieve.

Throughout American history, voluntary associations have played a vital role in the lives of our communities. All of them exist because of exclusion. Not everyone is going to be a member of the Lions Club. If you choose to become a member of the Lions Club, you commit to supporting the organization’s mission and actively participating in activities that advance those goals. Imagine trying to run a community dinner like many of these organizations have done but not knowing that you actually have members who are committed to showing up and helping run the event. It just wouldn’t work. In fact, the dinner would probably not even be considered because no one is going to go out on a limb to orchestrate an event that may not even be able to happen.

Let’s hypothetically assume someone wants to join the Lions Club who is not committed to its mission. That person needs to be excluded. Why, you might ask? You cannot have someone who is not committed to your purpose as a part of your organization. We do this in business all the time. If someone is not committed to doing his or her job, firing soon follows. Everyone understands that. They are excluded from employment at a particular company because they did not do their job well.

I think that sometimes we do not apply that same standard to our voluntary commitments. We might rationalize this by saying that we get paid at our jobs, so obviously we have to do what they say. As a member of a voluntary organization, we do not feel like we owe the same amount of loyalty because no money is changing hands. In fact, sometimes we think the organization should feel lucky because we are giving our time and showing up. Therefore, even 50% effort and commitment should be appreciated.

This just cannot work for something like the Council of Orange. The pursuit of greatness is not something that you can do part time. It is not something that you can do just when you feel like it. Considering the example of the Alamo again, crossing the line equated to a life or death decision. I am not suggesting that hanging out by a fire carries the same consequences obviously, but I am suggesting that the decision should be made seriously. By joining voluntarily into an organization dedicated to the pursuit of greatness in whatever capacity God has gifted you, you are joining with brothers and sisters on the same mission.

It is a difficult mission though. You are going to need encouragement on that path, and encouragement is only going to come from those who are on that path with you. When you find yourself in a difficult situation, it is not going to be beneficial to hear lukewarm voices. Those voices that tell you it is okay to settle for something less than greatness are not going to be the voices that help you achieve greatness. Therefore, they are the voices that need to be excluded for the unity of the group.

I understand that when we talk about exclusion, many people will react negatively because, fairly, exclusion has been used to terrible effect in societies around the world for all of human history. However, I cannot find a better word to describe what needs to happen for the health and stability of voluntary organizations committed to a mission. Anyone has the opportunity to be included, if they commit to the mission. If they cannot commit to that mission, then they cannot be a part of the organization.

I know that when I describe the Council of Orange in this way, there is an element of discomfort. I am now not just inviting you to come over here for a fun night around the fire. Instead, I am asking something of you. I am asking you to think about the mission of this Council. I am asking you to think about whether or not you want to be committed to this project. If you ultimately decide that it is not something that you can join in, then I certainly do not think any less of you. I still will love you, be friends with you, want to hang out with you, and be connected. Exclusion from this Council in no way diminishes anyone’s value in any way, shape, or form.

However, what this exclusion does is actually strengthen the group who shows up by providing the supportive environment where the very difficult task of pursuing greatness can actually be done. Having anyone in the group who suggests that anything less than pursuing God’s vision of greatness in your life is acceptable is going to weaken the whole. Although I hate to end this post on a cliché, it is evidently true that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That is why exclusion is necessary. Removing the link might make the chain a little bit shorter, but it ultimately makes the chain stronger and more able to be a great chain that fulfills its function as a chain.