jay: (flowers)
[personal profile] 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. [profile] 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...

Date: 2004-01-22 09:59 pm (UTC)
ext_2918: (Default)
From: [identity profile] therealjae.livejournal.com
This sounds really familiar. And I'm so sorry.

-J

Date: 2004-01-22 10:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] trinker.livejournal.com
Oof. Sorry to hear that.

Date: 2004-01-22 10:15 pm (UTC)
geekchick: (cranky)
From: [personal profile] geekchick
everyone agrees that monogamy is the biblical standard

Who's this "everyone"?

I'm sorry you guys are having to deal with this. =(

Date: 2004-01-22 10:35 pm (UTC)

Date: 2004-01-22 10:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] curiousangel.livejournal.com
That really scrapes. I wonder what his Biblical cite was in defense of monogamy, in light of King Solomon?

If [livejournal.com profile] patgreene has asked you to let it lie, I suppose that pretty much ends the discussion. If it was me, though, I'd be damned if they ever saw another penny of my money.

Date: 2004-01-22 10:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mactavish.livejournal.com
I wonder if Abraham's priest told him that monogamy's the biblical standard. :P

Date: 2004-01-22 11:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dancing-star.livejournal.com
I'm sorry to hear this.

Date: 2004-01-22 11:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] archway.livejournal.com
I am sooo sorry that you are having to face this mess.~gentle hugs~

Date: 2004-01-22 11:21 pm (UTC)

Date: 2004-01-22 11:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
Ugh. I'm sorry to hear this.

Date: 2004-01-23 01:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sinboy.livejournal.com
Anglicans? Not polygamously friendly? Bullshit

"(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.

Date: 2004-01-23 04:09 am (UTC)
ext_28663: (Default)
From: [identity profile] bcholmes.livejournal.com
Yuck. I'm really sorry to hear this, Brian.

Date: 2004-01-23 04:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vokzal.livejournal.com
Hard choices all around. It is good that you are considering the other people it affects, though. If either of you two want to talk, call.

Date: 2004-01-23 10:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2004-01-23 09:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lizw.livejournal.com
I've expressed my sympathies in [livejournal.com profile] patgreene's journal already. They are very much meant for both of you (and your kids, to the extent they're affected).
Page generated Jun. 7th, 2025 07:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios