Has the host church stated that certain folk would not be welcome?

No, in fact, the former minister and current minister of the congregation stood to say that though they would disagree with issues that all people were welcome to be part of that congregation. 

Hi revmatthew,

Well, having sat as the Chair of Erie Presbytery my private mental response would have been something like:  "What a tool.  Who cares if you don't come.  Presbytery doesn't cease to exist because any one clergyperson sits and sulks at home."

To be honest if any clergy stood up and said they wouldn't attend Presbytery at an Affirming Congregation on the grounds that Affirming Congregations do not take scripture seriously I would give them a copy of the private mental response and the public response.

My public response as the Chair would have been to say, "Any congregation is free to offer their space and the Presbytery is free to accept such an invitation."  Any member of Presbytery who cannot for reasons of conscience attend is welcome not to attend.

I personally would never stand and offer my congregation as an alternate space unless I had talked with the Official Board before hand and cleared the matter with them (because I am their minister but it is not my church to do with as I please).

Quite frankly I find the whole thing to be a stunt and Presbytery would not likely suffer for them being absent.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I agree. And it was a dumb stunt by both colleagues. The first was simply grandstanding. They were fighting a battle which long ago ran out of steam. The second fell right into the trap. And as a minister, I, like John, would never have offered to host a presbytery meeting without consulting the congregational lay leadership.

Bravo to the letter writer. I suspect that it will be ignored as Ottawa Presberty is likely the most homophobic in Canada. I would have likely taken a different stance, However futiile his or her effort is It's about time people pointed out what others want to keep silent. Which is the  The ammount of hate inside the Ottawa Presberty member churches.  . No other urban Presberty in Canada has this ammount of hate.  I can say this based on many criteria. 

For the  people who will judge this person for taking a stance, I would like to hear alternate suggesstions for dealing with problem in Ottawa, which is much more sever than in other areas of Canada.

Many churches in Ottawa and I suspect this one as well has well has stated that neither ordained or lay people are welcomed as members or staff.

. 

Hi Alex,

As the first one to state that I think that the letter writer is a tool let me reiterate what I said above.

If you don't feel comfortable going into any house of worship for any reason.  Just don't go.

If Presbytery is going to be used as a whip against any congregation it shouldn't be used  as a whip for what it allows a congregation to be.

It is not illegal for any congregation to be a Covenanting Congregation.  It is not illegal for any congregation to be an Affirming Congregation.  Presbytery should never be the whip applied to either simply because we do not like their perspective.

When that happens it is abusive.  It doesn't matter who holds the whip or who is being whipped.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Is it Ottawa or is Alex mixing up Rev Matt (Ottawa) and RevMatthew-unknown.

I think the meeting should happen at the church that is coventaing BUT the topic should be chosen with care, for the Education part of the meeting, and pehaps care could be taken to ensure the worship part of the meeting included those on the LBGTQ spectrum in visible roles.

I would think that it would be especially important for members of the GLBTQ community to show up to that meeting. Usually when our presbytery has a meeting at a church, there are multiple members of that congregation present - especially at dinner and during the worship time. Perhaps it would be good for them to meet some GLBTQ people and chat with them a little.

Well we only have certain information available to us. I am presuming that the letter writer is being truthful and is uncomfortable attending any meetings in that community.  

I would tend to agree with you that it is an action meant to do have results of some sort.     Howevr being aware of certain things in Ottawa, I may or may not be correct in assuming the letter is meant to strir discussion about homophobia in the church. Perhaps the letter writer is doing it in an ineffectual way, so I am looking for alternative ways.

Second a few years ago when I set up accessiblechurch.ca I attempt to connect with this group and the  United Church Renewal, that they are affiliated with. They nevr returned any emails, and  at the time I was informed that they no longer exist. In fact today when I went to their old web address   http://www.unitedrenewal.org/ and discovered that it is now a web site about herpes and eye surgery. I guess they still do not exist or the group that wants to renew the UCC could  not renew their web address.  

Also a few years ago I attended a church in Ottawa which had listed on their web site as being a conventing congregation.  No one in the congregation knew what it was about.  THis is likley due to the fact that unlike Affirming Churches which go through a long process and hold a congregational vote to join, Conventing Churches required only a minister to put it on their web site, or a board vote.   Alsounlike Affirming churches which require annual support, Conventing Congregations only have to sign up once. 

Besides raising the point if it is possible to be a conventing congregation in the UCC , when the spousing organisation United Renewal, has ceased to exists, it is likely that the question has not been talked about for many many years, and perhaps the congregation is unaware of what it means. Meanwhile affected church and community members who were targets pf this "movement" to exclude LGBT remebr.  Is it not fair to alert the membrs of these congregations what it means to be conventing, abnd how many find them objectional.  

Actually according to something that I remeber from another conservative member of WC who is a minister, and recruited to their board, and than resigned. The organisation is no longer about keeping LGBT out of the UCC but is a platform for those who wish to attack the UCC in other churches.

Hi Alex,

I'm not operating under the presumption that the letter writer is being dishonest Alex.  I am operating under the belief that this is a misuse of Presbytery.  In essence it is a Presbyter saying either we don't go there or I don't go.  My response is, grow up.  If you don't want to go for reasons of your own don't.  Don't expect to use presbytery as a weapon to justify your reasons for not going.

United Renewal was an umbrella term for various renewal minded groups in the United Church of Canada which included:  The United Church Renewal Fellowship, The National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations (which all Covenanting Congregations belonged to) and The Community of Concern.

As national organizations I don't believe any of these renewal minded groups exist anymore.  There are still some very strong regional clusters in existence.

Not that surprising really.  Many congregations joined the NACC or the COC around 1988.  The UCRF was around sometime before either though for some (particularly the COC) it wasn't focussed enough on the issue of Homosexual Ordination.  There was some shared membership between the various movements and many thought of them as being the same.

The UCRF ran out of steam and the COC and the NACC picked up the slack.  The COC being a one trick pony finally petered out though at one point Dominion-Chalmers was thought to be the flagship Church of the COC stable.  The NACC had regional clusters that slowly petered out as well.

Some congregations maintain the covenanting ties because those responsible for such designations being attached officially remember what it is all about.  Most don't.

I don't know anything about the congregation that is wanting to be protested against or how "Covenanting" they are.

If they aren't very covenanting then the letter is grandstanding and picking a fight with a paper tiger.

Well that certainly makes it sound like Covenanting Churches are essentially lazy and thoughtless unlike Affirming congregations.

It might also be due, in large part to the fact that they put all of their eggs in one basket and the basket didn't hold.  They fought against a reality that happened and burnt themselves out doing it.

Not knowing the Church in question we do not know if it continues to identify as covenanting.  We still have one in Erie.  I ministered in a congregation that belonged to the NACC.  They had stopped sending dues in years before I got there and as far as I know we never advertized as covenanting.  The congregation moved on.

If the congregation is still actively covenanting then again, the letter and the appeal is an attempt to use Presbytery abusively to punish.

If the congregation is not actively covenanting then the letter is grandstanding cowardism picking a fight with a paper tiger.

I suspect that the invitation from this congregation to Presbytery didn't mention that members of the congregation would be doing sexual orientation examinations at the door to prohibit the entry of undesireables.  Just as Affirming congregations don't run squeemish exams to root out individuals who still think homosexuality is icky.

Presbytery is not a weapon.  It should never, ever be used as one.

Those who have no problem using Presbytery as a weapon are abusive.  It doesn't matter if they belong to Affirm or the NACC.  Abuse is abuse.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I take it that a Covenanting Congregation is some sort of reactionary group with the UCC; that Covenanting is somehow placed as an alternative to Affirming.  In the legal world affirming is something you do when you don't want to take an oath, for example, when you have reached a level of enlightenment sufficiently advanced that  you feel a little foolish swearing on a stack of bibles (as if an oath on the bible would stop a really determined liar).  The fact that the forces of reaction have selected the word Covenanting for their name would suggest that their attitude is that they are more holy than those who merely Affirm (Muslims and Atheists, for instance, do affirmations).  

Sure enough, I just googled them and found a website http://associationforchurchrenewal.com.  I note there is nothing there to list actual members but simply a long listing of other sympathetic/like-minded organizations which may also be basically empty shells.  I clicked on on link to http://www.unitedrenewal.org which is the link for NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF COVENANTING CONGREGATIONS within the UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA and I came out to a Japanese language website (go ahead try it!).  The link ... http://www.fellowshipmagazine.org ... to their "fellowship magazine" which is billed as a publication "supported by the renewal groups within the United Church of Canada having a mandate to speak from the heart of the tradition of the United Church of Canada, an evangelical perspective that honours the great theological heritage of the Christian Faith and the particular witness of the United Church of Canada", brought me out to one of those dead website pages (which always feel lonely and creepy to me like a virtual haunted house).  Go ahead try it.

Anyway this NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF COVENANTING CONGREGATIONS looks like it is an empty suit of clothes and a bedraggled suit at that. I think that this "clergy person" is "killing flies with a hammer".

I was interested in the argument used by the "letter writing clergyperson" and mentioned in the original topic post, namely,  "that meeting in a covenanting church would be the same as asking a residential school survivor to meet in the old school".  Revmatthew felt "it didn't seem quite fair".  I agree.  I had some people saying something similar to me in another context just the other day and although such statements often come dressed as a plea from a heart much more sensitive than your own, they also have something of an "iron fist in a velvet glove" quality about them; something of emotional blackmail in them; with a  little too much  horsepower in the metaphor to which they are tied.

Sounds like something I would have posted, because some years ago I was recruited to be on the Board of yet another renewal organization - the Community of Concern - and then did in fact resign and I believe I posted about that experience at some point, but let me clarify.

First I don't self-identify as "conservative" because the designation is meaningless. There are just too many permutations and combinations of theological and social viewpoints for a person to be lumped in as "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive." Generally, I call myself a follower of Jesus and resist attempts to pigeon-hole me, although many would think of me as "conservative" because I believe in both the incarnation and the resurrection. That's enough to make me "conservative" in some eyes, regardless of my generally libertarian views on social issues.

Second, my willingness to go on their Board was because I was under the assumption at the time that the organization's mandate was to promote a more Christ-centred theology; a goal with which I'm in favour. Instead, I found an organization fixated on the LGBT issue and seething with anger and contempt toward the United Church, and discovered that many of the Board members of the "Community of Concern Within the United Church of Canada" weren't even within the United Church of Canada. They had left and were worshiping in other denominations. I felt that was a bit hypocritical.

From that experience I relearned a lesson that I've learned in the past but apparently not taken to heart - make sure you do your homework in situations like that and don't just assume that you know something when in fact you don't.

I was not under the impression that that is what was in the letter. Perhaps Rev Mathew could explain further, but my understanding was that he wrote a letter to say he would not be attending becasue of their designation. I di not see any demand that Presberty not meet there by the writer.

Also the reason I pointed out the difference between conventing and affirming churches was not to accused the former of being lazy, but to point out that membrs are not necessaily informed about membership in the former, but are in the latter. It might not be something acceptable to the membrship if they are aware of what it is and what it means.

Again this leads to a concern of mine. many membrs are not aware that there church bordas take postions which exclude others. If one wants to start raising awareness, short of the long Affirming process how would you do that if you belong to the same presberty. For instance to seprate it from the LGBT question, would membrs in your Presberty be able to do something to raise awarenss if a a local congregation decided to take a race based membrship policy? Suppose against performing mixed race weddings?

Incidentally the church I attended a few years ago was actually Dominion CHalmers. Soon after my visit they removed the  CoC membrship and link from their web page.

ANother church in Ottawa where the membrship voted to have the board look into same sex marriges, had the process stopped by the board who just kept tabling it. This has been going on for three years. It seems they are too busy to do so. 

How would I as a membr of another UCC go about in expressing my concerns. Do I have to attend every other of the 80 or so churches in the Ottawa Presberty's  AGM.

 I assume that after a few that people would get to know me, and the few who are opposed would make sure I was not allowed to speak to the meeting.

  Al;so from what I understand the Biiblical based congregations and ministers are now organised around Cruxifusion, and that they include LGBT membrs as long as they are "Christ Centred"          Howevr they are largely regional and have few membrs outsiude of Southern Ontario, and are focused on an annual conference where they gather. 

Hi Alex,

The letter writer objected to Presbytery meeting in a specific congregation because of an affiliation the congregation has.

What was required of that Presbyter if they are not going to attend any meeting of the Presbytery?  A letter of regret sent to the Presbytery Secretary.  What does such letter need to say?  At minimum it needs to say, "Dear Secretary I regret that I will not be present at the Presbytery meeting scheduled for X."  Anything more than that is unneccessary.  It can even be sent by e-mail the day before.

A regret does not need anyone to send a letter to Presbytery three months in advance.  That this one does and that it has a prejudiced condition attached is the epitome of immaturity.

That the letter was even read is, in my estimation, a failing of the Presiding Officer of the Court in that it makes a member of the court look like a tool.  It is not a matter of correspondance than even needs to be mentioned.

Mediocrity abounds.

It might not.  That is a congregational issue and not Presbytery's responsibility to sort out.

Many members are willingly ignorant of what their Boards do Alex.  They don't ask questions, they don't want to be a part of the leadership, they simply want to sit on their keisters and be served.  They love to complain and grumble about this, that and the other thing but when it comes time to put their name forward they are conspicuously absent.

Other than write a letter to the local paper saying, "I'm shocked at the bigotry of congregation X"  Not much.  Worship matters are under the jurisdiction of the local Session.

Presbytery should only get involved if the health of the Pastoral Charge is threatened and while I would find it discouraging that Ministry Personnel and Congregation are apparently happily bigotted they have that freedom.  Freedom has the right to be ugly.  So long as the congregation in question is not breaking the law they have the freedom to do as they please.

It is a remnant of another day.  Like the confederate flag.  Different people will look at it in different ways.  For the record, the NACC was about more than opposition to the ordination of homosexuals.  The organization, unfortunately allowed that issue to shape their agendas and that lack of foresight did them in.

Well this is where ignorance of procedure serves nobody.  If ten members of the congregation sign a petition asking for a congregational vote on the matter it has to happen.

That the congregation has voted to have the board "consider" indicates that the congregation aren't certain that they want such a vote to take place.

Well, that would certainly show your dedication wouldn't it?  Would you seek to be invited or would you just show up?

Assuming that you belong to a congregation how would you feel about somebody, not belonging to your congregation just showing up to tell all of you how wrong he or she thought you were?  How open do you think your congregation would be to listening to anything he or she said after that?

Is there absolutely nothing that your congregation needs you to be doing for it at the moment?

If you make your congregation a shining example of all that any Church can be then some of those 80 will be knocking on your doors asking how it is done.  If you intend on going to 80 congregations to tell them how ignorant they are expect 80 doors to be slammed in your face.

Well then perhaps you need a different strategy.

Cruxifusion is the inheritor of the renewal stream and it is significantly broader than an anti-sexuality focus.  It has inherited participants from all of the renewal streams and conversation can get very heated.

One plus to Cruxifusion is that it is making a deliberate effort to avoid using the polarizing "we/they" language of years past.  Even so things can get very heated.  Typically though all that heat is directed at one another.  I belong to Cruxifusion.  I have said, and I have heard others say that if the agenda of the group devolves to beating on others we will withdraw our support.

Had a bit of a row with a good friend on their fb page a few months back.  Probably let myself go more than I ought to.  The fur flew and there was significant wound licking afterwards.  So, it can be a rough place from time to time.  He is a former COC member so he gave as good as he got.  In the end we acknowledged our respect and love for one another, apologized for where we got a little dirty and we've moved on without grudges.

Grace and peace to you.

John

So are you saying under the UCC system the local congregation is accountable to no one, but themselves and God.

I think I would want to know if my minister or my board was telling others, things like certain races were inferior to others, or other religions were a threat, yet who never mentioned that to members. Is  the only correct way someone should inform me in the UCC system of that is by writing a letter to the editor?

Getting back to the topic I would be interested in hearing if the person who wrote the letter requested that it be read. I would think that if he could have just spoken at Presberty if he wanted evryone to know. Are all such letters of regrets read.

I am not sure if it was (only) a political play.   How would this be dealt with if he said he would not attend if he had  had a bad experience at the church. Like seeing someone die, through an accident or illness (heart attack) the last time he was there.   He must feel extremely stong about this to compare it to a residential school. Perhaps there is an issue that he could recieve support on from Presberty in different ways (healing)  rather than Presberty meeting elsewhere.   

Thank you everyone for the interesting and informative comments.

To clarify:  there is no indication that the letter writer asked for the letter to be read.  I do not know how that decision was made.

This is not Ottawa and lets not assume immediately that the clergyperson in question writing the letter is male. 

And RevMatt and RevMatthew apparently get mixed up a lot.  Sorry.  I'll have to change my stage name to something more fitting.....^%%$#@#! 

I don't have a copy of the letter, but I do not recall an express request to move the location of the meeting.  However, the strength of the language and length, multiple pages, might lead one to beleive that such was the desire. 

Now, it's hot and there is no AC in this church and we have a wedding coming up. And the reception in a tent outside.... but this will be a joyful event.  Grace and peace to you all.

Hi Alex,

As far as worship is concerned that is correct.

Alex, if you think that the Official Board of your congregation is a secret cabal you, as a member have avenues that you can pursue to address that situation.  If you think that the Official Board of some other congregation is a secret cabal you are likely paranoid.

Operating under the assumption that the secret cabal running your Church has managed to put into place a system that is completely discriminatory  in all areas of Church life without your even noticing I suspect there is no way to inform you, you'd have to be part of the conspiracy or willfully blind to miss it.  The minute you finally see it you don't need anybody to tell you about it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi revmatthew,

The word irresponsible comes to mind.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I was more reffering to people being two faced, or just decietful. It happens all the time in politics  where leaders a lie to their people and at work places where they decieve there bosses. I am assuming the same can happen at churches       

 Thanks for the information. apart from this issue is it the same for membership policies?

[/quote]

Hi Alex,

Membership is also the responsibility of the Session of equivalent body.

Grace and peace to you.

John

In this case, and I am basing this on what I would do in another organisation because I have no presbertry experience, I would suggest that some senor mmember of presberty meet with the letter writer and try to understand where he is coming from. It might just not be about what is in the letter, and an underlying issue might be needed to address, or there could be another way of dealing with his or her concerns about homophobia.

I always hate dealing with issues at any kind of meeting when I am unprepared to do so because it was not on the agenda, nor has there been an ability to ask questions and reflect.  Also perhaps all the letter writer needed was to write the letter, and that solves his problem in the long term.  I would be afraid that further harm could be done, without any satisfaction to the letter writer if a decision is rushed and from what I understand there is no way to do so before the next meeting.

So is there anything that a congregation is responsible to others besides themselves and God besides property issues and work conditions of clergy?

Hi Alex,

Spiritual and temporal matters are the responsibility of the Official Board (The Session and Stewards) or other equivalent bodies.

Even in temporal matters the only time that the Pastoral Charge needs to get permission from Presbytery would be for securing bank loans, physical improvements to the building requiring a permit and changing their congregational constitution.

All pastoral charges are responsible to support Presbytery and Conference.

Grace and peace to you.

John

At the same time PAstoral Charges are under the oversight of PResbytery.  And any 10 members of the Pastoral Charge can, if they see an issue with how the Pastoral Chrage is being governed and/or how its afffairs are being handled, petition the PR.esbytery to conduct a review of the Charge.   People who are not members of that congregation have no standing in that regard (this includes active adherents who are there regularly and active in the life of the congregation -- a reason why membership matters)

Also, in terms of membership the Session can not, under the Basis of Union (8.something), set any terms for membership other than those laid out in the New Testament.

Has this ever happened in the history of the UCC.

Just an FYI, for the sake of clarity. I am now Matt81.

Hello Matt81 and welcome to WonderCafe.ca

Your avatar looks a lot like another poster named revmatthew (not to be confused with another poster named revmatt).  Could you look into that?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Alex you know that Ottawa is in the process of thinking about being affirming.  We have several affirming cong. 

Hi RevJohn:

I am the former revMatthew.  changed the name to avoid confusion with revmatt.  Hopefuly this will help....

Hi Matt81,

I was just having fun, hence the winky emoticon.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Yes, it has. It usually means the pastoral charge is in a general mess. A S.333 inquiry into the congregation and possibly an S.363 review of the effectiveness of the minister is about to follow.

From what I understand the Glebe United Church recently became affirming, but other than First I know of no other in Ottawa.

So, the oath that clergy folks make – like falling under the authority of Presbytery doesn’t apply here?  If my employee stated he/she didn’t want to go to a meeting because of specific belief/or that the colour of the room was not in their liking etc…  sorry, but these types of congregational designations are allowed in the UCC then I would say this person should go.  I have no problem with any person stating why they disagree – and trust me, I do understand – but in a covenanting service with the conference and congregations, the clergy person agrees to the authority of Presbytery (or worded something like that)….unless Presbytery states that this is ok, then this person has to go.  Am I wrong?

I understood that the employer of the letter writer is his or her  congregaton.  And the Presberty can not do anything unless 10 members of his or her congregation bring it to them.

According to RevJohn earlier post the authority of Presberty is about a very limited number of things concerning property.

The congregation is not the employeer - it is Presbytery.

Hi Jobam,

Not attending one Presbytery meeting is not refusing to be a member of Presbytery.  In fact, there are any number of legitimate reasons why one may not be able to make a meeting of Presbytery.  Not attending most or any is more of a problem than missing one.

There is also Presbytery work done at committee level that is being done between meetings in order that decisions at meetings can be made with some kind of informed input.  Not being involved in any of that is more of a problem than missing one meeting of presbytery.

Nothing has been noted about this member of Presbytery's lack of involvement with Presbytery so I haven't discussed it.

With respect to a single meeting if you are going to be a miserable ass while you are present it is best you stay home and torment your family.

This person should be there.  If their maturity doesn't allow them to be there then I'd rather not have them there.

Grace and peace to you.

John

That would be news to a lot of people. presbytery is never the employer. The congregation may be, depending on the context, or the United Church of Canada can be. Never the presbytery (even though there are people "employed by" a presbytery who are on very shaky legal ground).

under oversight of Presbytery??

That doesn't mean the presbytery is the employer. It just means that the presbytery has an interest in the pastoral relationship.

I can imagine a problem woth governce at presberty and in the congreation is knowledge about how to do certain things. This is a problem in all organization. The UCC is multilayer, and witha long history and rules to deal with many situations. I can imagine as well a siverse group of people with various experiences in rules of procedure of different kinds. It must be hard to figure things out.

Is there some kind of procedure or ability for a membr of Presberty or a board to say something to the other congregations without it appearing to be a power move, and without any consequence other than allowing someone to say something, so as to possibly stir members to look at a problem or situation by themselves for future consideration?

Hi Alex,

Depends upon what it is you want to say Alex.

If you want to say something like, "We are having a potluck dinner please feel free to come."  Then you simply send the inviatition to the other congregation and ask for it to be passed along to the congregation.  It may or may not be passed along.  It will not be seen as a power move.

If you want to say something like, "Do you know what your Official Board has committed you to?' then that is interference.  Whether or not it is seen as a power move would depend on whether or not you have any power to throw around.

You mean without any negative consequence for yourself.

The only way I can think of that might work without it being interferance or a power move is for you to be subversive.

Find somebody in congreagation X.  Make friends with them.  As a friend talk about things and maybe in the course of discussion you can pretend to innocently ask what it means that they call themselves a covenanting congregation.  Let your friendly discussion go from there.

Of course, if you are really trying to subvert the leadership of Congregation X your friend needs to be placed well enough to rock the boat.

If you are able to persuade your new friend to engage in that discussion with the board of Congregation X then the worst thing that would happen would be the board of congregation X taking a pound of flesh off of your friend.  If your commisseration is genuine then maybe your friend leaves congregation X and joins your congregation.

I don't know how many times that would work.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The minutes of the presbytery have been posted, so it's all public now.

here is a link to the site, and you can find the letter in the minutes.

http://middlesexpresbytery.on.ca/meetings/minutes.html

In case it doesn't open the right set, it's the June 26th minutes of the full court.

I don’t want to derail this thread – if 10 people send a letter to Presbytery the Presbytery then has to act upon it how it sees fit…usually a Pastoral Care and Oversight visit.  However, I have seen when certain sections of the manual have been invoked on the Presbytery floor to remove a clergy person from the congregation – remember, the congregation only has a few members within Presbytery – this means that Presbytery does have the “rights” as an employer.  When a court can over-ride what a congregation wants the congregation is not the employer…..

Way to go Karen - if Presbytery had any balls it wouldn't have the meeting there!!!!!! Can you imagine what kind of message this sends out to queer folks….I am thinking there is a lot of work to do …..  can’t wait to see the next set of minutes as to who actually attends the meeting. Thinking those clergy won't be hired in our neck of the woods.....

Revjohn – I don’t think you and I are going to agree on this issue – once I read the letter I understand where the writer is coming from.  There are two posts in this thread that say all folks would be welcome in the congreation, yet for some reason they hold on to their affiliation.  …my brain keeps going back to a saying…love the sinner, hate the sin – me being gay is not a sin….. is this the type of message this congreation and Presbytery want to give folks ......

Could you tell me the date of the minutes where this letter is? Thank you.