Liberal Christian denominations

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
BetteTheRed said:
It is not easy to blend an emerging theology with more orthodox ones, sometimes. The Worship Team and the Rev balance. There's no reference to Father without an accompanying reference to Mother. We use different translations of the Prayer of Jesus. Our preferred translation for scripture readings is the Inclusive Bible.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are achieving a good balance.
 
Mendalla said:
So if they oppose same-sex marriage and your church performs same sex marriages, likely nothing short of you abandoning that will get them to stay and that would be even more exclusive than keeping it and suggesting they go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not so. Our congregation performs same sex marriage but we have members who oppose it. They choose to stay and not make an issue of it.
 
revsdd said:
Not so. Our congregation performs same sex marriage but we have members who oppose it. They choose to stay and not make an issue of it.
Click to expand...

Right, but I was thinking more of someone who did insist on making an issue of it. Likely anyone in your congregation who fit that profile has left already, perhaps quietly. And in any case, that's just a bad choice of example. My point stands. There is going to be a point, sooner or later, where inclusiveness is going to fail because some people will reject that inclusiveness and therefore can't be included by their own choice no matter what how big a tent the church in question might be trying to pitch.
 
This discussion reminded me of the reading we had at our last quaker meeting:
( readings at meetings can be reflected on during the silence)
When Words Are Strange or Disturbing...

"Do you respect that of God in everyone though it may be expressed in unfamiliar ways or be difficult to discern? Each of us has a particular experience of God and each must find the way to be true to it. When words are strange or disturbing to you, try to sense where they come from and what has nourished the lives of others. Listen patiently and seek the truth which other people’s opinions may contain for you. Avoid hurtful criticism and provocative language. Do not allow the strength of your convictions to betray you into making statements or allegations that are unfair or untrue. Think it possible that you may be mistaken."

Yesterday's reading was chosen by Barbara, from Advices and Queries (#17 -- see link below)
 
I actually thought of you yesterday, @Mrs.Anteater . I was watching/listening to some videos and podcasts on process theology and there was a two part video piece by a Quaker that ended with a discussion of how process is compatible with Quaker thought and practice. He posts on YouTube as DantheQuaker.
 
Mendalla said:
And this may be a natural limit on being inclusive. If the person you are trying to include is themselves exclusive in one or more regards, then you can try as hard as you like but they won't feel included until you exclude on the same basis they do.

So if they oppose same-sex marriage and your church performs same sex marriages, likely nothing short of you abandoning that will get them to stay and that would be even more exclusive than keeping it and suggesting they go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you were told before and didn't unravel for further projection ... didn't we have another string about ins and outs? Thus you can process it because ....?
 
Consider that I was out there in no-where-land ... looking in on it! Something like OBI's ... ambiguous stretch of ankh ... buts those well SET!
 
Mendalla said:
I actually thought of you yesterday, @Mrs.Anteater . I was watching/listening to some videos and podcasts on process theology and there was a two part video piece by a Quaker that ended with a discussion of how process is compatible with Quaker thought and practice. He posts on YouTube as DantheQuaker.
Click to expand...
I might check that out sometime.
 
I'm going to move this over from the modern day heretics thread. As I said there, I was disappointed to learn that only about two hundred, out of 3000, United Church congregations are affirming. Mendalla pointed out that just because they haven't gone through the formal process of officially affirming, many perform same sex marriages and welcome LGBTQ members. But, in order to become affirming, 3/4 of those voting in the congregation must approve. So...is it because of fear that they won't get 3/4 approval that they haven't gone through the process and are stalling?

This page says that the affirming initiative was launched in 1992. The United Church got on board with the project in 2000. They've had 18-26 years to do it. That's a long hold up. Why doesn't everyone just vote next Sunday already?....:eek::rolleyes:. are congregations still avoiding the "issue"? I think outsiders are under the impression that the UCCan is so progressive, they're off the map, or that the same sex marriage "issue" has been settled throughout ...yet, that isn't really true. Even after attending for years I just assumed the "issue" was all but settled except for a few rural congregations.


Affirming Ministries Program | Affirm United
 
Kimmio said:
Why doesn't everyone just vote next Sunday already?.
Click to expand...

I answered this in the other thread, but the answer is that it is not just a matter of a vote and if it was, more churches might be there. It's a lengthy involved process leading up to that vote (Welcoming status in UUism is the same). The congregation needs to commit resources, mostly human, to that process. If a congregation is already stretching its volunteer pool, as many are, it may be a matter of deciding limited resources are better used somewhere else.
 
When we started the process in our church, that was a big question - why? We were the first congregation in Barrie with an inclusive marriage policy, the first to call a gay minister.

In fact, because we were largely 'there', it wasn't a hugely involved process, but it did tie the team leaders of the affirming team to regular meetings and planning and some worship services and special events over about 8 months to accomplish. Also, my co-team leader and I have been asked to serve as "consultants" in some form to the congregations that followed us.
 
^wow, a consultant
sounds Formal and Important :3
you got the chance to mould people...not many get that chance...
was it a paying gig?
 
Remember wheels turn slowly so they can look all about the axels ... as what axially out there in abstract space ...

Tis awesome as a midsummer nights dream ... where you don't fret about being cool ... kohl or darker even ... demonym? Yes that's a real word denoting people that come from a place that was labeled ... like aboriginal is bad ... and thus God id rejected because of prior presence ... prescience?

That's all there is if you reject your sources ... trump card!
 
Some points to be made.

First, there is no real equivalence between being "Affirming" and having an equal marriage policy. My congregation is not "Affirming" but has a completely open & equal marriage policy. (I'll concede that there's probably a logical equivalence between not being "Affirming" and not having an "equal marriage" policy.)

Second, not all LGBTQ people want to be in "Affirming" congregations. We have a few LGBTQ folk in our congregation even though we have a neighbouring UCCan congregation that is "Affirming" that's literally a 10 minute drive from us. I've come to know one couple quite well. They've told me that they're at our church because they don't want to feel as if they're "the reason" for the church's existence; as if they're the church's "mission project." (That's the way one of the women put it.) They just want to be a part of the church family, and they feel like they're a part of our church family, and they are a part of our church family.

Third, "Affirm" requires a 75% vote to join. I have real problems with that. Unless you get a virtually 100% buy-in you have a problem and probably shouldn't take the vote in the first place, because all it's going to do is highlight divisions. Taking a vote and having it passed by 75-25? I'm not sure I'd feel really affirmed if a quarter of the congregation essentially said "we don't want to be affirming to you."
 
revsdd said:
Some points to be made.

First, there is no real equivalence between being "Affirming" and having an equal marriage policy. My congregation is not "Affirming" but has a completely open & equal marriage policy. (I'll concede that there's probably a logical equivalence between not being "Affirming" and not having an "open marriage" policy.)

Second, not all LGBTQ people want to be in "Affirming" congregations. We have a few LGBTQ folk in our congregation even though we have a neighbouring UCCan congregation that is "Affirming" that's literally a 10 minute drive from us. I've come to know one couple quite well. They've told me that they're at our church because they don't want to feel as if they're "the reason" for the church's existence; as if they're the church's "mission project." (That's the way one of the women put it.) They just want to be a part of the church family, and they feel like they're a part of our church family, and they are a part of our church family.

Third, "Affirm" requires a 75% vote to join. I have real problems with that. Unless you get a virtually 100% buy-in you have a problem and probably shouldn't take the vote in the first place, because all it's going to do is highlight divisions. Taking a vote and having it passed by 75-25? I'm not sure I'd feel really affirmed if a quarter of the congregation essentially said "we don't want to be affirming to you."
Click to expand...

Good points all. Wesley Knox is very upfront about their equal marriage policy and has a rainbow flag on their website. That signals their intentions and beliefs as much as any formal designation would, I think. I do recall talk about them starting the process but I couldn't find anything on their site last night so perhaps I'm thinking of another local church.
 
No, I'm not sure about the 75% vote thing. Our vote (secret) was unanimous. Now, do I think possibly a couple of people "didn't show up to church" so they wouldn't have to vote? Sure.

revsdd said:
(I'll concede that there's probably a logical equivalence between not being "Affirming" and not having an "equal marriage" policy.)
Click to expand...

And the sole non-Affirming congregation here DOES NOT have an equal marriage policy. Like I said, same church that's never managed to call a female minister.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top