Saturday, 31 July 2010

Inclusive Liturgy

The SEC has finally produced it's 1st move towards inclusive language (I think non gender specific is rather more accurate myself, but it is a flipping mouthful!). Here are the authorised variations - with my thoughts on them:

Page 2 at 5, & page 5 at 15 (Confession)

Current: God is love and we are his children… We love because he loved us first.

Change: God is love and we are God’s children… We love because God loved us first. (I've done this for years)

Current: heal and strengthen us by his Spirit

Change: heal and strengthen us by the Holy Spirit (who can object to going from 'his' to 'the Holy'?)

Page 3 at 11 (Gloria)

Current: and peace to his people on earth

Change: and peace to God’s people on earth (Fine, OK)

Page 4 at 13 (Creed)

Current: for us men and for our salvation

Change: for us and for our salvation (Not so sure - limits the concept of salvation to the gathered "elect" on one reading- but hardly worth a riot in St Giles!)

Page 6 at 18 (Opening Eucharistic Prayer)

Current: it is right to give him thanks and praise

Change: it is right to give God thanks and praise (Okey dokey)

Page 16, 2nd para, 4th line (Eucharistic Prayer IV)

Current: He renewed the promise of his presence

Change: Your son, Jesus Christ, renewed the promise of his presence (unobjectionable and Christocentric)

Page 21 at 23 (Thanksgiving and Sending out)

Current: Give thanks to the Lord for he is gracious. And his mercy endures for ever.

Change: Give thanks to our gracious God, whose mercy endures for ever. (Somewhat clunky but... fair dos)

Page 21 at 24a (Prayer (a))

Current: which is your will for all mankind

Change: which is your will for all the world (Good - not sodding humanity which sounds silly)

Of course, if we used Latin, it would be truly inclusive - naebody wid ken whit onybudy wis oan aboot!


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. On the change to the Creed: that's how we say it here across the pond in our Book of Common Prayer. And I s'pose that would be reason enough for someone to blow a gasket and demand "gracious restraint".

  3. SCG cannot be defending the TEC 79 PB can he???

    Yes but then again the TEC doesn't know what gracious restraint is, and has no intention of learning.

    Oh yeah I am on this side of the pond (USA) and if I had my prefs it would be 1662 all round LOL Prefer Latin personally.

    I view inclusive as mutually exclusive btw John.

    Yours aye,


  4. Well, TEC may not know a lot about gracious restraint, but neither do Uganda, Kenya or Rwanda when it comes to border crossing. Also mentioned in that moratorium thingy!

    1662??? You mean 1637 Scottish or English 1549 surely? The Savoy Conference caused it to trim too much and it has a very abbreviated Canon and no epiclesis. Just because it's valid doesn't mean it's right!

    Who are you in communion with these days Al (just out of curiousity:-))