Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:58:30 -0500
From:         "(Ruth M. Hanschka)" <ap290@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU>
Subject:      as requested
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

    No no, please post it.  I've just one last comment to make then we can
    wrap this up... (it was accidental that I mailed it to you first)

    G
OK, it's being forwarded, minus some of the header crap.:-)  I couldn't find
my copy of the new church Constitution [it applies to one church only, mind;
each congregation writes their own] but did find two working copies, aka a tad
marked up, of the old one.  You never know what's down in that basement.:-)
The pertinent parts probably didn't change.  There is nothing in the document
specifically about homosexuality, or any other "sin".  On the other hand, the
job requirements for pastors, elders, and members include "leading a morally
upright life".  From the way it's worded, only active homosexuals aren't
allowed to hold those positions.  Anybody and everybody can attend services,
though, and I do mean everybody.  Heck, we even let CPAs in the door!:-)

Once membership is obtained [if you want the prereqs, ask] it is possible to
have it revoked, but you really have to work at it.  I only know of two times
when it's happened, once when a man carried on [and maybe still is carrying on]
an affair with his best friend's wife.  Nothing would have happened if they'd
come clean, most likely, but not only did their respective spouses find out by
accident, but they were totally unrepentant, even proud, about it.  What
really made it bad was that one of the cheaters [adulterers if you want] was
our associate pastor.  The whole mess really tore a lot of people up.
<deep breath> Anyway, that's about what it takes to get one's membership
yanked.  The long and the short of this is that if someone owned up to being
actively gay/lesbian I don't really know what would happen.  It's never come
up that I know of, and chances are I would.  That sort of thing tends to leak
inside a small community like a church.

Anyway.....here's the stuff Graham wanted me to forward.
    >
    >No, actually - I was serious.  You've convinced me that you don't align
    >yourself with the extreme right-wing, so I'm interested in what you
 personally
    Finally.:-)  The only right wing I associate with is the one I dip in blue
    cheese dressing.<grin>  Buffalo chicken wings are greasy, but good.

    >and your own church would do.  You gave hints earlier that your branch of
    >the church wouldn't allow gay clergy, and I was wondering if I'd read you
    >correctly.  My suspicion is that a vicar who came out would be offered
    >help to cure his sickness, then if he refused would be asked to resign
    >quietly, and if he refused that would be kicked out.
    As to the first, you're right.  The only major denomination that ordains
    gay clergy is the United Church of Christ.  Episcopalians [CofE American]
    will ordain women.  Mine [Baptist General Conference] has a discussion going
    about it, and does have female associate pastors in place.  A gay clergy
    member might or might not be asked to resign, or at least to remain celebate
    if unmarried.  I wasn't able to get at the policy tonight.  My own copy is
    somewhere in that endless maze my parents call a basement.:-)

    >It's a common event over here.  The Church of England hypocritically turns
    >a blind eye to gay vicars (of which there are a disproportionately high
    Now that's interesting....

    >extreme stance of some churches on these issues is a case of internalised
    >homophobia - fear that you might be gay yourself) unless they make a point
    >of going public, in which case they're kicked out.
    Seems hypocritical to ordain them in the first place then.  I'm beginning to
    see why you take such a dim view of organized Christianity.:-/  If I'd been
    raised with that sort of stuff going on, I'd probably have been turned off
    too.  <yecch>

    >Mind you, this is the same church that's been at daggers drawn this month
    >about ordaining female priests.  They're voting today I believe.  Listening
    It passed - and made USer network news.  Which is interesting, as I've known
    female clergy of other denominations for years.  One minister [or Reverend
 as
    she's called]  married two of my cousins.  It turns out that she and my
 father
    knew each other growing up, although Rev. Nancy's about 5 years older.
    Knowing her, it makes me wonder what's taken the CofE so darned long.:-)

    >coming up with has had me in hysterics.  (Mostly they're of the same
    >style as Ruth's anti-gay quotations -
    > "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    >  But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
    >  man, but to be in silence.")
    This is the same wrangle my own church has going - we're not really arguing,
    just trying to hammer something livable out.  A woman can write one of the
    services, but can't lead it.  Women can teach other women and children, but
    not men.  What we're trying to figure out is if there should be an age at
    which females can no longer teach males, and if so, what age.  If they're
    going to draw some sort of line, I'd say put it at 13, if we're going to
    abide by traditions.  The only problem is that few men are willing to teach
    high school-age Sunday School classes.:-)  It gets interesting....

    >This is the sort of stuff we've been seeing here in televised Church
 debates.
    >'*Chortle*' is all I can say.  (btw How do our female lecturers feel about
    >being banned from teaching?  Jeez Louise, they'll be banning queers
 next...)
    It seems pretty darned silly from here, too.  One interpretation of the
    passages you cited is that they applied only to the Greek/Asia Minor/Empire
    churches, and only back then.  Christianity was the 1st Century equivalent
    of women's lib, and the poor male sods couldn't handle it.:-)
    They didn't have to ban gay clergy back then, because there really was no
    trained clergy anyway.

    >Can't wait to get home to see how the vote turned out.
    As of 1994, your local vicar may be female.:-)  btw - this came via private
    mail, so I'm sending it back that way too.  I don't think anyone else is
    really interested anymore....

    --
    		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
    			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
    	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does



--
		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU