I have no problems with inclusive language or with the use of they forms with a singular reference as a way of avoiding the he/she problem (the OED records this usage from the sixteenth century). But I do think that a little sensitivity is called for – as always – in sentence construction. So, when the Revd Dr Mike Bossingham writes in a letter to the Independent (my emphasis):
Sir: As a clergyman I have some concern about David Cameron's comments about parents with sharp elbows and places at faith schools.
One concern some of my colleagues have is the response of such parents when a clergy person refuses to perjure themselves when presented with an application form to sign. At the Faithworkers Branch of Unite annual general meeting some of my colleagues have reported stories of the retaliatory attacks in such circumstances.
the clash between the singular subject and the plural reflexive pronoun is stunning. I really do feel that it would have been more felicitous had he written:
… when a cleric refuses to commit perjury when presented with …
I don’t recall ever seeing cleric used as a neutral word for a member of the clergy, but I don’t see why it shouldn’t be. The COED defines it as 'a priest or religious leader'. And that in turn leads on to the question of why Anglican clerics don’t simply call themselves priests. After all that is what they, unlike Dissenting ministers, are.
I do wonder sometimes whether people do this sort of thing deliberately to demonstrate to the world their politically correct credentials as people who know what terminology should be used – though the Reverend Doctor refers to himself as a clergyman. On the other hand, this could just be the typically (and subconscious) British style of giving pragmatism the ascendancy over aestheticism.