One of the main themes emerging from this year’s Scottish General Synod was the issue of inclusion. I’ve mentioned before the phenomena of getting just about any group of Scottish Episcopalians together and asking them what our church is about. The answers are always the same – good worship and being an inclusive church. (Interestingly, no-one ever defines us as having anything much to do with having bishops. I remember one provincial conference where I’m sure everyone would have voted to change the name to the Scottish Inclusive Church if such a thing could have been proposed).
And all this came up again last week. In the long debate about mission and in other parts of the synod, the ethos of the Scottish Episcopal Church was claimed to be being an inclusive church. I’ve long had a suspicion that part of this is that Episcopalians in Scotland are all a bit odd in one way or another and when we say we are an inclusive church, part of what we mean is, “Thank God, I’ve found a church that welcomes me. There is no-where else to go”.
Anyway, on and on it went. “We are an inclusive church” sayeth the crowd.
Yet I’ve come to the conclusion that this is aspirational talk rather than something that we have already achieved. Some of the most interesting things said at the synod were when people said things that suggested that perhaps the church was not quite yet as inclusive as they would like it to be.
Marion Chatterley got us to agree to a gender audit.
Analu Waller reminded us that cutting grants for buildings could mean cutting support for access for disabled people. She also challenged us to go back to our congregations and count the disabled people there and then ask whether we are really an inclusive church.
Ian Ferguson from the big evangelical congregation Trinity Westhill in Aberdeenshire said, “Inclusion is not just about the gay commmunity”. (And everyone nodded along).
I said that the bishops’ current policy on gay blessings and ministry was not something we could all support. (The bishops are directly stating that they are discriminating against gay people for the first time in our history).
And then there was the Faith and Order Board saying that inclusive language amendments to the liturgy would do tucked into the back of the book as an appendix of permitted texts. It was me again, who reminded them that the liturgy committee has been trying to get us to think of liturgy as formative for faith and that making inclusive language merely optional was not really the kind of thing that lots of us are hoping for.
All these things were comments from people complaining that we are not inclusive enough for them. Yet still we say (and indeed our new Primus seemed to reiterate), “We are an inclusive church”. It is a distinct theme and one which needs a bit of thought throughout the church.
What’s the most important next step?
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.
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.
Pity about Jesus’ sisters.