(no subject)
Feb. 4th, 2008 10:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaI just came across a fascinating story about a Congregational (United Church of Christ) church in Connecticut which is beginning to go through the "Open and Affirming" process - a series of discussions, study, and exploration directed towards opening the church to be fully inclusive of GLBT people.
Just before Christmas, every member of the church received an anonymous letter offering a $50,000 donation to the church if the O&A process were abandoned.
From reading the link, it sounds as though the congregation as a whole has been ambivalent about becoming O&A. Apparently it's been a question that's been discussed and not accepted before, and some members are bringing forth Biblical objections.
That's why it's so awesome that, according to the senior minister:
At the link, you can read the senior minister's full response - which includes a thoughtful analysis of Biblical arguments against homosexuality, as well as a general discussion of how the church should be guided on contentious issues. My favorite part is this:
I grew up in a Congregational church, and I remember how a poorly-run O&A process tore my congregation apart. (The process was renewed a few years later, and was fully successful then.) Ideally, of course, full inclusivity would be such a no-brainer that there would be no need for struggle or care in its implementation. But when that isn't where people are, I really respect them for being willing to put this much thoughtful work into the process.
Just before Christmas, every member of the church received an anonymous letter offering a $50,000 donation to the church if the O&A process were abandoned.
From reading the link, it sounds as though the congregation as a whole has been ambivalent about becoming O&A. Apparently it's been a question that's been discussed and not accepted before, and some members are bringing forth Biblical objections.
That's why it's so awesome that, according to the senior minister:
The church leadership and staff were immediately inundated with calls, letters and emails. To my knowledge not a single message was received that said the church should consider accepting the proposal.
At the link, you can read the senior minister's full response - which includes a thoughtful analysis of Biblical arguments against homosexuality, as well as a general discussion of how the church should be guided on contentious issues. My favorite part is this:
I have written before about the church being a place where people can discuss issues of great importance to their communities and their own lives. I have been in churches where people are scared to talk about issues where there might be disagreement; to me, those are faith communities that are just going through the motions. When you read the book of Acts, you find that, from its very beginning, the church has been a tempestuous thing, involved in discussions about issues large and small. Part of discerning what the church is and where it is going is having the members share their insights with one another. It is how we educate and challenge one another. It is also where we discover how God is still speaking to each person. The idea of being paid to not talk about something is disturbing. It flies in the face of the whole idea of being a Congregational church where the true power and responsibility rests in the hands of the congregation.
I grew up in a Congregational church, and I remember how a poorly-run O&A process tore my congregation apart. (The process was renewed a few years later, and was fully successful then.) Ideally, of course, full inclusivity would be such a no-brainer that there would be no need for struggle or care in its implementation. But when that isn't where people are, I really respect them for being willing to put this much thoughtful work into the process.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-04 11:14 pm (UTC)Then the congregation would know where they stood on the issue and how far they had to come...it seems almost like a social experiment.