Almost All Are Welcome
Last week, I heard an interview with the president of Maggiano's, Steve Provost, about a particular scene in a Maggiano's restaurant in Washington D.C. where a white nationalist group had gathered and ended their time with some Nazi salutes as well as protesters who shut the restaurant down. I felt really bad for the guy because he said the restaurant didn't know who it was they were hosting. I believe him. Why would they think to pay close attention to that? But in the interview, discussing the issue of the white nationalists, Provost said that he was offended by their remarks and the Nazi salute and that it goes against their principle which is that "we welcome everyone."
He walked right into a linguistic and ethical/moral trap. I know. I have walked into it myself a few times.
One of the big points that churches like to make is that "everyone is welcome." I once attended a campus ministry event at a Christian college in which the group president said, "everyone is welcome. We love everyone." I knew that was hardly the case, because I had heard the rhetoric of that particular person on a variety of other subjects. So here she was saying "we love everyone." It sounds good. But I knew that if someone who were openly gay, an atheist, or perhaps from a very different denominational background, the statement would likely not be enthusiastically utilized if even considered. Yet we use it in conjunction with welcoming all the time in churches in much the same way Steve Provost did in the interview.
I am not knocking Provost. I think he did the best he could in a terrible situation and was trying to exemplify a higher level of mind than the white nationalists would. He saw them as an exclusionary group and wanted to portray Maggiano's as the opposite.
But does that claim, "we welcome everyone" actually speak the truth?
I once made the argument that, in a theoretical setting, all should be welcomed at a table in order to hear their opinions. My professor challenged me pretty quickly and, I felt, a little relentlessly on the statement. "Would the KKK be welcome at your table?" My answer began, "If they were willing to..." to which my professor said, "So there are conditions on being welcome?" I never could dig myself out. She was right, I think, in pointing out that when we say people are welcome, we do have conditions. She was also, I think, being difficult and making an example out of me in a manner that seemed a bit pointed, which I didn't appreciate so much.
Her point, though, has sat hard on me. I have come to realize that there are those whom I would not welcome. And perhaps there are those who should not be welcomed. Of course if you want to open a can of worms, try to define who should not be welcomed and why, because that is the other side of the argument to defining who is welcome and why. Defining one defines the other.
Within the context of church, we often say we welcome everyone. The subtext, though, is that we welcome them as they are in the hopes that they will become more like us, whatever that means for any given church congregation. I know that most of the churches I have served would not, for example, be thrilled with someone who was Pentecostal or who walked in with a tambourine and played along with the music. That just isn't who they are. I respect that, and I am not trying to defame them. They were welcoming, yes. But there are expectations. Defining those expectations is the task and we don't like doing it, but we all do it - probably far more quickly than we might think.
So I think Provost's statements were well intended. But I don't think they can be universally true for him or his restaurant. I would imagine that anyone could start a list of people followed by the question, "Would you welcome them?" Because if "we welcome everyone" is true, then the white nationalist party has as much right to be there as a Black Muslim group, Pat Robertson, or Rachel Maddow.
What he may mean is that everyone is welcome so long as they confine themselves to the expectations of the restaurant. That isn't too much to ask for, and it is, actually, a reasonable expectation. Gas stations do it: no shoes, no shirt, no service. A chain like Maggiano's should not be criticized for stepping up the requirements. The difficulty, as I said before, is defining those requirements.
He walked right into a linguistic and ethical/moral trap. I know. I have walked into it myself a few times.
One of the big points that churches like to make is that "everyone is welcome." I once attended a campus ministry event at a Christian college in which the group president said, "everyone is welcome. We love everyone." I knew that was hardly the case, because I had heard the rhetoric of that particular person on a variety of other subjects. So here she was saying "we love everyone." It sounds good. But I knew that if someone who were openly gay, an atheist, or perhaps from a very different denominational background, the statement would likely not be enthusiastically utilized if even considered. Yet we use it in conjunction with welcoming all the time in churches in much the same way Steve Provost did in the interview.
I am not knocking Provost. I think he did the best he could in a terrible situation and was trying to exemplify a higher level of mind than the white nationalists would. He saw them as an exclusionary group and wanted to portray Maggiano's as the opposite.
But does that claim, "we welcome everyone" actually speak the truth?
I once made the argument that, in a theoretical setting, all should be welcomed at a table in order to hear their opinions. My professor challenged me pretty quickly and, I felt, a little relentlessly on the statement. "Would the KKK be welcome at your table?" My answer began, "If they were willing to..." to which my professor said, "So there are conditions on being welcome?" I never could dig myself out. She was right, I think, in pointing out that when we say people are welcome, we do have conditions. She was also, I think, being difficult and making an example out of me in a manner that seemed a bit pointed, which I didn't appreciate so much.
Her point, though, has sat hard on me. I have come to realize that there are those whom I would not welcome. And perhaps there are those who should not be welcomed. Of course if you want to open a can of worms, try to define who should not be welcomed and why, because that is the other side of the argument to defining who is welcome and why. Defining one defines the other.
Within the context of church, we often say we welcome everyone. The subtext, though, is that we welcome them as they are in the hopes that they will become more like us, whatever that means for any given church congregation. I know that most of the churches I have served would not, for example, be thrilled with someone who was Pentecostal or who walked in with a tambourine and played along with the music. That just isn't who they are. I respect that, and I am not trying to defame them. They were welcoming, yes. But there are expectations. Defining those expectations is the task and we don't like doing it, but we all do it - probably far more quickly than we might think.
So I think Provost's statements were well intended. But I don't think they can be universally true for him or his restaurant. I would imagine that anyone could start a list of people followed by the question, "Would you welcome them?" Because if "we welcome everyone" is true, then the white nationalist party has as much right to be there as a Black Muslim group, Pat Robertson, or Rachel Maddow.
What he may mean is that everyone is welcome so long as they confine themselves to the expectations of the restaurant. That isn't too much to ask for, and it is, actually, a reasonable expectation. Gas stations do it: no shoes, no shirt, no service. A chain like Maggiano's should not be criticized for stepping up the requirements. The difficulty, as I said before, is defining those requirements.
Comments
Post a Comment