This is still infuriating me, even though I shouldn’t be surprised. Why do efforts by churches to be ‘inclusive’ always limit their tolerance by deferring to ‘traditional’ perspectives? Why is the line drawn always drawn around ‘traditional orientations to gender & sexuality? https://twitter.com/britishquakers/status/1199371278899204096">https://twitter.com/britishqu...

Why can’t efforts to be inclusive and genuinely diverse not be brave enough to include people at the same table who hold a different position from the heteronormative conventional one?

Imagine if the things we got worked up about when sharing a table with others were whether they supported exploitative labour, invested in fossil fuels, or failed to condemn acts of cruelty? And what if - brace yourselves - we sat down anyway and actually talked?!

There is little more dispiriting than an establishment more interested in sustaining its own boundaries than genuinely addressing issues of human import.