The Scottish Episcopal Church’s College of Bishops has approved inclusive language prayers, authorising optional changes that remove “Lord”, “He”, “his”, “him”, and “us men” from its 1982 Eucharistic Liturgy.
On Aug 2, the SEC published a list of seven permitted changes. Spokesman Lorna Finley said the changes were offered by the College of Bishops as an “interim measure” as the General Synod Liturgy Committee prepares new Eucharist rites.
The permitted changes include altering “God is love and we are his children” in the Confession and Absolution to “God is love and we are God’s children.”
Glad they haven’t driven out all the serious discussion in the SEC, with Stuart Hall pointing out the problems, though the SEC may just move ahead no matter what. Oddly, when I was in St Andrews and the ‘inclusive language’ discussion came up, I had the impression most people thought this was an american thing and they weren’t interested. I think the SEC is trying hard to give itself a special place and to believe it has a special contribution to make. I wonder what the average age of parionshioners is and how many attend church on Sunday? I wonder if there is any hard evidence that efforts to be relevant and ‘inclusive’ can grow a church. One can come away with the suspicion that theories about ‘inclusion’ insure that only the ‘initiated’ will attend and that small numbers don’t matter.
And the alternative is to be irrelevant and exclusive?
My question was simple, #2, is there any evidence that trying to be ‘inclusive’ actually works to include more people? Or does it simply appeal to a small cadre of people who think they are being ‘inclusive’ by using odd sentences like ‘God is love and we are God’s people’? Does ceasing to use the language of ‘God is love and we are his people’ do anything genuinely to ‘include’ people? I have lived through the last twenty years of fussing around with so-called ‘inclusive language’ and it has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the old mainline churches. This simply raises the question as to whether ‘inclusive language’ is what it says it is, or whether it is an elitist hothouse idea that doesn’t do what it purports, but rather its opposite. Is that any clearer?
And by the way, Stuart Hall is no conservative reactionary. He probably votes with the Liberal Party.
>”…teach bad doctrine…”
Um, doctrine is doctrine because it is truth. There is no such thing as “bad doctrine”. There is simply doctrine and not doctrine. The inclusive language is not teaching nor reinforcing doctrine, truth.
Difficult to teach doctrine when one does not know what doctrine is to start.
>”…teach bad doctrine…”
Um, doctrine is doctrine because it is truth. There is no such thing as “bad doctrine”. There is simply doctrine and not doctrine. The inclusive language is not teaching nor reinforcing doctrine, truth.
Difficult to teach doctrine when one does not know what doctrine is to start.
Absolutely valid points #3. I do wonder when I hear these things who it was that Jesus was speaking to, or about, when he referred to his Father?
Quite right, #7. Shouldn’t he have said “It?” “Our It who art in Heaven…” What’s wrong with this?
As has been done by PECUSA, this is nothing more than using current cultural pressures to change our relationship to God, while ignoring, in the arrogance of 20th and 21st Century secular humanism, the scripture, tradition, and, in reality, reason, as well as even secular human history, that defines and always has defined God for us humans. It is idolatry of the first order and ultimately it will not stand human society, Christian or secular, in good stead, IMO.