Forced back

[jay]

I 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...

Comments

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I've been biting my tongue on this since it first came up. This is an awful situation for you and Pat, but it really just exemplifies all my problems with organised religion. Too often the people who come to control such things are the small-minded petty ones who care more about small print and bigotry than real people. It sounds as if you're going to be at least semi-detached, in a fairly public way, from this church from now on. It will probably be best to detach completely and to try to find a community that actually respects its members' choices rather than one that browbeats and blackmails them back into the closet.

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.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Too often the people who come to control such things are the small-minded petty ones who care more about small print and bigotry

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 :).