What is an ‘inclusive evangelical’?
by Ian Paul, Psephizo:
There was a small social media storm last week when the newish group ‘Inclusive Evangelicals’ issued a letter, with 600 signatories, supporting progress in authorising prayers of blessing for same-sex couples, rooted in the conviction that ‘prayerful reading of scripture has led us to an inclusive position on same-sex relationships.’ I infer from this that members of the group believe that the Church’s current doctrine of marriage, expressed in Canon B30, is wrong and should be changed:
The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
However, this is not stated explicitly, the preferred language being ‘affirming the dignity and relationships of LGBTQIA+ Christians before God and in the full life of the Church of England.’
The group has clearly been very important for those who have joined, creating a sense of belonging with others of similar views, and providing an emotional release valve for people who have felt unable to express their views honestly and openly in their current contexts. This is highlighted by the (minority) of signatories who have not felt able to sign openly but anonymously:
Affirming that we are evangelicals who are part of the Church of England we therefore sign this letter, acknowledging that sadly for some of us that has to be anonymously in the positions we find ourselves.
It is important to recognise the pain felt here—but also worth asking a question. What could cause this difficulty? If people here were members of churches or other organisations where it was expected to support the historical evangelical and Anglican approach to this issue, and they were not able to, is there a question of integrity about continuing in such positions?
This touches on the heart of this question, and the complex intertwining of questions around meaning and identity. I have frequently asked members and conveners of the group how they understand the term ‘evangelical’, and what about historic understandings of the term they reject. There has been some helpful discussion, but this has often been mixed with hostility and anger that I am challenging people’s identity, and if that is how they describe themselves, who am I to judge? The interface here is between whether words have meaning, and whether groups have boundaries. The difficulty is that, if there are no boundaries around the meaning of a word, then that word actually loses any sense of real content. It is sometimes claimed that words mean what people use them to mean—but if that is the case, communication becomes impossible, because communication relies on a shared sense of understanding of words between the transmitted of a message and the receiver of it. But any challenge to the meaning of this word, ‘evangelical’, is felt to be a challenge to the identity of members of this group, and the journey that they have been on in rethinking key aspects of their own faith journey.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
