For Episcopalians is being "inclusive" a real doctrine for them?

I see on so many Anglican and Episcopal websites the use of the term "inclusive." I am not trying to start a debate here about homosexuality and such, I am honestly wondering what is meant by the frequent use of this term. As Christians we call people to the Church and share the Gospel to the extent that we as individuals can. In what sense are the Catholic or Orthodox Churches not being inclusive? In what sense is are Anglican Churches more inclusive?

 

It is a concept perpetuated by "liberal Christianity" in the West, specifically in the mainline Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican and Roman Catholic circles. It stems from an underlying Western crisis in knowledge, where we are taught that it is impossible to know truth in an actual sense. It would be hurtful and wrong, then, for us to label anyone as good or bad, because we don't actually know in the first place, and all we do is hurt their feelings.

Another way to put it is: our belief about someone else's right or wrong is less important than their feeling happy. Our job is to include whoever wants to be included, as that would make them happy, whereas our idea of them being good or bad is uncertain, secondary, and unreliable.

 

One of the sad things about the country I live in is that exclusivity is valued. By that I mean "exclusive" schools, clubs, housing developments, etc. In England that's mainly due to our poisonous class system: keeping out people because they don't come from the "right background" or speak with the "right" accent, etc. In the past and possibly now, skin colour was/is a factor too. We still have racists and we also have homophobes. In addition we quite hear often people who perceive themselves as "working class" making unpleasant comments about "posh people".

The Churches (should) rise above this and be inclusive. We are all God's children. Love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

Interesting to see both of these responses from two such different perspectives. Thank you Spherelink and Seagull.

 

I find that the liberal machine needs fuel in order to continue advancing its Gospel of Inclusivity. To do it they need to continually manufacture crises even whey are okay or don't exist. So they scour society to find something, somewhere, which still is even a little exclusive. Then they advertise and publish this as evidence, that the Gospel of Inclusivity still hasn't been pushed to all four corners of the world.

Nope, another unchristian heresy.
Many if not most people are rejected by God, because they had rejected him. That's what Hell is for.

 

Ah, but remember that I am a member of the Church of England, a kind, tolerant Church, the Mother Church of Anglicanism. We see things differently. Do you suggest that before I send my Electoral Roll return to the Diocese in June, I go through it with the Vicar and together we delete people because they are divorced; have a criminal record; gay; live with someone to whom they are not married; might be having an extra-marital affair; drink too much, etc? It could be that the numbers on the Roll might reduce considerably because of this. And should I tell her to turn various people away from communion for similar reasons? Our church would close before too long.

And remember, forgive seventy times seven. We are all sinners.

"Good -nature and good-sense must ever join;
"To err is human, to forgive, divine".

 

I can offer many, many views from the Anglican Divines condemning sin harshly, and growing the church at the same time.

Remember too how harsh the Church Fathers were against all kinds of heretics, and the church grew then.

And remember Christ who turned away his entire following with his harsh language; who turned to the last 12 men left with him, the apostles, and told them "so, are you going to leave too?"

The job of the church is not to fudge the numbers by coddling sinners, fornicators, adulterers.

I? You make it seem as if they made an offense against me. I'm not the one to judge them! Have you forgotten the Heavenly Judge?

 

OK, so let's get back to the real world. Should I and the Vicar go through the Electoral Roll and eliminate sinners? It would then reduce to nought.

And remember St John 8:7. You might be in the position to cast the first stone. I am not.

 

How can you go through the rolls and eliminate sinners if you first had never made a stand against sin? It would seem awfully harsh of you. If you were honest about what you say, what you'd do is get the priest and lecturers to preach on holiness and denounce sin, as is already the case on the books, in the Church of England canon law.

This would be done for the next year or so making the position of the church once again unambiguous and clear. Several years later, then, canon law would again be enforced and the teaching of God once again defended by enactments of discipline, against active transgressors.

Several years after that, after a long pattern of submission to God and demands of holiness had been made, recalcitrant sinners who refuse to repent would be excommunicated. This was always the historical pattern of the Church of England and the church universal throughout all the ages.

Again remember that I am not casting the first stone, if a man fornicates and sins. He expresses his hatred and rejection of God. It's between him and God. I have nothing to do with it.

 

The Church of England is against sin. We confess our sins before communion. But you are not following through. Since we are all sinners, by your line of reasoning, we ought all to be excluded, even excommunicated. I doubt if there's anyone who does not confess her/his sins before communion on the grounds that they haven't sinned recently.

 

Yep, the canons are with me. The Church just needs to enforce them.

Is it possible to mouth the liturgy without meaning it? It's not like its an optional rubic or something.

Make sure that you are not equivocating when saying the "we are all sinners" line. After baptism our original sin is cleaned, and what we have is the taint, I.e., namely, the proclivity to sin that's in our nature. On top of it, we commit actual sins that then make us sinners. Upon the Rite of Absolution if we had repented, all of our sins are cleaned up, until the next time we make another sin. What that means is that it is possible to be without sin for a time. And after we commit a sin, if we repent upon the next Rite of Absolution we are cleansed again.

Additionally think of this: how can we repent and be absolved if we were never told wherein sin consists? If we're constantly too timid and never discuss what sin is with others, they can never learn whereupon to repent, and consequently they, poor souls, are walking around with the terrible burden of sin on their souls, while the rest of us are walking around lightly.

 

Are you advocating one-to-one confession to a priest? Unusual, of course, in the Anglican Communion.

Who do you discuss your sins with? (I presume you have some). And do you discuss other people's sins with them?

 

No I'm talking about our Rite of Absolution which stands in for the Romish Confessional. We do not need to make an auricular confession, but rather make that rite in a full and hearty inward repentance.

 

So if my Lesbian friends do that, it's OK?

In anticipation of your answer, are you telling me that at whatever church it is you attend, there are no gays, no divorcees and no unmarried people living together?

 

If they go and repent of their sin, absolutely.

There aren't unrepentant sinners, as far as I know. Every single person who does commit sins repents of hem heartily, and endeavors not to commit them. This very thing is in yours and my liturgies.. don't you know this?

 

So gay people, divorcees, unmarried couples etc repent heartily, go home and....then what? They stop being gay? Get married? And the divorcees? Go back to their original spouse? Somehow this seems a bit unhinged.

 

Doesn't the term,"Go and sin no more,' strike a bell?
I always took it that the phrase was the point to be made? Or doesn't it matter ? Does Christ intend the sinner to go on his or her course and simply be more careful next time?

 

Yes, it does. But do you have people in your church who are gay, divorced or living together out of wedlock? If so, presumably you i) tell the gays to be celibate; ii) the divorced to return to their original spouse(s); and iii) the unmarried to get married unless ii) applies? And if they don't, are they turned away at the church door? Or merely refused the sacrament?

 

i think we need a better understanding of what you think "repent" means

 

brother Seagull. from what i learned, repent means to "turn away" from whatever is being repented of. so, if that is true, then it would be impossible to characterize someone as heartily repenting of their sins if they remain actively engaged in them, wouldnt it?