I'll hold back on the long comment here -- I have to go and catch a bus -- but there are so many times I've sat in situations not a whole lot different to this one.
That said, I'd like to register one dissent from the underlying narrative here. Being an inclusive church doesn't just mean calling a stop on sexism, homophobia, and racial prejudice. It is currently the fashion to read inclusive as pro-gay (in reality, not-anti-gay), which is sort of nice, but misses the point.
Inclusive has to mean actively embracing those who see the world differently, be it through physical disability, mental or cognitive issues, depression. And acting by making the community one that can meet people living these ways in a constructive manner.
Inclusive has to mean affirming the single and the married, and those who live in relationships that are stable but not formalized.
Inclusive has to involve moving away from the overtly didactic habits that have become all-pervasive in public liturgy since the Reformation. We have at least five senses, but it is rare to find a church that acknowledges and honours more than one or two of them. Inclusive therefore involves a style of worship that is open to a broader range of expressions: bells, smells, a balance of quiet with noisier, of static and dynamic motion, good music, and so on.
Inclusive has to mean facing up to ideological convergence in the political sphere, to start modelling the alternative, and not stop telling people why it matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment