During the past New Year's Week I've been reading a lot about "inclusion." It appeared a couple of times on a
daily devotional blog that I visit. "Inclusion" was discussed on a
spiritual leader website that I visit. It was discussed in print on a Taoist/Retirement blog that I have been reading.
As I read and think about "inclusion", I am drawn to think about "choices" and decision making and evaluating the pros and cons prior to moving forward on something. I am inclined to think many people associate the word/action "inclusive" to mean we have a duty to include (and welcome) anyone, everyone, into our personal and societal circle regardless of their beliefs, actions, motivations.
I am beginning to sense that there is a movement in churches, spiritual persuasions and certain (political) community centered organizations that regards "inclusion" as a minimum requirement for defining the validity and authentication of the organization's motives.
To me, at this stage of my life and evolution, this is flawed, idyllic thinking. To me, this sort of thinking trend is more about avoiding the appearance of being prejudice than it is about being "inclusive." To me, the choice of being "inclusive" is actually choosing to avoid taking a stand or making a decision that best defines the organization's or person's reason for being.
Permit me to exaggerate "inclusion" in a few extreme directions: Would you invite (include) the criminal to be involved in the process of determining that criminal's sentence for his crime? Or, would you (the banker) include the borrower in the decision making process to set the interest on their loan? Or, would you (parent) include your pre-teen children in the decision making process to determine whether to have green beans or candy as a side dish with your ham and potato family dinner?
The other day I was reading a
blog by a blogger that I respect. She needed to decide whether or not to include a negative reply to her blog to appear in her blog's COMMENTS section. I understand her struggle with this decision, accept and respect her decision, and am beginning to comprehend her beautiful open "heart door" concept.
My Reply to her quandary was:
Such a dilemma! As you know, anytime one makes any decision one is being "selective", i.e. "prejudice." One is performing an act of exclusion. As you know, far better than me, Acceptance is the key. I am not sure that, in my life at this point, Acceptance requires that I invite the Differing Viewpoint to dine at my table. It does, however, require that I understand that the Differing Viewpoint deserves to dine. somewhere. Perhaps if we dine at the same table, by chance, we can decide to balance the tension of our "opposing" viewpoints aka yin-yang.
She responded to my Reply is a very kind and thoughtful manner, after which I replied:
I am humbled that you spent your time to respond to my random thought, thank you. You have given me a better understanding
of your "heart door" and how it may lead you to be be even more compassionate, kind, accepting and gentle. I do agree with you that if I allow my "heart door" to open so as to seek and "encourage" me to attain interpersonal balance perhaps, then, I will develop a softer ego and a more inviting, harmonious, connection-driven spirit. Thanks for the reminder. This will take some Practice.
This being said, I firmly believe that "inclusion" is critical when negotiating between or among similar or opposing parties/persons. I believe that "inclusion" is important as part of a
thought process. I believe that "inclusion" is a critical factor when physically combining elements/items that enhance the process, recipe or function that is being considered. I believe that inclusion is important when developing a survey, a Pro/Con chart and opinion polls (for example).
Decision making, on the other hand, is definitive. By definition, decision making requires exclusion. The decision may be a balance between the tension of opposites...but it requires exclusions, all the same.
I pray that, one day, the lambs and wolves will one day lay on the hillside together. Their place of relaxation and rest will be inclusive when Acceptance is the rule. When it is time to eat, however, the lambs need to understand that the wolves are meat eaters and plan their menus differently than they plan theirs.
