Tonight my Deacons voted to have gay marriages done at our church

[Critters2]

called marriages and not covenants, or unions or something else.

But they're all desperately worried about the one member who wasn't at the meeting and will be upset. And she will use all her passive-aggressive wiles to undo it somehow, I don't doubt.

Still, this was a good night.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Woo hoo!! Let's hope it doesn't cause a rift.

Good for your deacons! I approve highly.

:applause:

[Kat45]

2. Wow! That's great. And I know what you mean about that one member.

Isn't it amazing how one or two members of a church can screw everything up for the whole group? Our church is working on consolidating with another church, and apparently just 3 choir members have an inordinate influence on how things are done in that church, and most of the people don't like that. I even volunteered to "walk into the fire" and participate on the music committee when we're working out the ways of the new church. I was applauded for doing so. :-)

[Critters2]

3. What was most amazing was how frightened everyone was

of offending her. "What would L think?" "Shouldn't we do it when L is here?" Me: You have a quorum, and she knows when the meetings are. You're not obligated to wait until she's here.

Interestingly, there was another member absent, but one everyone knew would agree with this action. No one was biting their nails over his absence. But the chair assured everyone she has L's cell number, and would call her right after the meeting to let her know about this, "so she won't be upset". But she WILL be upset. She needs to either accept that this has happened, or get used to being upset. And it's all tied up in this church's obsession with class and wealth (she's a doctor's widow--thus worthy of more respect than a normal person), and all sorts of other shit. Add her passive aggressive pathologies (which are also related to wealth and power bullshit). AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Yep, I could easily see three members of a choir being a collective royal pain in the ass for a music committee. Two things strike me about your post:

"just three members have inordinate influence" and "most of the people don't like that"

Why are "most of the people" cowed to the point of allowing these three people inordinate influence. Come on, Church!! Jesus stood bravely in front of Pilate, and we're afraid of L and three choir members?!! Imagine if we had REAL challenges to deal with!!!

:banghead:

Okay, I'm done. And I feel better now. Thank you. :rant:

[Kat45]

5. Yup. I don't get it either. That's why I volunteered for the music committee.

Another person from my church, a professional musician who plays at Tanglewood in the summer, also volunteered. These meetings oughta be interesting. :D

Edited to add: glad to help with your rant.

[RevCheesehead]

4. Congratulations!

You must be very, very proud of them!!


As to the one person: Ask those who are worried why HER opinion is more important than anyone else's on the committee.

[elshiva]

6. God bless!

What denomination are you?

YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Yes, it is difficult, but just remember do NOT let the ways of the world (heterosexism) get become an obstacle to preaching the good news of God's love.

[Critters2]

7. I'm UCC.

And just trying to preach the gospel. I just wish people would LISTEN!!! :)

[Critters2]

8. So here's an update (it did seem too easy)

Apparently, there's a rumor floating around that someone's going to call a congregational meeting to try to undo the Deacons' decision. Two of my gay parishioners just called to tell me that they're leaving the church, if that should happen.

Ah fuck it. I think I'll leave this church, too, if that should happen. :banghead:

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. Bummers. Has your church been through the open and affirming process?

Gonna be quite the meeting if they call a special one.

I don't envy you at all.

Shouting all around, I imagine, especially from the fucking bigots.

[Critters2]

10. My church voted to be ONA 6 months before I came.

The vote was amazing--3 no votes, and no one left the church. But now I'm learning that my predecessor and the committee assured people that being ONA did not mean the church would do gay weddings. 'Course no one told me this. And any way, that wouldn't mean the deacons couldn't decide to do them later (as has happened.). Now I have the bigots saying they were PROMISED there wouldn't be gay marriages and they'll leave if there are, and the glbt types saying they'll leave if there aren't. I think the ONA process was done rather badly here.

In Iowa, there's a conference committee that churches are encouraged to contact if they choose to do an ONA study. A committee member (not the pastor) leads the study and discussions, and also assesses how the congregation is feeling--and discourages votes if the majority are likely to be "no", to avoid church splits. Here, the pastor led the study. But this conference is so unresponsive to the local church that it almost has to be done that way. Otherwise, like lots of other things, it wouldn't get done at all. Do I sound bitter?

So, yes, they voted to be ONA. But I'm not sure how much "process" there was. And yes, if it comes to a meeting (there's been no official request yet), I fear lots of shouting. Your prayers are welcome :)