The local congregation, with 275 members, is scheduled to vote on March 19 whether it should bless same-sex marriages.It's interesting -- isn't it? -- this idea that we need to believe in something as a group. First Reformed Church needs to take an opinion so people know what they are believing in. When I first read that, I thought the man meant that he needed his church to take a position so that he could know his own beliefs. But I think he means that the group as a body needs to take a position so that members know what sort of an organization they are part of and outsiders can decide what they think of the place. But it's an odd locution to say that people need to know what they are believing in.
At its annual meeting last Sunday, members approved a motion for a congregational vote on the issue....
[The UCC's General Synod adoped a resolution] titled "In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All," passed by national delegates in Atlanta last July.
It urges UCC congregations to support local, state and national legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples regardless of gender....
First Reformed's pastor, the Rev. Richard Runge, recognizes the issue's divisiveness.
"I would prefer no vote at all ... my preference would be more dialogue and discussion and more thinking and praying about it," he said.
The UCC General Synod speaks to — not for — congregations which are free to accept or reject any or all resolutions offered at the national meeting held every two years.
After last July's gathering, Runge said he made it clear he supported the equal marriage rights stance of the general synod. For him it is a matter of justice, not morality.
"Marriage has to do with love, faith and commitment and knowing you care about someone and that special someone cares about you ... whether a man and woman or two men or two women," Runge said.
Church member Dick Weber believes Runge holds a minority viewpoint, both within First Reformed and the society at large.
Weber opposes same sex marriage.
"It is a moral issue to me," he said. "I am not criticizing homosexuals coming to church. We have always had a church open to all," Weber said.
But Weber believes his church must distance itself from the General Synod's position or risk people assuming the Manitowoc church also endorses gay marriage.
Fellow members saying it is OK for a gay couple to be at worship services, while a blessing ceremony for their relationship would be forbidden, mystifies Lisa Bergner.
She wonders how they could possibly feel welcomed. No matter how the March 19 vote goes, she vows to remain a First Reformed member.
"I will welcome everyone who walks in our door no matter the color of their skin or sexual orientation, and I believe the majority of our members will," Bergner said.
Kevin Schmidt on Sunday proposed the vote. "First Reformed Church needs to take an opinion so people know what they are believing in," he said following approval of his motion.
The issue to be voted on in Wisconsin is whether a ban on gay marriage belongs in the state constitution, not whether homosexuality is a sin or whether gay marriage is a good idea. There are ever so many sins that are not burdened by provisions in the state constitution and ever so many bad personal choices that the law doesn't go out of its way to prevent individuals from making. But this congregation is reacting to the resolution adopted by the General Synod as much as the proposed vote on the amendment. Gay marriage has been forefronted as a political issue, and now this little church has decided it needs to take an official position on a subject that it seems as though it would have preferred not to address or at least, as the pastor says, to address in the mellow fashion of more dialogue and discussion and more thinking and praying.
Posts
11 comments:
I think this amendment is much less likely to pass than many people think.
Most people consider me a conservative, but when I posted that I'd be voting against the amendment many of my readers immediately said the same thing.
Semanticleo: You are rude beyond belief. Since you set out to criticize me for not blogging about something, the burden was on YOU to ensure that I in fact had not. If you have no skills to search a blog, then you ought to have the sense not to make the charge in the first place. Now, you want me to do what you didn't bother to do, and you gum up another post with the demand. Don't post again until you get up to speed, find the old post, and apologize to me!
But I think he means that the group as a body needs to take a position so that members know what sort of an organization they are part of and outsiders can decide what they think of the place.
As a church they can build a much larger pile of stones in the church parking lot than any individual member can build in their driveway.
Try reading the discussion in the comments, you idiot.
Actually, you missed the main post, which has a long discussion, so you still haven't found it. Really, you are the only commenter in the entire history of this blog that I have called an idiot. It's not my style. But, really, you are an idiot! I'm making an exception from my usual standards because it's just so beyond obvious. Don't comment again without making a sincere apology. I will delete you if you do.
Ms. Althouse, I have a suspicion that I don't even like you but I agree that semanticleo is a rude idiot, too lazy or too stupid to do a search. If anything you're being too polite to the insolent twit.
Semanticleo, there's a search function on the front page (search this blog), use it before trying to hijack other threads and if you don't like being called an idiot either leave or learn appropriate blog etiquetee.
I luckily missed whatever got our esteemed hostess so steamed here.
In any case, to some extent, the General Synod is speaking for the church, and the members, I think rightly, think that it is claiming to speak for them, when it doesn't reflect their views.
This seems to be a recurring problem esp. with many Protestant denominations - the clergy are, by their very nature, often significantly more liberal than their parishioners, and vote for their churches to take stands that are often significantly at odds with many of their congregations.
I don't live in Wisc., so have no idea, except from this blog, about how the vote is going to turn out there. But I also am not the least bit surprised that there are many in your fair state that oppose gay marriage.
Bruce: You gave me an idea for a title for a blog: Esteemed and Steamed.
How 'bout just Esteamed?
(Of course, then everyone will read it as e-steamed, but that might not be so bad.)
Michael A Litscher: Seems to me that churches (mainstream and otherwise) have gotten awfully comfortable with disregarding several of the commandments. It hardly seems fair to hold gays to biblical standards while failing to hold straights to similar standards.
The commandment about keeping the sabbath was ignored by those churches who decided that a Sunday service last year would be too inconvenient and/or would not draw enough worshippers to be worth the effort.
Adultery has been decriminalized in most states, and I have yet to hear a peep about this from any church groups.
Most churches will allow affair partners to marry after their respective divorces. Certainly there are no civil rules that prevent such marriages. In the odd chance that a couple faced a church that objected, they could certainly find another.
I'll concede that a prohibition on remarriage (post divorce, while the other spouse is still alive) is not a commandment, but Jesus certainly linked remarriage and the seventh commandment. In the past 30 years, most protestant churches have changed their policies to allow for divorced, remarried clergy.
Post a Comment