Thursday, 9 June 2005

InclusiveChurch and General Synod

InclusiveChurch is campaigning for election to the 2005-9 General Synod of many more clergy and lay members who are committed to celebrating and maintaining the Anglican tradition of inclusion and diversity.

Advice on how to get nominated and elected can be found on the IC website as PDF files:

IC Aims and Objectives for the 2005 General Synod Elections
Advice on making an election address
How to stand for General Synod, advice for Laity
How to stand for Synod - advice for Clergy
How does the single transferable vote system work?

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 9 June 2005 at 9:59am BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: InclusiveChurch

Surely 'InclusiveChurch', if they are truly inclusive, should campaign also for the election of those who are not committed to their interpretation of inclusion and diversity?

Posted by: Mark on Thursday, 9 June 2005 at 11:22am BST

When left liberals already run the show, why make efforts to elect more? And why get out of bed when it seems that very soon there will be no show left to run?.

Posted by: Murray on Thursday, 9 June 2005 at 3:35pm BST

So much for your inclusiveness!

Posted by: Ian on Thursday, 9 June 2005 at 5:29pm BST

Great Googly-Moogly! could we *have* any better examples of a Straw Man Fallacy ?

Some so-called "liberals" can't really be inclusive because they neglect to include groups who are opposed to inclusiveness. By that definition, a civil rights group in the American South could be charged with not promoting tolerance because they don't include a White supremacist group at their next function. Sheesh...

Posted by: Simeon on Thursday, 9 June 2005 at 7:42pm BST

I'm with Simeon. 'Inclusive' in 'Inclusive Church' means, I think, standing with those who (or should that be 'whom'?) other church members want to exclude unless they are willing to be less than their full human being (and don't give me that 'adulterers' and 'theives' nonsense). Goodness knows, there are plenty of people ready and oh, so willing, to represent the 'exclusive' group!

Posted by: Rodney McInnes on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 5:57am BST

I'm in the UK. Where all those churches that exclude gays?

Posted by: John H on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 9:54am BST

Some people must have a very odd definition of 'left-liberal'

Posted by: Merseymike on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 10:26am BST

Oh, and expect some more visitors from the Trogdolyte tendency - as a link to this is included in a thread on 'Anglican Extreme' - sorry, 'Mainstream' (can't think why I keep getting that one wrong...)

Posted by: Merseymike on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 10:32am BST

Thanks for the link on your first post to the Straw Man fallacy (although I do wonder if Mark was taking the mickey?. I did notice a few other fallacies listed there eg "Relativist Fallacy", "Red Herring", "Special Pleading" which are familiar from many of the current arguments as to who is in/out, right/wrong, true/false.
btw lots of other goodies on your blogspot.

Posted by: Chris on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 10:44am BST

Mike wrote:
"'Anglican Extreme' - sorry, 'Mainstream'..."

ROTFL! that caught me by surprise, almost snorted my morning coffee before I regained control ;)

Chris, thanks. I often find some of the more repetitive postings seen here and elsewhere replete with such fallacious arguments, and it gets my knickers in a twist at times :)

Posted by: Simeon on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 2:14pm BST

While we're on logical fallacies, there's one in Mike's last posting:

Mike's use of 'Troglodyte tendency' contains a logical fallacy. He is implying that something (an attitude or point-of-view) can be bad by virtue of being old.

This is obviously not the case. There are four possibilities:
(1) good and old
(2) good and new
(3) bad and old
(4) bad and new.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 2:42pm BST

"Trogdolyte tendency"

I suppose you mean Troglodyte, Merseymike?

As readers will no doubt know, it is a description given by someone who thinks he knows it all, of someone he/she considers to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish.

Posted by: ian on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 3:52pm BST

Hi Simeon, Mike et al

The trouble is that "Inclusive Church" is a dishonest name. It is not really significantly more inclusive than any other church group. It just includes AND excludes slightly different sets of people, for slightly different reasons.

Most things that IC claims to include are included by other church groups already.

The only really novel things are a subset of the lesbian and gay relationships now considered "OK" in liberal society (and by liberal christians).

IC still applies the traditional "exclusion", even to other types of sexual relationship, such as casual, open, polyamory, polygamy, incest etc.

What's more, the inevitability of excluding those Christians who are not liberal enough on lesbian/gay sexuality seems to be seen as tolerable or even desirable!

You should just call it "LIBERAL CHURCH" and drop the posturing with words !!

Posted by: Dave on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 7:11pm BST

Quoth Rodney:

"other church members want to exclude unless they are willing to be less than their full human being"

Excuse me - just to clarify, are you actually saying that unless you are in a sexual relationship you are less than a full human being? That would seem to be the logical outcome of your statement.

Posted by: Sean Doherty on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 8:07pm BST

I'm not one of the decision makers within Inclusive Church, but Liberal Church sounds fine to me!

Ian's definition of conservatives sounds good too. I'll have to remember that one. Such self-awareness!

Posted by: Merseymike on Saturday, 11 June 2005 at 12:58am BST

Hi Mike
Cd you answer the 'Troglodyte' point before reverting to rhetoric -thanks!

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Sunday, 12 June 2005 at 11:32am BST

Ian did it for me:
reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish

A good description of conservative fundamentalism. I'm not sure there's a great deal we can learn from prehistoric man, and of course I share that view with many fundamentalists, as they don't believe such a thing ever existed.

Posted by: Merseymike on Sunday, 12 June 2005 at 5:42pm BST

"Conservative fundamentalism"

Again, terms easily bandied about, usually in a derogatory context, but as often as not quite unfairly. There are, surely, fundamentals in the Christian faith or is it pick and mix, whatever one chooses at the time? And as for conservatism, are there not some values and beliefs that one should conserve?

I wonder whether such terminology is helpful, really. It's like "right" and "left" in politics which by and large is nonsensical. I may be a liberal to one, a conservative to another. And I may inconsistent occasionally, depending on the topic under consideration. Perfection totally eludes me, at any rate!

If the good people in the other forum mentioned are deemed by definition to be troglodytes, is it possible that they might have some perception of the good people in this one? To be honest, might not the very name "Thinking Anglicans" some over a somewhat pretentious?

I know I'm not putting it very well - I can't express myself as I would wish - but it strikes me that choosing a discussion forum is like choosing a newspaper that corresponds already with one's prejudices and beliefs. Perhaps if there were more good natured interchanges between people of different views, there might be more of a meeting of minds, and a more magnanimous and Christian atmosphere. It saddens me somewhat that quite a lot of postings seem like esoteric empty rhetoric, in effect strengthening one's stubbornness or point of view. It seems that there's less effort being made to understand other peoples' point of view. Can any one of really have the arrogance to take the line that we've got everything sewn up and correct?

In saying this, I admit that I'm probably just as guilty as the next guy. And I'm led to ponder that perhaps this is not what the Founder of our faith would wish or me, or of us.

Posted by: ian on Sunday, 12 June 2005 at 7:01pm BST

I think the internet probably encourages combative comments.

I also think that if we met in, say, an ecumenical situation, where we begin from the position of expecting to have some areas of disagreement but the very enterprise is to try and work on the areas we agree on, it may be easier.

Sharing the same denomination causes most of the angst.

Posted by: Merseymike on Monday, 13 June 2005 at 1:04am BST

Hi Mike

I didnt ask for a definition of 'troglodyte'! I asked that you reply to my point that old does not equal bad, whereas your use of this term rested on the assumption that there can be a connection between being old and being bad. Not so!

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 at 5:58pm BST

Bad, not necessarily. Without revision and application, out of date, redundant, antiquated, inevitably.

Posted by: Merseymike on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 at 11:56pm BST

But why would anyone think there is any connection between truth and being up-to-date. This is nothing more than what CS Lewis called chronological snobbery.

What intrinsic value do you see in being fashionable or up-to-date? And how would you relate this to truth?

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 at 10:42am BST

I don't have the same view of 'truth' as you, Christiopher, so thats hardly high on my agenda. Comes of being a liberal, you know - rejecting simplistic conservative ideas of 'truth'

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 at 11:43am BST

Hi Mike-
To be a thinking & honest person at all, one must refuse to be 'a liberal', 'a conservative', 'a moderate' or whatever. Because if one is truly thinking and honest one will almost certainly find oneself coming up with a variety of shades of interpretation of the data, depending on which issue it is that is curerntly being discussed. What are the chances against honestly coming up with a liberal (or conservative) interpretation every simgle time? They must be astronomical.

This tends to demnonstrate that those who class themselves as 'liberals' or 'conservatives' tout simple are ideologues, dogmatistws, fundamentalists if you will. They conclude before they discuss. Which is the antithesis of scholarship and thought.

The position that there is no truth (which presumably you dont hold) is obviously self-refuting. Because you are asking ppl to accept the proposition 'It is true that there is no absolute truth', which is self-contradictory.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 at 4:15pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.