Comments on: Being an Inclusive Church

By: Kennedy

Kennedy — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:11:49 +0000

Pity about Jesus’ sisters.

By: william

william — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:46:46 +0000

It will always be difficult to know what an Inclusive Church is – by definition – from both sides of the spectrum.
What about being a Church that is know as a place where Christ’s gospel is preached, sinners are born of God [1 John chs 2b/3] and then live in the community as His newborn brothers [Hebrews 2]?
That could be a totally inclusive church – not just catering for a limited spectrum in its locality, as Kelvin’s seems to be – by definition.

By: Rosemary Hannah

Rosemary Hannah — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:36:09 +0000

Well, even Jean Calvin argued that on this earth it was not up to us to decide who were among the saved and who were not. In that instance, anyhow, I think Calvin was right. Our church is inclusive because we welcome everybody and tell them the good news. Sounds kind of Biblical to me.

As regards the end of post, I am not quite sure what you mean – but I find this a very open tolerant blog, where most things may be said, as long as the language is kind and tolerant.

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:39:10 +0000

Indeed, Our Lord did use such language, for example when he talked about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle for a rich man to enter Heaven. Usefully, someone invented a story about a so-called ‘needle’ gate, as part of the general sucking up to the rich and powerful that the church has sadly been prone to and that ‘conservative’ evangelical churches now excel at. No-one takes all of Jesus’ words ‘literally’(if you had given everything you had to the poor would you be typing the above on a computer?)

I’m curious who regards this blog as an example of “unchristian intolerance”. If memory serves, Kelvin did say that some of the comments aimed at exgay conservative Peter Ould on a thread here were out of line,and this blog has a fair and constructive moderation policy which contrasts markedly with the draconian approach that a lot of evangelical blogs take. It is true that this blog doesn’t tolerate the racism-comparable homophobic abuse that flourishes at ‘orthodox’ sites like Anglican Downstream or Camp Firm, but that’s hardly a bad thing (would you call a Jewish person “intolerant” if they didn’t allow antisemitic abuse or Holocaust denial to be posted on their *personal* blog!?)

By: william

william — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 06:19:09 +0000

In all our discussions about the undefined,I notice, ‘inclusive church’ – I seem to remember Jesus words about a ‘broad’road and a ‘narrow’.
It might be of interest for Kelvin to read through to the end of that particular discourse – especially when he writes about ‘surprises’ for JRW Stott!
I trust this will not just meet with the unchristian intolerance that this blog is well known for!!!

By: giac mcley

giac mcley — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:35:24 +0000

“Behind every good man is a–.” Cristina Parodi wrote in Oggi a couple of months ago, “Behind every great man is a woman. Behind every great woman is nobody. Remember that, ragazze.”

By: Roddy

Roddy — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:20:25 +0000

PS This is, and at the same time is not, a rhetorical question. How Anglican am I?

By: Roddy

Roddy — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:18:28 +0000

In my branch of the medical profession (haematology in case anyones wondering) we are addicted to classification of disease entities. We labour long and hard in the microscopic vineyard to give a name to things we see and analyse. However hard we try there is always a sub-group that cannot be shoe-horned into a specific group. We call these “—- condition, unclassifiable”.

Is the SEC the religious equivalent of “—- condition, unclassifiable.” If so, is this a weakness or a strength? If not, what exactly are we? What again is the sine qua non of belief to be a member of the SEC?

By: RosemaryHannah

RosemaryHannah — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:22:19 +0000

Honestly? I think it is about more that ‘traditionally rejected groups’ – though I would say I have worked as hard as any for many of them. It is about a positive attitude to the wealth of talents possessed by sometimes difficult people. It is about ways of opening up to those who are scary. It is about helping the confidence of those without any.

You all know this, I understand that. I rarely hear it articulated, that’s all.

By: Kelvin

Kelvin — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:35:14 +0000

Hi Roddy – its not a rude question at all. Moral relativism is exactly where we operate from. (And that is especially true for those who claim moral absolutes).

I don’t think that every story and experience is equally valid. Decisions have to be made by all of us all the time and will tend to depend on circumstance.

I think that when we are talking about a church describing itself as inclusive, the thing that is being talked about is whether it is either more inclusive of those who have traditionally been rejected than it once was or whether it is better at welcoming such people that other churches.

One interesting point during synod was when someone described the Scottish Episcopal Church as “smug”. Synod members nodded and smiled at that description and seemed to recognise something in it.

As to 1662, one of the fundamental metaphors is that we are all worthy of nothing better than hell. (“miserable offenders”, “not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs” etc). It kind of suits our dreich but peculiarly Scottish interpretation of angst rather well.

However, I think I’d say that one of the things that I preach about is that we are worthy of heaven.

I also think that its all very well, but its just not terribly good English…..