Forced back
Jan. 22nd, 2004 01:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayI just talked to K, the rector of our parish... because of "lifestyle issues", specifically, I will not be allowed to be a vestry candidate, or a candidate for anything else that represents the parish. If I insist on running for any office, he will remove my eligibility by writing a disciplinary letter to the diocese, thus making me a member-not-in-good-standing. Poly-sensitivity outweighs any gain that the organization might get from my talents and skills. K justified having existing gay vestry members, but not poly, as, "people are of several minds on homosexuality within the church, but everyone agrees that monogamy is the biblical standard."
If I don't force the issue, I will continue to be allowed to participate as a member... allowed communion, but essentially nothing further.patgreene has asked me to not force their hand, if only to not make things harder on her and the kids. So I will probably retreat back to my corner...
If I don't force the issue, I will continue to be allowed to participate as a member... allowed communion, but essentially nothing further.
patgreene has asked me to not force their hand, if only to not make things harder on her and the kids. So I will probably retreat back to my corner...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 09:59 pm (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 10:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 10:15 pm (UTC)Who's this "everyone"?
I'm sorry you guys are having to deal with this. =(
no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 10:18 pm (UTC)The ones who don't read the OT, I suspect.
I'm sorry you guys are having to deal with this. =(
Metoo. Ugh.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 11:00 pm (UTC)sorry to hear this, Brian.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 11:12 pm (UTC)*nod* When I read that justification, my first reaction was "I suppose that means the Old Testament isn't part of the Bible then?".
Ugh.
Indeed. Ugh.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 09:10 pm (UTC)Blergh. I hope you can find a way of not getting too badly hurt by these folks.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-23 02:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 10:38 pm (UTC)If
no subject
Date: 2004-01-23 12:45 am (UTC)Oddly enough, had this happened last year, things might have turned out much differently. Recently, though, the parish has had at least one officer resign, and parishioners leave, over the Gene Robinson ordination. They might have let things slide another year, but right now they are faced with people decrying them for their moral laxness as regards sexual mores.
A lot of how we proceed will depend upon how they deal with us in person at church.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 10:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 11:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 11:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-22 11:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-23 01:32 am (UTC)"(The Lambeth Conference) will be one of the largest gatherings of representatives of African Christians you could hope to find. There are more Anglicans in the Province of Central Africa than in England. Nigeria is said to have more Anglicans than England, Europe and the USA put together" (Andrew Brown, The Sunday Telegraph, UK, July 12, 1998).
"In parts of Africa, the central missionary question is polygamy. The Bible is of course quite clear on the subject. Polygamy is fine in the Old Testament; and even in the New, it is only bishops who are required to be 'the husband of one wife.' But this was not how the missionaries saw it. Now some of the African bishops are restless because, they say, it is unfair to demand that converts put away their surplus wives when they become Christians. In places where the household is the basic economic unit, sending a wife back to her home is a catastrophe for her" (Andrew Brown, The Sunday Telegraph, UK, July 12, 1998).
Your rector is not only being a complete ass, but is wrong. You're better of just not being in contact with such toxic people. I'd suggest they you just leave, but I know how important the church is to Pat. A retreat is probably the best thing at this time.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-23 10:40 am (UTC)Its very odd where you find poly people these days...
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:32 pm (UTC)It's ironic that the same African churches that are possibly building alliances with the conservative anti-gay-clergy dioceses here in the US, are themselves lobbying to keep their converted poly familes intact (which would probably horrify those same conservative US dioceses).
no subject
Date: 2004-01-23 04:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-23 04:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-23 10:51 am (UTC)And I wonder how consistant they're really being. Ignoring good points made above about the old testament and african missionaries, what does your church do about people committing adultary? I'm sure there must be many divorcees in your church. Are they prevented from taking up office? Are they 'told on' to the diocese? And what about those having ongoing illicit affairs that are kept secret from other partners, with all the lies and hurt that can produce?
If your church accepts those who are unfaithful but lie about it while it pillories you for being honest, fair and open, then this is hipocrasy of the rankest kind and you would be well rid of them.
Let those without sin cast the first letter to the bishop.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:52 pm (UTC)Just as in relationship practices the network node with the least comfort tends to dictate overall practices, so in organized religion the members with the most narrow, fearful view of ethics and practices (and interpretations) tend to predominate.
There's an underlying tension here... younger members and families tend to be more open-minded and socially liberal, but pledge less (many are financially struggling). While a smaller number of older, more conservative, set-in-their-ways parishioners have more disposable income and donate the most. To stay alive, the parish must be flexible and open and accepting -- but not *too* accepting, else it will go broke as the conservatives take their money and run elsewhere.
I'm tied to this parish only by friendships and a decade of helping to build it up... it would be sad to leave. Rumor is that the two clergy involved are looking for new jobs and could leave within a year or two, so we might wait and see who replaces them.
Divorces? Not an obstacle to standing for lay offices like the vestry. Past illicit affairs? As far as I know, those aren't an obstacle either if they aren't still going on and the person has promised to behave.
A letter to the bishop... hmm, that might be a good preemptive strategy, rather than waiting for the local priest to act. Thanks for the idea :).
no subject
Date: 2004-01-23 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:36 pm (UTC)