Thread: Inclusive Church Sunday Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026515
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I don't usually approve from departing from the lectionary into special one-off days but we kept the lectionary this morning as the readings were appropriate, with specially themed hymns, penitential rite, intercessions and eucharistic prayer.
The one thing ommitted was the Lord's Prayer. I don't know whether this was because some abuse victims find the word 'father' difficult (but it was in the blessing) or, more likely, because it was left out by mistake when the service booklet was compiled.
Who else observed this day?
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
We didn't. Thank God. I have no problem with Inclusive Church as it is, but our service this morning ran quite long as it was (for a variety of reasons, ranging from the length of the proper offertory sentence to the fact that are new assistant organist added some — pretty but entirely superfluous — interludes between verses of the final hymn). The last thing the service needed was yet more faff. Also, it's not exactly an approved festival, still less one that would take precedence over a Sunday in Ordinary Time, is it?
Omitting the Lord's Prayer, for any reason whatsoever, at the main Sunday service is to my mind one of the grossest violations against both the canons and good liturgical sense.
[ 15. September 2013, 15:27: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
There was nothing 'extra' - it took the usual time.
And we had the readings for Proper 19/Trinity 16, sermon on the lost sheep (gospel for today) so it was no different from what you had apart from the intercessions, which differ anyway.
[ 15. September 2013, 16:21: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
Oh well, forgive me if I was snippy. We did have two hymns that might seem appropriate ('Just as I am' and 'There's a wideness in God's mercy'), but I'm about 95% sure that was coincidence.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Oh, and the point that it is not 'approved' is its point.
We think the Christian gospel demands the inclusion of minorities and that much of the liturgy is written by people in positions of power and that it needs subverting now and then.
PLUS, even if we had different readings from those in the RCL, which we didn't, the rubrics allow for the setting aside of the listed readings during Ordinary Time.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
The problem I have with "Inclusive Church" is that it continually uses the word "Church" when it means Church of England, obliterating the rest of us in the process so I struggle to think of it as inclusive in any real sense. I certainly wouldn't give a Sunday over to them.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The problem I have with "Inclusive Church" is that it continually uses the word "Church" when it means Church of England, obliterating the rest of us in the process so I struggle to think of it as inclusive in any real sense. I certainly wouldn't give a Sunday over to them.
Very good point - hadn't thought of that.
Though 'Inclusive Church of England is a bit cumbersome.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
A Mass, the service Jesus told us to celebrate, without the Lord's Prayer, the prayer Jesus told us to pray?
Hmm.
Thurible
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
A Mass, the service Jesus told us to celebrate, without the Lord's Prayer, the prayer Jesus told us to pray?
Hmm.
Thurible
Mind, he never specifically linked the two.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
This is true. But, were one to approach his commands with an inclusive mindset...
Thurible
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
<Tangent Alert>
Our Lection in the Daughter Church of the CofE had readings for the 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Trinity 16) of Exodus 32.7-14, Psalm 51.10-19, I Timothy 1.12-17, and Luke 15.1-10.
<End Tangent Alert>
On the question of Inclusive Church Sunday (which hasn't raised yet its suggesting head in General Synod), I agree with the thought that Christ's command, 'When you pray, say this...' is binding. Enough to make the little Baby Jesus cry, though, when we're celebrating his mysteries in full?
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The problem I have with "Inclusive Church" is that it continually uses the word "Church" when it means Church of England, obliterating the rest of us in the process so I struggle to think of it as inclusive in any real sense. I certainly wouldn't give a Sunday over to them.
Very good point - hadn't thought of that.
Though 'Inclusive Church of England is a bit cumbersome.
I think they might be able to get away with the title if they were more careful with their language in the rest of their materials.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I absolutely agree with all that. I'd never heard of it until I discovered this thread and, while appreciating that some of the issues being raised have specific CofE implications, I am sure they would be of interest to others (URC and Methodist, at least).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Maybe I should add that there are only three parishes in the whole of this diocese which are signed up to Inclusive Church so we get people from quite a distance who feel neither safe nor welcome in their parish churches. Celebrating this Sunday has been pastorally beneficial.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
What is Inclusive Church Sunday?
Generally, I disapprove of nearly everything done in the name of being inclusive. Removing anything and everything that might possibly exclude anybody leaves nothing worth being included into in the first place. Just because a church or service welcomes all doesn't mean that anybody will find it a place they care to be welcomed. So what if they can spend an hour in an old building not being offended? Aren't there any number of place they can spend a couple of hours on a Sunday morning not being offended?
Still, I don't know what Inclusive Church Sunday is so I will allow for the possibility it might be worth doing.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Every service should be inclusive - as you may interpret that word.
Why advertise exclusive by having an inclusive Sunday? Presumably your attitudes don't change on an Inclusive Sunday - if they do you have one massive problem.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The problem I have with "Inclusive Church" is that it continually uses the word "Church" when it means Church of England, obliterating the rest of us in the process so I struggle to think of it as inclusive in any real sense. I certainly wouldn't give a Sunday over to them.
Very good point - hadn't thought of that.
Though 'Inclusive Church of England is a bit cumbersome.
I think they might be able to get away with the title if they were more careful with their language in the rest of their materials.
I find this point rather tiresome. Of course Church of England organizations sometimes use 'the Church' to mean 'the Church of England'. Guess what, Papa Francesco, even when he is making making one his comments that make the media and liberal Catholics swoon, still refers to the Roman Catholic Church as 'the Church' (or, usually as 'la chiesa'); the Orthodox routinely do the same (so, in my experience, do the Mormons, but of them it is probably best to be silent). Why shouldn't the Church of England be allowed to refer to itself as 'the Church', especially in contexts that don't imply 'we're the one true Church and the rest of you are at best "ecclesial communities"'?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick: what folk like me are saying is that no single Christian grouping, however large or prevalent, should refer to itself in ways which imply it is the totality of the Church, even though we know that (most of the time but not always) it is really shorthand for "our bit of the Church". It betrays - dare I say it on this thread? - an exclusivist mindset.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick: what folk like me are saying is that no single Christian grouping, however large or prevalent, should refer to itself in ways which imply it is the totality of the Church, even though we know that (most of the time but not always) it is really shorthand for "our bit of the Church". It betrays - dare I say it on this thread? - an exclusivist mindset.
Preach it brother but are you being exclusive in claiming it's exclusive?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What is Inclusive Church Sunday?
Generally, I disapprove of nearly everything done in the name of being inclusive. Removing anything and everything that might possibly exclude anybody leaves nothing worth being included into in the first place. Just because a church or service welcomes all doesn't mean that anybody will find it a place they care to be welcomed. So what if they can spend an hour in an old building not being offended? Aren't there any number of place they can spend a couple of hours on a Sunday morning not being offended?
Still, I don't know what Inclusive Church Sunday is so I will allow for the possibility it might be worth doing.
It is the celebration of all that LGB and other 'minority' groups (women, disabled etc) have done for the advancement of the gospel in a church that denies and/or doesn't want their presence, let alone their contribution.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Every service should be inclusive - as you may interpret that word.
Why advertise exclusive by having an inclusive Sunday? Presumably your attitudes don't change on an Inclusive Sunday - if they do you have one massive problem.
No change from usual - just pointing it up.
And are most services really inclusive in most churches? When did you see a gay partnered couple take up the offertory procession? Or pray for Pride Day in the intercessions? Or bless a civil partnership?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
<Tangent Alert>
Our Lection in the Daughter Church of the CofE had readings for the 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Trinity 16) of Exodus 32.7-14, Psalm 51.10-19, I Timothy 1.12-17, and Luke 15.1-10.
<End Tangent Alert>
On the question of Inclusive Church Sunday (which hasn't raised yet its suggesting head in General Synod), I agree with the thought that Christ's command, 'When you pray, say this...' is binding. Enough to make the little Baby Jesus cry, though, when we're celebrating his mysteries in full?
Yes - we had those readings too.
The Lord's prayer is probably a bit of a red herring - i suspect its omission wasn't intentional - just a busy incumbent copying and pasting and forgetting this prayer because he'd copied a eucharistic prayer and a fraction as they were next together in the Inclusive Church resources.
Anyway , if we are obeying the Lord's command, you might equally say that the ommission of footwashing at every mass is a failure to obey the commands - it only happens in some/many black-led churches and on one day per year, if that, for the rest of us.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Every service should be inclusive - as you may interpret that word.
Why advertise exclusive by having an inclusive Sunday? Presumably your attitudes don't change on an Inclusive Sunday - if they do you have one massive problem.
No change from usual - just pointing it up.
And are most services really inclusive in most churches? When did you see a gay partnered couple take up the offertory procession? Or pray for Pride Day in the intercessions? Or bless a civil partnership?
For you to be really inclusive you'd have a lay person conducting and presiding at the eucharist. have you done that? If not, then you aren't inclusive, you are excluding some very gifted and talented people from participating in a communal celebration.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Hell, why stop there? Have people bring their pets to church and present them at the altar rail. Dogs need Jesus too.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Hell, why stop there? Have people bring their pets to church and present them at the altar rail. Dogs need Jesus too.
Are you, by any chance, seeking to equate lay presidency with some kind of animal fetish?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Worse yet is the implied equation of certain parishoners to dogs.
Even Our Lord didn't get away with remarks like that.
[ 16. September 2013, 22:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I'm not sure how administering Communion to house pets would qualify as an animal fetish, but it's not beyond belief that there is already a website devoted to it somewhere.
And I would have thought that equating parishioners and animals, as far as the Eucharist goes, would be radically inclusive. Alas, Anthropism remains alive and well in the Church!
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by leo:
And are most services really inclusive in most churches? When did you see a gay partnered couple take up the offertory procession? Or pray for Pride Day in the intercessions? Or bless a civil partnership?
Last civil partnership blessing: two weeks ago
Pray for Pride day? I think we did. Certainly a mix of gay and straight from the church attended the march.
Taking up the offertory procession? to be honest I never notice who does it, but it would surprise me very much it hadn't been done by a gay partnered couple. (And I can think of at least four couples who probably have done that)
Gay clergy? Yes
Gay civil partnered clergy? Yes (and not the same person)
Women clergy? Yes, but not at the moment
Ethnic minority clergy? Yes
Straight clergy? Yes
[ 17. September 2013, 10:05: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And are most services really inclusive in most churches? When did you see a gay partnered couple take up the offertory procession?
Um, all the time? I think that, when I lived in London, praying for Pride probably happened. It certainly wouldn't have scandalized anyone. Blessing civil partnerships, although something that I personally favour very much, would require priests to break their oaths of canonical obedience, which serious priests take very seriously.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Every service should be inclusive - as you may interpret that word.
Why advertise exclusive by having an inclusive Sunday? Presumably your attitudes don't change on an Inclusive Sunday - if they do you have one massive problem.
No change from usual - just pointing it up.
And are most services really inclusive in most churches? When did you see a gay partnered couple take up the offertory procession? Or pray for Pride Day in the intercessions? Or bless a civil partnership?
For you to be really inclusive you'd have a lay person conducting and presiding at the eucharist. have you done that? If not, then you aren't inclusive, you are excluding some very gifted and talented people from participating in a communal celebration.
not at all - lay celebration would exclude those of us who have a catholic ecclesiology.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And are most services really inclusive in most churches? When did you see a gay partnered couple take up the offertory procession?
Um, all the time? I think that, when I lived in London, praying for Pride probably happened. It certainly wouldn't have scandalized anyone. Blessing civil partnerships, although something that I personally favour very much, would require priests to break their oaths of canonical obedience, which serious priests take very seriously.
Many bishops allow/encourage the blessing of civil partnerships - as long as they are not conducted like weddings.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]not at all - lay celebration would exclude those of us who have a catholic ecclesiology.
Which exclusion is it to be then - lay or catholic?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]not at all - lay celebration would exclude those of us who have a catholic ecclesiology.
Which exclusion is it to be then - lay or catholic?
You know, I think you're right. The next time I get on a bus, I'm going to demand to drive--just so, you know, I'm included. That'll show all those fascists with their unions and commercial driver's licenses!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Many bishops allow/encourage the blessing of civil partnerships - as long as they are not conducted like weddings.
Well, a good many of them are conducted in that manner and have been for a number of years. The celebrants concerned take as much notice of the bishops as they do of canon law.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]not at all - lay celebration would exclude those of us who have a catholic ecclesiology.
Which exclusion is it to be then - lay or catholic?
You know, I think you're right. The next time I get on a bus, I'm going to demand to drive--just so, you know, I'm included. That'll show all those fascists with their unions and commercial driver's licenses!
Well the bus has got the same gear stick and pedals as a car - what can be so tough? Get in and got on with it that's what I say Father.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]not at all - lay celebration would exclude those of us who have a catholic ecclesiology.
Which exclusion is it to be then - lay or catholic?
You seem to want the exclusion of lay catholics!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
You know, I think you're right. The next time I get on a bus, I'm going to demand to drive--just so, you know, I'm included. That'll show all those fascists with their unions and commercial driver's licenses!
Well the bus has got the same gear stick and pedals as a car - what can be so tough? Get in and got on with it that's what I say Father.
Ah, but you haven't got a PSV licence ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
- which rather demolishes your argument even though I agree with you!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
You know, I think you're right. The next time I get on a bus, I'm going to demand to drive--just so, you know, I'm included. That'll show all those fascists with their unions and commercial driver's licenses!
Well the bus has got the same gear stick and pedals as a car - what can be so tough? Get in and got on with it that's what I say Father.
Ah, but you haven't got a PSV licence - which rather demolishes your argument even though I agree with you!
A licence merely confirms what you know you can already do. Bit like ordination actually.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Ah...so you want to exclude anybody with a different understanding of Holy Orders than you.
For shame... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Thanks though for illustrating why I mistrust anything done in the name of inclusivity. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 18. September 2013, 00:54: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
A Mass, the service Jesus told us to celebrate, without the Lord's Prayer, the prayer Jesus told us to pray?
Hmm.
Thurible
Mind, he never specifically linked the two.
Jungmann (II-278ff) seems to say that the Our Father enters the liturgy of the mass only in the 4th century as a prayer of preparation to receive communion.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
As one of the biggest old queens on the Ship (I've been putting on weight recently) I'm mildly offended by an "Inclusive Church Sunday". When I say mildly offended, of course, I mean a brief raising heavenward of the eyes, and a barely audible "Oh, for ***'s sake ...". Nothing the Church does these days gets much more of a reaction out of me.
Call me jaded and cynical, but I fail to see how such an event could be anything but a Big Lie (because the Church as an institution is far from what I'd call "inclusive"); or smug ("Hey, look at us! We don't beat you with sticks any more! Aren;t we good girls and boys?")
Other minorities' mileages may vary.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Call me jaded and cynical, but I fail to see how such an event could be anything but a Big Lie (because the Church as an institution is far from what I'd call "inclusive"); or smug ("Hey, look at us! We don't beat you with sticks any more! Aren;t we good girls and boys?")
Other minorities' mileages may vary.
The national church, sure.
But we can celebrate those parish churches which refuse to follow the national church's line. To assure people that we won't refuse the Holy Communion.
[ 18. September 2013, 11:47: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... To assure people that we won't refuse the Holy Communion.
Leo, this really isn't aimed at you - it's aimed very firmly at the Church as an institution - but the very fact that that needed to be said speaks volumes.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As one of the biggest old queens on the Ship (I've been putting on weight recently) I'm mildly offended by an "Inclusive Church Sunday". When I say mildly offended, of course, I mean a brief raising heavenward of the eyes, and a barely audible "Oh, for ***'s sake ...". Nothing the Church does these days gets much more of a reaction out of me.
Call me jaded and cynical, but I fail to see how such an event could be anything but a Big Lie (because the Church as an institution is far from what I'd call "inclusive"); or smug ("Hey, look at us! We don't beat you with sticks any more! Aren;t we good girls and boys?")
Other minorities' mileages may vary.
It does rather put me in mind of the Onion headline concerning Black History Week - 'Black History Week Ends, White History Year Resumes'.
I know it is well intentioned but there is a note of this about it...
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
We didn't mark "Inclusive Church Sunday".
1. It was Holy Cross Day - translated from the preceding day.
2. It was Battle of Britain Sunday.
3. All churches should be inclusive - to have only one Sunday a year when this is so is outrageous.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
All churches should be inclusive
But they're not, are they?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
The thing that turns me off about Inclusive Church is that they might want to be, but it's almost a signal to anyone who is not a middle-class liberal that they are not welcome. Unless of course they are gay.
But to be truly inclusive the church has also got to welcome Tories, illiterate people, nasty people, even homophobic people. Not homophobia of course, or nastiness, but all sorts and conditions of people as people.
As a lefty Guardian reader myself I understand the temptation to have a cosy club of right-on like-minded mates, but it isn't the Church.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
I agree with what Angloid and dj_ordinaire have said. I would add that I find the idea a bit smug. It seems less about being inclusive — which can be, should be, and generally is done without a special Sunday — and more about saying 'look at us, we're inclusive'.
Also, in re this:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The national church, sure.
But we can celebrate those parish churches which refuse to follow the national church's line. To assure people that we won't refuse the Holy Communion.
It is most emphatically NOT the policy of the Church of England, or of the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, to refuse Communion to any of those people with whom Inclusive Church is primarily concerned. I am almost entirely certain that the Pope himself would not refuse communion to a lay Roman Catholic who happened to be gay, or who disagreed with the Church's teachings on the ordination of women (and that was as true in Benedict's time as it is under Francis, despite the attempt of the media to draw larger contrasts between their respective pontificates than can yet be conclusively demonstrated). And I know that either of the current English Archbishops would. In fact, I can't recall the last time I heard of anyone being denied communion in an Anglican church.*
*Okay, that's not true, I did once see a priest who blessed a man rather than give him the host; the man proceeded to make a big fuss about this and claimed it was because he was homeless, but I suspect that the real reasons were that he had walked in halfway through the Eucharistic prayer and was very visibly drunk. I don't know if the priest (who was old enough and of such a tradition that he probably believed strongly in fasting and careful preparation for all communicants) did the right thing or not.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It is most emphatically NOT the policy of the Church of England, or of the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, to refuse Communion to any of those people with whom Inclusive Church is primarily concerned.
But it happens, especially in some conservative evangelical and charismatic churches. (Some use the Prayer Book line in the Exhortation about 'notorious sinners')
LGCM now has a policy of celebrating Communion at all its national and regional events because that is the only chance some people have of receiving the sacrament.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
3. All churches should be inclusive - to have only one Sunday a year when this is so is outrageous.
Drat you for channelling Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week...
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It is most emphatically NOT the policy of the Church of England, or of the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, to refuse Communion to any of those people with whom Inclusive Church is primarily concerned.
But it happens, especially in some conservative evangelical and charismatic churches. (Some use the Prayer Book line in the Exhortation about 'notorious sinners')
LGCM now has a policy of celebrating Communion at all its national and regional events because that is the only chance some people have of receiving the sacrament.
Part of me wants to say, 'Name three.'
Another part of me wants to say, 'Don't tell me that's the only church in the village.'
I cannot believe that there is a significant number of gay people attending CofE churches which refuse them the sacrament and which they, meanwhile, stubbornly remain loyal to. And until Colin Coward PMs me to give me chapter and verse, I shall remain skeptical.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It is most emphatically NOT the policy of the Church of England, or of the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, to refuse Communion to any of those people with whom Inclusive Church is primarily concerned.
But it happens, especially in some conservative evangelical and charismatic churches. (Some use the Prayer Book line in the Exhortation about 'notorious sinners')
LGCM now has a policy of celebrating Communion at all its national and regional events because that is the only chance some people have of receiving the sacrament.
Part of me wants to say, 'Name three.'
Another part of me wants to say, 'Don't tell me that's the only church in the village.'
I cannot believe that there is a significant number of gay people attending CofE churches which refuse them the sacrament and which they, meanwhile, stubbornly remain loyal to. And until Colin Coward PMs me to give me chapter and verse, I shall remain skeptical.
I could name you more than 3.
Sharon, of LGCM could names you many, many more but LGCM's phoneline is confidential.
Colin Coward is not a member of LGCM (indeed, he seems to be hostile to it, and it to him) so I don't know what he's got to do with it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
And as for the 'only church in the village' - in many cases 6 or more villages are all in the same benefice/team ministry so the exclusion will apply for miles.
In cities, it is precisely because people can choose a different church that we need to make them know of our existence.
It seems to me that several people are in denial or have no idea how badly the churches have treated/are treating LGBT folk, how toxic churches can be.
I'd go as far as to advise LGBTs to stay away from all churches unless they have a very strong faith. Buddhism is far more attractive.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I could name you more than 3.
Please do and give the the reasons for the "alleged" exclusions from the church's pov.
If you can't, don't or won't then we'll have to assume that either your assertion isn't right or that it was daft to make it (and you now realise that).
Which of these 3 options will it be Leo? Please put up or shut up.
I've been in and around churches of the more conservative hue for many years and I have never known of it happening.
[ 19. September 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd go as far as to advise LGBTs to stay away from all churches unless they have a very strong faith. Buddhism is far more attractive.
So Buddhism's good enough for them, but not for you? Or do you just not think that Christianity has any unique recommendation over Buddhism full stop? In which case, what are you doing representing it as a lay minister?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd go as far as to advise LGBTs to stay away from all churches unless they have a very strong faith. Buddhism is far more attractive.
What would your bishop and Rector think to that?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Colin Coward (of Changing Attitude) is relevant here because the claims you make are questionable while they are held by only one of the groups campaigning for the proper inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the Church. As long as it is only the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement making these claims, and that via a confidential phone line, they remain impossible to substantiate.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Buddhism is a lot less LGBT-friendly than many people think. Western Buddhism tends to be fairly liberal, but most expressions of Buddhism in Asia are closer to the cultural norms of wherever they happen to be, and are sometimes very conservative. And there are Buddhists in the UK who would look on Western Buddhism as more or less heretical (though they might not use the word).
But it does mystify me why some Christians remain in churches which are, in effect, abusive towards them. In the CofE, certainly, it is in principle extremely easy to leave one church and join another: all you have to do is not turn up at the first, but turn up at the second. I know there may be ties of family and friendship, but surely there's a balance between those, and being given the impression Sunday after Sunday that Your Sort Aren't Welcome Here.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd go as far as to advise LGBTs to stay away from all churches unless they have a very strong faith. Buddhism is far more attractive.
So Buddhism's good enough for them, but not for you? Or do you just not think that Christianity has any unique recommendation over Buddhism full stop? In which case, what are you doing representing it as a lay minister?
My spiritual director hat is worn for anyone who comes to be - I am not, and should not be, becauise it is unprofessional, be an advocate for any one church or religion.
Which is better - a toxic church or a different spiritual path where a person might flourish?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Colin Coward (of Changing Attitude) is relevant here because the claims you make are questionable while they are held by only one of the groups campaigning for the proper inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the Church. As long as it is only the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement making these claims, and that via a confidential phone line, they remain impossible to substantiate.
Pastoral conversations are confidential, whether mine of Sharon Fergusson’s.
Why should either Sharon or I tell lies?
And what is Coward’s animosity to LGCM based on? I’ve asked this three times now, on The Ship, and have yet to receive an answer.
And if there is hostility to LGBTs in the C. of E., why has he set up an organisation that aims to do what its title says – ‘Changing Attitudes’? And where has he said that Sharon's claims are untrue?
RC Guidance: quote:
most all are in accordance that the law should be narrowly interpreted and that all the factors -- obstinate perseverance and manifestly grave sin -- must be simultaneously present before Communion can be publicly denied.
source
Examples:http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/on-denying-the-eucharist-to-gay-couples
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-married-couple-denied-eucharist-in-rhode-island-parish/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/29/10541571-woman-priest-denied-me-communion-at-moms-funeral-because-im-gay?lite
http://now.msn.com/catholic-teen-denied-communion-for-pro-gay-marriage-facebook-post
http://falange.us/rainbow.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/gay-marriage-supporters-communion-catholic-allen-vigneron_n_3037109.html
http://christian-talk.forumotion.com/t3880-gay-carnival-prince-denied-communion-by-dutch-priest
Meanwhile, an Anglican archbishop in Harare has called for the excommunication for those who have a same-sex marriage.
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/african-call-to-excommunicate-those-who-enter-into-a-gay-marriage-the-church-of-eng land-newspaper-sept-16-2011-p-6/
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd go as far as to advise LGBTs to stay away from all churches unless they have a very strong faith. Buddhism is far more attractive.
What would your bishop and Rector think to that?
As a spiritual director, I am answerable to a supervisor. (And, vaguely, the SD community - our chief journal is a Jesuit publication called 'The Way' and there is an article from some time back that would also endorse my position.) Plus I have a published article in an edited book that argues this - so it is in the public domain.
Bishops don't interfere in SD.
My vicar, as it happens, thoroughly agrees with my position insofar as we have discussed it - he would, though, since as a ministry team we sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to equalities - indeed, he applied for his present post, and was instituted by the bishop, specifically because this is our position.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd go as far as to advise LGBTs to stay away from all churches unless they have a very strong faith. Buddhism is far more attractive.
So Buddhism's good enough for them, but not for you? Or do you just not think that Christianity has any unique recommendation over Buddhism full stop? In which case, what are you doing representing it as a lay minister?
My spiritual director hat is worn for anyone who comes to be - I am not, and should not be, becauise it is unprofessional, be an advocate for any one church or religion.
Which is better - a toxic church or a different spiritual path where a person might flourish?
The truth is better. If Jesus is, as he claims to be, the way, the truth, and the life (and not merely a way, a truth, and a life), and if you believe this--then why would you point people away from Him?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd go as far as to advise LGBTs to stay away from all churches unless they have a very strong faith. Buddhism is far more attractive.
So Buddhism's good enough for them, but not for you? Or do you just not think that Christianity has any unique recommendation over Buddhism full stop? In which case, what are you doing representing it as a lay minister?
My spiritual director hat is worn for anyone who comes to be - I am not, and should not be, becauise it is unprofessional, be an advocate for any one church or religion.
Which is better - a toxic church or a different spiritual path where a person might flourish?
The truth is better. If Jesus is, as he claims to be, the way, the truth, and the life (and not merely a way, a truth, and a life), and if you believe this--then why would you point people away from Him?
The Johannine quotation, out of context and not acknowledging the Aramaic original, which is not about exclusivity, is a tangent I could pursue with you on another thread (though it has been done before several times on The Ship), if you like. But the OP asked who kept Inclusive Sunday - I will probably be accused of 'Junior Hosting' but that is what the OP said before people started to defend exclusivity by saying that it didn't exist so there was no need for inclusivity.
However, just a hint quote:
It's a truism that modern Western notions of truth — whether through the fault of the Greeks or the philosophers of the Enlightenment — are centred on precise, transparent (and therefore fully-possessed) meanings. But less important than establishing who is to blame for making us think that real truth is clear, fixed and timeless is realizing that we do, and that it's a problem. I suspect our tendency when we hear that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life is to make what he means by Way' and by 'Life' (modes of finding) into something that resembles what we mean by 'Truth' (a mode of givenness).
But Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the word he is most likely to have used when he talked of himself as the 'Truth' is the Aramaic version of the Hebrew word 'Amen'. And the word 'Amen' doesn't imply a given, possessed item of propositional truth; its meaning is most naturally a relational one, and it means 'reliability'
Abiding – B. Quash (Continuum Bloomsbury 2012) p. 146f
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Meanwhile, an Anglican archbishop in Harare has called for the excommunication for those who have a same-sex marriage.
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/african-call-to-excommunicate-those-who-enter-into-a-gay-marriage-the-church-of-eng land-newspaper-sept-16-2011-p-6/
Chad Gandiya isn't the Archbishop of Harare, nor even one of the two men claiming that title. He is the Bishop of Harare. If you're looking for examples of excommunication of LGBT people in
the Church of England, is it too much to ask that you don't cite examples that are either form sub-Saharan Africa, or else part of another Communion altogether?
(Not that I'm denying the problem of homophobia in most of Africa, which I find greatly disturbing and frightening — I'm denying the relevancy of a bishop in Harare to congregations on the ground in Hertfordshire or Hampshire, where I suspect that very few, if any, incumbents are echoing the Zimbabwean prelate's statements).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd go as far as to advise LGBTs to stay away from all churches unless they have a very strong faith. Buddhism is far more attractive.
So Buddhism's good enough for them, but not for you? Or do you just not think that Christianity has any unique recommendation over Buddhism full stop? In which case, what are you doing representing it as a lay minister?
Another thought - I find some Buddhist spiritual practices helpful, as does RC, Jesuit priest William Johnson - see his book Silent Music.
Another Jesuit, Anthony de Mello uses Buddhist koans, see for example, his book The Song of the Bird.
On Spiritual Direction and LGBT people, I got many ideas from yet another Jesuit, such as how a toxic church will not feed but actively hurt and damage and how other spiritual paths might be more healing and growth-enabling. Spiritual Direction and the Gay Person - James Empereur
Now these three are all priests of the RCC and none has been bannmed as far as I know.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Every service should be inclusive - as you may interpret that word.
Why advertise exclusive by having an inclusive Sunday? Presumably your attitudes don't change on an Inclusive Sunday - if they do you have one massive problem.
No change from usual - just pointing it up.
And are most services really inclusive in most churches? When did you see a gay partnered couple take up the offertory procession? Or pray for Pride Day in the intercessions? Or bless a civil partnership?
For you to be really inclusive you'd have a lay person conducting and presiding at the eucharist. have you done that? If not, then you aren't inclusive, you are excluding some very gifted and talented people from participating in a communal celebration.
not at all - lay celebration would exclude those of us who have a catholic ecclesiology.
And this just confirms how stupid and ultimately contradictory the whole 'inclusion' agenda is.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]But Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the word he is most likely to have used when he talked of himself as the 'Truth' is the Aramaic version of the Hebrew word 'Amen'.
The truth is ... "most likely" means "I don't actually know but I'm flying a kite because it suits me and my agenda".
Leo - give us truth not specious opinions please and also please don't link to churches halfway across the world when your original implication was "lots of churches" in the UK.
All it ends up in is being called to another place which is what happened when you "allegedly" plagiarised something.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Woah, woah, woah - this thread is turning into a total trainwreck.
It is for the discussion of how we might worship on Inclusive Church Sunday. The things that it is not for include, amongst others, gay weddings in Harare, lay presidency, the use of Hebrew in the Johannine Gospel, accusations of insincerity, and 'Is Buddhism true?'
All very worthy of discussion perhaps, but in their allotted places (which are most likely Dead Horses, Dead Horses, Kerygmania, Hell and Purgatory respectively).
Please keep to topic all of you.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Lord's prayer is probably a bit of a red herring - i suspect its omission wasn't intentional - just a busy incumbent copying and pasting and forgetting this prayer because he'd copied a eucharistic prayer and a fraction as they were next together in the Inclusive Church resources.
I was right - just spent the day with him and he said the phone rang while he was compiling the booklet and he resumed after a lengthy interval and forgot the our Father.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Leo, I'll get back to you in Hell - the only place I think that... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Never mind - see me in Hell.
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... other 'minority' groups (women, etc ...)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I'm sorry, Leo, I know I'm deliberately getting the wrong end of the stick, but looking round the Cathedral on a Sunday, if there's one group that is absolutely not a minority, it's women.
I don't mean that it's either good or bad, it's just a numerical fact, and I'd be very surprised if it didn't apply in quite a few congregations.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... other 'minority' groups (women, etc ...)
I'm sorry, Leo, I know I'm deliberately getting the wrong end of the stick, but looking round the Cathedral on a Sunday, if there's one group that is absolutely not a minority, it's women.
I don't mean that it's either good or bad, it's just a numerical fact, and I'd be very surprised if it didn't apply in quite a few congregations.
Minorities (in this sense) refer to groups who are outside the cultural norm, not just groups who consist of not many people. Western Christianity tends to have more women than men, but women are still a minority in the sense of being excluded from certain roles, and all women are a minority due to living in a patriarchal society - they're a minority in terms of social power.
Speaking as a queer working-class woman, I have to agree with Adeodatus and Angloid. Working-Class Sunday would be far more revolutionary in the CoE than Inclusive Church Sunday! While I applaud Inclusive Church's aims, like Greenbelt and SCM (and I love all three organisations), the urban middle-class self-congratulation can be pretty excluding despite the best of intentions.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... other 'minority' groups (women, etc ...)
I'm sorry, Leo, I know I'm deliberately getting the wrong end of the stick, but looking round the Cathedral on a Sunday, if there's one group that is absolutely not a minority, it's women.
But in leadership roles?
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Speaking as a queer working-class woman, I have to agree with Adeodatus and Angloid. Working-Class Sunday would be far more revolutionary in the CoE than Inclusive Church Sunday! While I applaud Inclusive Church's aims, like Greenbelt and SCM (and I love all three organisations), the urban middle-class self-congratulation can be pretty excluding despite the best of intentions.
Speaking as a queer working-class man, I started going to church to join in, not
Ah, forget it. There's no point. There's nothing left, is there? No. There's nothing left. There's just nothing left. There's nothing there is. There's nothing there, is there? No time. No church, certainly. Nothing.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Speaking as a queer working-class woman, I have to agree with Adeodatus and Angloid. Working-Class Sunday would be far more revolutionary in the CoE than Inclusive Church Sunday! While I applaud Inclusive Church's aims, like Greenbelt and SCM (and I love all three organisations), the urban middle-class self-congratulation can be pretty excluding despite the best of intentions.
Speaking as a queer working-class man, I started going to church to join in, not
Ah, forget it. There's no point. There's nothing left, is there? No. There's nothing left. There's just nothing left. There's nothing there is. There's nothing there, is there? No time. No church, certainly. Nothing.
Sorry, but what does your last paragraph mean?
Re joining in, it's a bit difficult to do so if you're being excluded. While groups like Inclusive Church include in some ways, they exclude in other ways.
And for me church is not about 'joining in' (assimilating?) but people gathered to hear the Word and the sacraments duly administered, in all our diversity.
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
... if there's one group that is absolutely not a minority, it's women.
But in leadership roles?
As it happens, no (except where you'd expect them - Altar Guild, running the Sunday School, singing in the choir), although it doesn't seem to bother anyone - we're rather traditional.
My response to your post was meant to be light-hearted - I find it hard to see a group that makes up about half the population as a "minority" - and I really didn't expect anyone to take me seriously.
Mea culpa.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
Have you thought about removing any mentions of God and Jesus from the liturgy? Otherwise, the Church will be excluding minorities such as atheists and agnostics, who might fell offended. Aren´t we welcoming all?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
... if there's one group that is absolutely not a minority, it's women.
But in leadership roles?
As it happens, no (except where you'd expect them - Altar Guild, running the Sunday School, singing in the choir), although it doesn't seem to bother anyone - we're rather traditional.
My response to your post was meant to be light-hearted - I find it hard to see a group that makes up about half the population as a "minority" - and I really didn't expect anyone to take me seriously.
Mea culpa.
You're right that women aren't a minority in the numerical sense in the church, but the use of 'minority' here isn't talking about numbers, but social power. It's a common use of the word.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Re- 'Working Class Sunday', i agree - except that the mainline churches don't say that working class people are intrinsically disordered or that if you practice being working class you are in a state of mortal sin and, therefore, will go to hell.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
At my parish every Sunday is a "Working Class Sunday".
FYI, the church that traditionally uses terms like "intrinsically disordered" and "mortal sin" is not a mainline church. The Mainline churches are the (often affluent) Protestant churches that have historically been considered mainstream and influential in the U.S. and include churches like the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, etc.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Re- 'Working Class Sunday', i agree - except that the mainline churches don't say that working class people are intrinsically disordered or that if you practice being working class you are in a state of mortal sin and, therefore, will go to hell.
So? It doesn't mean that they can't be classist. Classism, like homophobia, doesn't always take the form of saying XYZ is wrong and sinful - sometimes it can be benign, even positive-seeming at first. I also think that churches that tend to be the most classist or at least the least inclusive of working-class people tend to be the kind of churches who really like Inclusive Church. That's the problem - that Inclusive Church and similar organisations aren't truly inclusive. However I'm not sure it's so much a liberal thing (I've been in classist conservative churches) as an Anglican thing (and to some extent a Methodist thing).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
At my parish every Sunday is a "Working Class Sunday".
FYI, the church that traditionally uses terms like "intrinsically disordered" and "mortal sin" is not a mainline church. The Mainline churches are the (often affluent) Protestant churches that have historically been considered mainstream and influential in the U.S. and include churches like the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, etc.
The RCC isn't a mainline church? I thought it was THE mainline church.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]The RCC isn't a mainline church? I thought it was THE mainline church.
THE main line to what exactly? Not the best example in my book in lots of areas.
Well, I suppose if you keep repeating something long enough, you get to believe it's true even if you're sadly deluded on certain aspects.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
At my parish every Sunday is a "Working Class Sunday".
FYI, the church that traditionally uses terms like "intrinsically disordered" and "mortal sin" is not a mainline church. The Mainline churches are the (often affluent) Protestant churches that have historically been considered mainstream and influential in the U.S. and include churches like the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, etc.
The RCC isn't a mainline church? I thought it was THE mainline church.
No it's not, actually. For more info, wikipedia has a decent article about it. The term allegedly comes from the suburbs of Philadelphia that grew around the main line of the Philadelphia railroad and were populated by old-school Protestants, back in the day. The Catholics were busy tending their homes and working their mills.
If by "mainline" you really meant "the mainstream of historic Christianity and the majority of Christians throughout the world today", then that's a whole other kettle of fish.
[ 29. September 2013, 17:05: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
So Leo, does being 'inclusive' mean that we don't name sin as sin, because it might hurt someone's feelings?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So Leo, does being 'inclusive' mean that we don't name sin as sin, because it might hurt someone's feelings?
No. It's about repentance from sins. The sins of excluding people because we think we're better than them, because their faces don't fit, or because our sins are forgiveable and theirs are beyond the pale.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]The RCC isn't a mainline church? I thought it was THE mainline church.
THE main line to what exactly? Not the best example in my book in lots of areas.
Well, I suppose if you keep repeating something long enough, you get to believe it's true even if you're sadly deluded on certain aspects.
Just done an interesting google search which suggests that people in the US use 'mainline' as in 'mainline PROTESTANT denominations.
Pond difference.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So Leo, does being 'inclusive' mean that we don't name sin as sin, because it might hurt someone's feelings?
No. It's about repentance from sins. The sins of excluding people because we think we're better than them, because their faces don't fit, or because our sins are forgiveable and theirs are beyond the pale.
Indeed - and repentance for applying scripture selectively and using it to harass people, blackmail them, send them to prison and exclude them from the sacraments.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Re- 'Working Class Sunday', i agree - except that the mainline churches don't say that working class people are intrinsically disordered or that if you practice being working class you are in a state of mortal sin and, therefore, will go to hell.
That will explain why there are so many white working class men in Church of England churches every Sunday morning, and so few middle-class gay men.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]The RCC isn't a mainline church? I thought it was THE mainline church.
THE main line to what exactly? Not the best example in my book in lots of areas.
Well, I suppose if you keep repeating something long enough, you get to believe it's true even if you're sadly deluded on certain aspects.
Just done an interesting google search which suggests that people in the US use 'mainline' as in 'mainline PROTESTANT denominations.
Pond difference.
We had the discussion here a few years back. One of those "false friends" which seems like a familiar idiom but is not. Over here we might say "mainstream" denominations meaning the larger or older small-o-orthodox Trinitarian churches.
Over there "mainline" (rather than "mainstream") seems, as Pancho said, to have originated as a reference to class. Maybe a British equivalent might be "Stockbroker belt"? Anyway it apparently includes Quakers and doesn't include Catholics.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Have you thought about removing any mentions of God and Jesus from the liturgy? Otherwise, the Church will be excluding minorities such as atheists and agnostics, who might fell offended. Aren´t we welcoming all?
Believe me, I know churches like that.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So Leo, does being 'inclusive' mean that we don't name sin as sin, because it might hurt someone's feelings?
No. It's about repentance from sins. The sins of excluding people because we think we're better than them, because their faces don't fit, or because our sins are forgiveable and theirs are beyond the pale.
No. That might be something else, but it certainly isn't 'it'.
We are all sinners in need of God's mercy and forgiveness. Yet you seem to be saying that certain things that have historically been regarded as sin should no longer be regarded as such. Is that what you're saying?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So Leo, does being 'inclusive' mean that we don't name sin as sin, because it might hurt someone's feelings?
No. It's about repentance from sins. The sins of excluding people because we think we're better than them, because their faces don't fit, or because our sins are forgiveable and theirs are beyond the pale.
No. That might be something else, but it certainly isn't 'it'.
We are all sinners in need of God's mercy and forgiveness. Yet you seem to be saying that certain things that have historically been regarded as sin should no longer be regarded as such. Is that what you're saying?
Have you specific examples?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Come to think about it though, it's more that I'm saying that some things that weren't considered sins in the past now should be:
Sexism
Racism
Classism
Homophobia
Those sorts of things. Things that exclude people.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Come to think about it though, it's more that I'm saying that some things that weren't considered sins in the past now should be:
Sexism
Racism
Classism
Homophobia
Those sorts of things. Things that exclude people.
So you believe that those sins have excluded people and prevented them from joining the church?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
What is "classism"?
Why isn't Ageism included? I'd have thought that especially important, bearing in mind the number of churches where "All-Age" is taken to mean aimed at the under 10s .
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Come to think about it though, it's more that I'm saying that some things that weren't considered sins in the past now should be:
Sexism
Racism
Classism
Homophobia
Those sorts of things. Things that exclude people.
So you believe that those sins have excluded people and prevented them from joining the church?
At the very least they've created divisions between people and caused folk to sit in judgement over and condemn others. And it's still happening; there are still those within the church trying to enforce sexism and homophobia within and without the church.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What is "classism"?
Why isn't Ageism included? I'd have thought that especially important, bearing in mind the number of churches where "All-Age" is taken to mean aimed at the under 10s .
It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.
I used Classism to mean the sort of thing mentioned in the book of James, where certain socio-economic groups are considered more important and more worthy of respect than others. Not so much a problem since the CofE ceased to be the Tory party at prayer, but still scratching a living here and there.
Ageism is an interesting one. Personally, despite the "all age services" you describe, I find the church quite exclusive towards children.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
Ok. I'll make this simple.
Is the church allowed to speak out against sexual sin?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Ok. I'll make this simple.
Is the church allowed to speak out against sexual sin?
Look, if you think being gay is a sin, then by all means say so. If on the other hand you don't, and want to repent of historical homophobia, then you may want to make a point that you are now inclusive.
But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to rail against the queers, you can't also claim that you are inclusive of them.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Sexual sin? Rape is likely the only sexual sin Inclusive Church types recognize (and they'll tell you that isn't about sex at all). Of course, the church should speak out against rape. Do you mean the Dead Horse issue? Inclusive Church Sunday assumes the Dead Horse issue is not a sin.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Ok. I'll make this simple.
Is the church allowed to speak out against sexual sin?
Look, if you think being gay is a sin, then by all means say so. If on the other hand you don't, and want to repent of historical homophobia, then you may want to make a point that you are now inclusive.
But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to rail against the queers, you can't also claim that you are inclusive of them.
*yawn* What I think is not the point. You seem reluctant to answer my question, which is disappointing.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What is "classism"?
Why isn't Ageism included? I'd have thought that especially important, bearing in mind the number of churches where "All-Age" is taken to mean aimed at the under 10s .
Let Me Google That For You
And, what Karl said re ageism. Churches in generally are pretty excluding of children, and perfectly including of old people, seeing as old people make up most churches in the first place.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Ok. I'll make this simple.
Is the church allowed to speak out against sexual sin?
Of course. It depends what you mean by sexual sin of course. And you know, God seems to be rather more concerned by economic sin, going by the Bible....
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
That may or may not be true, but it's not the point.
How do we know which sexual expressions should be affirmed and 'included' and which ones need to be spoken out against as sin?
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Ok, people. We are about to find ourselves in the midst of a large pile of equine carcasses. If you want to debate the appropriateness of the church speaking out about sexual sin as such that probably belongs in Purgatory. If you want to debate whether homosexuality and/or homosexual acts are sins then that belongs in Dead Horses. This thread is for the discussion of worship, liturgy etc. for Inclusive Church Sunday.
seasick, Eccles host
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Thanks, Jade:
Gosh, to think you can google things...
What I meant was WHO is to decide WHAT is "class" typical and then WHAT is acceptable?
I only ask because in some circles speaking with an RP accent is enough to get one labelled.
I'm also disturbed by the constant harping on about the "Tory party at prayer" - this perjorative rather implies that supporters of one of the main UK political parties are not welcome at church - is that really what you mean to say?
As for including or excluding children: might it not be an idea to ask some of the older (7 years and up) children what they like/dislike about worship?
In my parish we have a lively Sunday School but we also have families with children who come to the regular services, preferring them to SS; in the case of one family, they all come to the said BCP communion rather than attend the Family Service (referred to by my own children at age 9 as "Church Lite").
There is a trap that in trying to "appeal" to children we exclude other worshippers.
And while some may deem it acceptable to denigrate the older members of congregations, they are there and they have as much right to worship as other, younger people. It is quite wrong to try to impose services on them that make them uncomfortable and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of clergy to find an acceptable middle ground.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Thanks, Jade:
Gosh, to think you can google things...
What I meant was WHO is to decide WHAT is "class" typical and then WHAT is acceptable?
I only ask because in some circles speaking with an RP accent is enough to get one labelled.
No-one gets to decide. We accept each other, regardless of our socio-economic status.
quote:
[I'm also disturbed by the constant harping on about the "Tory party at prayer" - this perjorative rather implies that supporters of one of the main UK political parties are not welcome at church - is that really what you mean to say?
Nope. Rather that the old Tory Party at Prayer business used to imply that only Tories were welcome.
[qute]As for including or excluding children: might it not be an idea to ask some of the older (7 years and up) children what they like/dislike about worship?
[/quote]
Exactly what I did. They told me they disliked it because it was boring. They were right, too.
quote:
In my parish we have a lively Sunday School but we also have families with children who come to the regular services, preferring them to SS; in the case of one family, they all come to the said BCP communion rather than attend the Family Service (referred to by my own children at age 9 as "Church Lite").
Yes, I keep hearing this on here, but out there in the real world I've never met or come across any children like that. I don't think it's that usual.
quote:
There is a trap that in trying to "appeal" to children we exclude other worshippers.
And while some may deem it acceptable to denigrate the older members of congregations, they are there and they have as much right to worship as other, younger people. It is quite wrong to try to impose services on them that make them uncomfortable and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of clergy to find an acceptable middle ground.
Not in my experience. Why is it OK to have some services that aren't suitable for children, but not to have some that aren't suitable for older people?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
That may or may not be true, but it's not the point.
How do we know which sexual expressions should be affirmed and 'included' and which ones need to be spoken out against as sin?
How about "does it harm anyone?" and "are the participants consenting adults?"
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
That may or may not be true, but it's not the point.
How do we know which sexual expressions should be affirmed and 'included' and which ones need to be spoken out against as sin?
How about "does it harm anyone?" and "are the participants consenting adults?"
So God's a utilitarian?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I come back again to the idea that some services are "suitable" for children and others not.
The idea of "suitability" in regard to liturgy is puzzling.
As for implying that children who don't find "family" services appealing are in some way rare - fine, that's your take. My take is that a well-crafted PARISH communion can and does appeal to ("suit") all ages.
As for your quaint notion that the Tory-Party-at-Prayer label was quote:
used to imply that only Tories were welcome.
- balderdash. It was used as a stick, sometimes by clergy who should have known better, to have a go at decent people who they decided on no evidence whatsoever were anti "progress" and were liturgical stick-in-the-muds.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
Sorry. I will refrain from this aspect of the discussion as Seasick requests.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I come back again to the idea that some services are "suitable" for children and others not.
The idea of "suitability" in regard to liturgy is puzzling.
As for implying that children who don't find "family" services appealing are in some way rare - fine, that's your take. My take is that a well-crafted PARISH communion can and does appeal to ("suit") all ages.
There are 2000 people in our village. The school has a roll of 200. Do you know how many attend the parish church.
0
Yes, that's a 0. A big fat zilch. There were three - ours, until we realised the tedium, boredom and disengagement were harmful to faith and went elsewhere. Now, it may be that this "well crafted family eucharist" can appeal to all comers, but I'm damned if I've found one. My children certainly have loathed every one they've been to, and I don't believe my children are that fundamentally weird. They're easily bored, but that's children for you.
quote:
As for your quaint notion that the Tory-Party-at-Prayer label was quote:
used to imply that only Tories were welcome.
- balderdash. It was used as a stick, sometimes by clergy who should have known better, to have a go at decent people who they decided on no evidence whatsoever were anti "progress" and were liturgical stick-in-the-muds.
I think you're reading too much into my use of the term. I'm merely pointing out that when and where the CofE has an overwhelmingly middle-class aura about it working class folk can be inclined to think it's not for them. I think there's generally less of this now, which is positive.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I come back again to the idea that some services are "suitable" for children and others not.
The idea of "suitability" in regard to liturgy is puzzling.
As for implying that children who don't find "family" services appealing are in some way rare - fine, that's your take. My take is that a well-crafted PARISH communion can and does appeal to ("suit") all ages.
As for your quaint notion that the Tory-Party-at-Prayer label was quote:
used to imply that only Tories were welcome.
- balderdash. It was used as a stick, sometimes by clergy who should have known better, to have a go at decent people who they decided on no evidence whatsoever were anti "progress" and were liturgical stick-in-the-muds.
[citation needed]
Given the rapidly declining congregations at Parish Communions up and down the land, don't you think you should reconsider the idea that they're suitable for everyone? Clearly, they're not. If they were, they wouldn't be dying so much.
And given the damage done to liturgical innovators, those without RP accents and children/young people by liturgical dinosaurs, those with RP accents and older people, I'm not particularly inclined to feel sorry for the latter groups. You try going to a local Parish Communion outside of a big city, with a strong 'common' accent (Brummie/Essex/Estuary etc) and young children who get bored and restless, and see how fun that is for everyone. Hint - it's not fun at all.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
But my church is well outside a big city.
We have a variety of accents - domestic and foreign.
The main 10am service is well-attended by a broad cross section. We offer Parish Communion - but alternate with Family Communion and Choral Matins, plus there is always an early said BCP Communion.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:Why is it OK to have some services that aren't suitable for children, but not to have some that aren't suitable for older people?
Or, why aren't older people (who were all children once) not more tolerant and supportive of services which seek to relate to families and children? It is so self-centred of them to say, "I don't like it so I won't come" - worship isn't all about ourselves.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But my church is well outside a big city.
We have a variety of accents - domestic and foreign.
The main 10am service is well-attended by a broad cross section. We offer Parish Communion - but alternate with Family Communion and Choral Matins, plus there is always an early said BCP Communion.
Your church is clearly not the norm then (and I am genuinely glad that it is working so well for the local community). But all of the services your church offers would be a barrier to a lot of people - they just don't fit. It's boring. It isn't what makes them want a relationship with God. This isn't a criticism of your particular church's services, by the way, but a comment on how standard church services can't serve everyone. My own church is behind on this issue - we have one service on a Sunday, a 10am Sung Eucharist. I love it, but churches (and their congregations) can't just be serving themselves with their services.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My own church is behind on this issue - we have one service on a Sunday, a 10am Sung Eucharist. I love it, but churches (and their congregations) can't just be serving themselves with their services.
The idea that the form and style of worship is a matter of taste baffles me. I prefer a fairly austere, monastic sung mass. Other people clearly prefer either, baroque ceremonial with operatic music or free-er liturgical forms and praise-band style music. I'm happy to put up with either if I know that the eucharist is going to be offered and communion given.
The motivation of the Parish Communion movement was to rediscover the scriptural and primitive ideal of worship implied in the Book of Common Prayer as 'the Lord's people at the Lord's table on the Lord's day.' Like many ideals (socialism and comprehensive schools come to mind) it has not failed so much as never properly been tried.
I believe that churches are selling themselves short if they imply that Christian commitment can be sustained and expressed by dumbed-down 'praise services' in place of the eucharist. Additional services to attract enquirers are another matter. And I hasten to add that all the above is written from an Anglican PoV. Not having known a non-sacramental Christian tradition from the inside I hesitate to apply the same theory to other churches, though I think that 'worship-as-entertainment' is probably a bad policy in any context.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Angloid: I'm with you on the taste thing - although having just typed that I realise that I went to my previous church (which was not my parish church) because services in my own parish church were not to my liking - children running around screaming, dreadful "worship band", banal preaching,: and the biggest no-no for me was that the liturgy was just dreadful with far too much "lets all clap because Iris is back in church after spraining her ankle on holiday" in the middle of the intercessions ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
.
My own preference would be for high A-C but I have settled for prayerful MOTR and fine preaching which I hope we enhance with high musical standards and a broad repertoire.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Believe me, I am not in favour of replacing a Eucharist service with banal 'all age worship' services. But why a church can't have a fairly traditional 10am Eucharist, a 3pm family service (in a cafe church set-up for easy buggy access) and a 7pm Evensong or youth/student service (depending on the demographics of the church) I don't understand. A previous church of mine did it and it worked beautifully - there wasn't the Eucharist every week in the morning, but that could easily be adapted to a weekly traditional Eucharist with the later services left as is. The fact still remains that Parish Communion services as they stand are clearly not catering for everyone, because otherwise more people would be turning up.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Jade; most of my experience has been in parishes without the numbers or resources to sustain more than one service on a Sunday, apart from a said early Eucharist or a small group gathering to say Evening Prayer. Attractive 'seeker services' demand a great deal in terms of resources and planning which is beyond the reach of many churches. What tends to happen when the Parish Eucharist is not the norm, is something like a bad school assembly which is certainly not going to attract anyone, even or especially the already committed.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Jade
I'm with you on providing a range of services: we wouldn't accept going to restaurants with no choice so why expect would-be worshippers to do that very thing.
The constant theme in my home parish was "it can't be done" - this despite the fact that there was an incumbent, 1 curate, 3 retired clergy and 3 lay readers! And between that lot they used to manage 5 services between 2 churches maximum.
Now I see from the magazine that the list of available people has changed to 1 incumbent, 1 curate, 1 deacon, 4 retired clergy (all under 75), 2 readers plus a reader in training: and the services are now 4 per Sunday for 2 Sundays, 3 for the others; if there is a 5th Sunday there is only 1 service which the people from the "other" church are expected to travel to.
All midweek services have ceased - including anything for Ash Wednesday, Ascension, patronal, etc. The youth group has been disbanded, Sunday School is only twice a month, there is no longer a creche...
And the PP moans about being "stressed" ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
It needs to be acknowledged that, if you are minded to, being a CofE PP can be the ideal job for the workshy - and there are some clergy who are, frankly, lazy.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Agreed with you both on the issue of the ideal not actually happening, whether through lack of resources or lack of motivation. It does seem to be an issue with the parish system, and particularly how different churchmanship can be from parish to parish - which shouldn't in theory be a problem, but it is if churches won't work together. Some kind of mutual resource-sharing scheme would be a great thing, but would also require a lot of reform of the church to get it done. In the meantime, I'm not sure what the answer is but leaving things as they are doesn't seem to be working. Speaking as an A-C though, there are things we can learn from the evangelical wing and put into practice without abandoning our own particular stance on things. We need that evangelical energy though!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Inclusive Church's latest newsletter, out today, echoes some of the comments above: quote:
So why do we need Inclusive Church? Why do we have to argue for what many of us see as the bleedin' obvious? Because the Church, the institution that hands these stories down, has so often got it wrong. The church’s mission is to bring people closer to God. But all too often we see ourselves as 'gatekeepers' and 'guardians' who keep certain individuals out....Inclusion is the Gospel. The Good news is that every one of us is invited to live in God’s kingdom. Jesus said: “Come onto me who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Jesus did not say “Come onto me you heterosexual people (and men only if you are interested in the episcopate…)” “Come onto me all who are heavy laden…” “all” Jesus “all” goes beyond the superficial boundaries of gender, sexuality, ethnicity & social class... Yet so often the Church of England has become a straight, white gentleman’s club.
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on
:
Interesting discussion indeed. Thanks to all who have stimulated thought.
I didn't know there was an 'Inclusive Sunday'. I think some of these Sundays are 'take it or leave it' - some are more relevant to some churches than others.
But I do think this term 'Inclusive' can be a problem, although I'd not want to ditch it. So often its been used to mean LGBT people welcome. But its a bigger challenge than that isn't it?
How do we 'include' difference?
This comment raises the question of inclusivity and children among other things - why exclude the baptised from Communion? Of course that could just be the beginning of what to some will be a slippery slope!
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
why exclude the baptised from Communion? Of course that could just be the beginning of what to some will be a slippery slope!
If one takes the Loaves and fishes incident as the paradigm for communion, why indeed?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
If we took the loaves and fishes as a model of communion, wouldn't we consecrate loaves and fishes?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
They probably did in the early church - after all, the Greek of the feeding narrative uses Eucharistic words and, in the 4th gospel, is followed by a lengthy excursus on the eucharist.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Did what? Consecrate loaves and fishes? I've seen no evidence of that.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did what? Consecrate loaves and fishes? I've seen no evidence of that.
Bless or consecrate? There is a difference!
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Oh course there is. I've blessed all sorts of food at coffee hour and potluck. I consecrate bread and wine during Mass.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did what? Consecrate loaves and fishes? I've seen no evidence of that.
Have you been in the catacombs and seen the graffitto?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did what? Consecrate loaves and fishes? I've seen no evidence of that.
Have you been in the catacombs and seen the graffitto?
You mean the ICTHYS? If so, what has that to do with the elements at the Eucharist?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The term also applies to the wall paintings, several of which had loaves and fish with Jesus standing celebrant-like over them, often with disciples around.
The is some debate as to whether these depict celebrations of the eucharist or are meals for the dead celebrated on their tombs upon the anniversary of their death - though even those could have a eucharistic element, prefiguring requiems.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Sorry, leo - I don't buy it.
Why would we assume the catacomb murals of Christ with the Apostles and the loaves and fishes (can't pictureany, as it happens) were anything other than the depictions of the miraculous feedings of the multitudes we know from the Gospels? Of course those can themselves be related to the Eucharist as prefiguring it, but what evidence do these give that the Church ever attempted to use fish as eucharistic elements?
Add to that the fact that we have - as far as I can see - a complete absence of any account from the first centuries of any such thing, and the early and universal insistence on bread and wine which Our Lord himself used at the Supper.
In short, what evidence - of any kind - do we have that would count in favour of there having been such a radical departure from so important an norm given all the contrary accounts of the Eucharist we have?
[ 10. October 2013, 22:37: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did what? Consecrate loaves and fishes? I've seen no evidence of that.
Bless or consecrate? There is a difference!
There is now but we risk anachronism if we project the distinctions we make on the past. There is certainly a fair body of thought which thinks of the earliest Eucharists as having been meals, in the sense we would recognise. Hippolytus, though not an infallible guide, knows of the the sanctification of the oblation of cheese. Certainly as the tradition developed, that act has been seen as a different kind of blessing from that of the Eucharistic species (as now defined) themselves, but it would be imprudent to assume that Christians have always so regarded it.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
I have posted before to rein in tangents on this thread. Reading the most recent posts, I could barely remember which thread it was. I think therefore that the discussion of Inclusive Church Sunday has run its course. Thread closed.
seasick, Eccles host
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0