Comments: InclusiveChurch: A Thousand Hundreds

I can understand why Inclusive Church want to campaign. (I'm a bit of a campaigner myself.) What I can't understand is why they have to publish nonsense to do it: "We find ourselves up against people who, quite simply, insist on excluding themselves from the most inclusive church that has ever been. [...] As for gays, they don�t want them in church, or in the community, or in the country, or on earth." (Incidentally, someone needs to proofread their own website and get rid of the "?"s which can creep in when you cut and paste from a wordprocessor to html.)

This particular statement reads like a rant - and a 'green ink' one at that!

Posted by John Richardson at Saturday, 10 February 2007 at 3:06pm GMT

I am glad to see the Inclusive Church doing this. If there is going to be a rift, it would be lovely to see an inclusive communion for those who refuse to turn their backs on God's children simply because they come in "unacceptable" packaging or with "unacceptable" burdens. God knows, there are enough of us who would be excluded from the "pure" churches but who would still like to publicly worship God in an inclusive and compassionate manner.

As someone who has been isolated within my diocese (partly by choice to avoid trauma to hapless parishioners unaware of the depth of hatred in their leadership), I welcome the Inclusive Church's initiative. It will be to people such as this that I will be turning once as the dust settles down.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Saturday, 10 February 2007 at 9:35pm GMT

Thanks for spotting that the pre-edited version went up by mistake, John Richardson. Now amended. That's what comes of not having a General Secretary -

Posted by Giles Goddard at Sunday, 11 February 2007 at 9:32am GMT

So now, without the "?"s, it just says, "As for gays, it seems that they [the people like Reform that Inclusive Church considers it is "up against"] don’t want them in church, or in the community, or in the country."

So it's edited nonsense, but it's still nonsense. Find me a Reform or Anglican Mainstream statement that says gays are not wanted in the country and I'll give you one of your £100 donations.

(Just to clarify, though, blog comments don't count! There are enough nutters out there to go round all camps!)

Posted by John Richardson at Monday, 12 February 2007 at 12:42am GMT

Let's see. If Reform and AM had their way, gay relationships would not be recognized. Thus, if one person became ill, their partner might not even be able to be at the bedside, let alone make any decisions. They would not be able to adopt. It would be legal to refuse to provide them services. Support for +Akinola indicates they have no trouble with throwing gay people or their supporters in jail. So, they might not have actually come out and SAID gay people should not be allowed in the country, but they certainly seem to want to not have to acknowledge the presence of gay people, or of the validity of their lives, and likely would have no trouble with making homosexuality a criminal offense. Suspicion of their motives and true desires is well based, whatever their official pronouncements.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 14 February 2007 at 1:30pm GMT

Ford - my main objection to the UK civil partnerships rules is the discrimination against two siblings living together - they have not been given the right to let each other inherit property etc.

I would have wanted a law which allowed EVERYBODY to nominate ANYBODY else to be have this status (ie to give authority for medical treatment and to inherit property they share tax free - this would have been more fair but the government did not go for it (maybe because it would have cost more money, maybe to please certain pressure groups)

Posted by NP at Thursday, 15 February 2007 at 11:04am GMT

NP,
"I would have wanted a law which allowed EVERYBODY to nominate ANYBODY else to be have this status (ie to give authority for medical treatment and to inherit property they share tax free"
The first is covered under Enduring Power of Attourney, by which I can designate someone to make decisions for me should I be incapacitated. Not at all new in English Law. And, two siblings living together can inherit, I do believe. Besides I can bequeath to whomever I like, no. Your attempt at snide sarcasm failed because it did not use actual examples and shows your ignorance of basic civil law. It would have worked far better as a sarcastic jibe if you had argued for relationship status between me and my cat.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 15 February 2007 at 1:01pm GMT
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.