|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Racist Bastards and Cowardly Pastor
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
A church in Mississippi, USA has refused to marry a couple because they are Black.
quote:
There has never been a black wedding at the First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs, Miss., since its founding in 1883. According to Pastor Stan Weatherford, some church members objected so strongly to breaking that precedent, they threatened to oust him from his pastorship.
Rather than risk his job, Weatherford, who is white, said he decided to marry the pair at a black church down the road.
My fault, I suppose. Every time I defend the Americans as making progress in race issues, something like this occurs.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
My. God.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Norwood said she believes Weatherford should have married the Wilsons regardless of the risk to his job.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
So now it's the pastors fault?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Yes. He had no trouble marrying them in another church. Doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
But you're live on the other side of the world. What would you know?
[ 29. July 2012, 14:26: Message edited by: PeteC ]
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Yes. He had no trouble marrying them in another church. Doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
But you're live on the other side of the world. What would you know?
That was my thought - he doesn't have the courage of his convictions. He should have married them in the church as promised and let whatever hell befall him later. You don't go "sorry, we can't marry you here" the day before the wedding! Since it went down the way it did I think the church should remove the word Christian from it's name.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My fault, I suppose. Every time I defend the Americans as making progress in race issues, something like this occurs.
If you think an entire country's attitude can be judged as racist, based on the actions of one cowardly preacher, then you should have a very good understanding of how prejudice works.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
It sounds a bit strange to hear of a church that can deprive its pastor of his living because of marrying someone within his own pastoral constituency. The decision to join two people in marriage is presumably his sole responsibility as the guy who'll sign them up and pronounce the marriage. So what say-so does any church council have, when the accountability doesn't lie with them anyway? When it comes to marriage, funerals or baptisms (at least) it's about the integrity of the pastor's ministry, not the use of a church building whoever might feel they have the right to stick their nose in.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
We all know what we would like to think we would have done in the same situation. The pastor clearly thought he would lose his job. The fact that the congregation even brought the subject up speaks to the truth of his assumption. The fact that the congregation is in "meetings" to discuss how to handle the situation in future speaks to the truth of his assumption as well.
Does that mean the minister should have married them in the church? Yes, of course. That he would probably lose his job does not change the moral equation.
There might be other equations out there that could/would mitigate the moral situation. We do not know if he was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, a family member was in desperate need of medical care and his employment related health insurance was the only thing standing between that family member and death, or whatever else.
I hope it was not just lack of moral courage.
What disturbs me is the congregation. However: quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My fault, I suppose. Every time I defend the Americans as making progress in race issues, something like this occurs.
,
Don't worry lilBuddha, I don't think it is your fault.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It sounds a bit strange to hear of a church that can deprive its pastor of his living because of marrying someone within his own pastoral constituency.
One of the biggest problems with independent or congregationalist churches is that their pastor is employed to do exactly what the congregation want. While this can work well, it can also turn out very badly here.
The pastor should have stood by his convictions, IMO, and sod the job. Does he really want to be the pastor of a racist congregation like that? Seriously?
The congregation (or those members who complained) are far more to blame, however. this takes "we have never done it like that here" to a whole new level. They should be ashamed of themselves. Do they actually have a clue what colour Jesus was? Or do they actually believe he was a blue-eyed 'mercan?
If the do genuinely believe Jesus was white, the pastor should explain differently. And they should take some responsibility for knowing what they claim to believe in. Either that or admit that are thicker than pig-shit.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It sounds a bit strange to hear of a church that can deprive its pastor of his living because of marrying someone within his own pastoral constituency.
One of the biggest problems with independent or congregationalist churches is that their pastor is employed to do exactly what the congregation want. While this can work well, it can also turn out very badly here.
Wrong. The pastor is usually appointed directly by the congregation. The congregation only in the most abusive of relationships expect the pastor to do exactly what they want. Indeed sometimes the opposite happens and the congregation becomes totally subservient to the charismatic pastor.
However because the congregation pay the pastors salary directly, they tend to both have a better understanding what pastoral ministry costs and also a sense that they "own" the pastor and can sack them if they so desire.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
We've heard what the couple say and what the pastor says but nothing from any of this amorphous congregation. Some of those who are unhappy about blacks marrying in 'their' church ought to speak up and give some credibility to the pastor's statement, because for now I don't believe him.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
I'll not make any cross-pond comparisons. Anyone who wants to see what racist crap can go down in the UK can look up the Stephen Lawrence case. There have been institutional changes since then. I'm not even slightly persuaded that some-such travesty couldn't happen again, but as far as progress is ever made, it often comes through these cases.
Could that happen over the Crystal Springs affair? According to the OP link, black and white alike in the community are appalled at what was done, and the church is meeting to consider its attitude.
If they do change their policy it'll only be another nest of bigots giving way to pressure, but isn't that all change ever is, at least in the shorter term? I doubt there are any fewer racists in the British police now, very likely never will be - the aim must be to make racist behaviour intolerable, whatever's going on in anyone's head.
That poor couple. I imagine they'll be kicking the dust of that place off their heels. You'd think the minister might want to do likewise, but it doesn't look like it.
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
I am confused that, according to the article linked, that the couple had relatives who are in a position of authority in the church, and that it seems that they have black people attending, but not members of, the church.
I am with Sioni on this one. I thinks Pasta Jim's gotten cold feet.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
You're suggesting the pastor didn't want to marry them in his own church, though the congregation would have been ok about it, but he didn't mind marrying them in another church? What's the 'rationale'?
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My fault, I suppose. Every time I defend the Americans as making progress in race issues, something like this occurs.
If you think an entire country's attitude can be judged as racist, based on the actions of one cowardly preacher, then you should have a very good understanding of how prejudice works.
S'okay lilBudda. We can be reasonably certain the Chinese invented and perfected racism, along with paper, the compass, gunpowder, printing, and the fork. Americans are just little pikers in comparison—even way down in Mississippi.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
I'm sorry for the dumb question but, isn't that illegal, to discrimenate like that?
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
It's protected by the Free Exercise clause in the federal constitution. quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.¹
Not being a public accommodation, a church can express just about whatever kind of fucked up, anti-Christian lunacy they want. Did I just say, Heresy?
[ 29. July 2012, 18:28: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It's protected by the Free Exercise clause in the federal constitution. quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.¹
Not being a public accommodation, a church can express just about whatever kind of fucked up, anti-Christian lunacy they want. Did I just say, Heresy?
Ah, the famous 'If you call it religion, anything goes' clause.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Here's Sioni Sais being ignorant:
...anything goes clause..
Did I say pig ignorant? No? Well, Sioni Sais, you are being pig ignorant.
Don't be an idiot; you are better than this.
This clause works pretty well, protecting Seventh Day Adventists, conscientious objectors, Moslems, and fuck, even Pastor Phred.
The flip side (there's always a flip side) is that a church can refuse to marry blacks. Human sacrifice and polygamy remain, however, outside the pale.
quote:
Here's Sioni Sais being pig eloquent:
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The flip side (there's always a flip side) is that a church can refuse to marry blacks. Human sacrifice and polygamy remain, however, outside the pale.
Does polygamy? Given that it is a strong belief of Muslims, it seems problematic for the US to enforce a ban on it... The UK is sidling up to this issue at the moment. And if you want to embarrass Romney, it's always a good one to bounce on Mormons ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Here's Sioni Sais being ignorant:
...anything goes clause..
Did I say pig ignorant? No? Well, Sioni Sais, you are being pig ignorant.
Don't be an idiot; you are better than this.
This clause works pretty well, protecting Seventh Day Adventists, conscientious objectors, Moslems, and fuck, even Pastor Phred.
The flip side (there's always a flip side) is that a church can refuse to marry blacks. Human sacrifice and polygamy remain, however, outside the pale.
quote:
Here's Sioni Sais being pig eloquent:
I was deliberately exagerrating but if racial discrimination is OK, then why not human sacrifice and polygamy? On grounds of faith people may be willing to be sacrificed and they may agree to a polygamous marriage similarly.
ps. Leave off pigs. Pigs are cool.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
In Baptist churches the congregation calls and dismisses the pastor. Very little outside oversight. And given that this church is in Missippi the rascist attitude is not a suprise. The pastor should have married this couple and then said I quit due to your (the congregatioins) attitudes . ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I'm sorry for the dumb question but, isn't that illegal, to discrimenate like that?
AtB, Pyx_e
That is a good question. It is absolutely discrimination and if the entity was part of a government (like a chapel on a military base) the discrimination would defiantly be unconstitutional and illegal. This church is not a governmental entity.
So, the question becomes whether or not civil rights laws apply. Federal civil rights laws only apply to private entities if they engage in interstate commerce. So, for instance, soliciting donations on the WWW might put it into interstate commerce. The probable answer is that it is not in interstate commerce.
If it is covered by federal civil rights laws, the next question is whether or not the thing they did was the practice of religion or not. It sure wasn't Christianity as I understand it. But, it might be protected religious activity. (The Church of Bigotry, or something.)
The State of Mississippi has it's own civil rights laws. I do not know if they apply.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The flip side (there's always a flip side) is that a church can refuse to marry blacks. Human sacrifice and polygamy remain, however, outside the pale.
Does polygamy? Given that it is a strong belief of Muslims, it seems problematic for the US to enforce a ban on it... The UK is sidling up to this issue at the moment. And if you want to embarrass Romney, it's always a good one to bounce on Mormons
The couple might have some legal recourse if they had a contract to use the church for their wedding. Cancelling at the last minute because they were black would likely not be covered by religious privilege (it is not as though they church didn't know they were black earlier).
As for polygamy, a church might get away with it if they made clear that it wasn't a state recognized marriage (and also other little bits like the bride wasn't under-aged). Romney's church currently doesn't recognize polygamy on earth (it does exist in heaven as a man can be sealed for eternity to multiple wives [though a woman can be sealed for eternity to only one husband, subsequent husbands due to remarriage after divorce or widowhood are only for life]).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
This is why I'm so very, very glad that our denomination does not permit a congregation that kind of unbridled power over a pastor. Not that they can't make his life a misery in other ways, but once they've called him they can't uncall aka fire him outright without proving either heresy, moral corruption or major documentable incompetence. Unfortunately many (most?) American churches do have this power due to the kind of polity they have--and lots of places abuse it. Though it's often just one rich s.o.b. who underwrites the bills and thinks he can do what the hell he likes as a result.
I think the pastor should have told them to go to hell, and then married the couple. But I know the kind of price he'd be likely to pay for it, and not everybody has that kind of courage. I'm guessing he would have lost job, insurance, and possibly home, with limited chances of finding another situation.
God help them all.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cryptic
Shipmate
# 16917
|
Posted
Another question here, the ABC News article states that the couple "often attended services" at the church but were not members, and that other family members were members and employees of the church. So they (or their families) weren't stangers in the church?
On top of the racism and discrimination, there is the hipocrisy of silently accepting these folk, until, shock horror, they wanted to be married.
--------------------
Illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 225 | From: Sydney | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
It's much easier to be a racist in private.
And then, of course, when those people get uppity and want to get married in your church, there is always the hired help to do what needs to be done for you.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
In Baptist churches the congregation calls and dismisses the pastor. Very little outside oversight. And given that this church is in Missippi the rascist attitude is not a suprise. The pastor should have married this couple and then said I quit due to your (the congregatioins) attitudes .
Preferably after transferring the church's liquid funds to an organisation that cares for the poor.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
the giant cheeseburger: quote:
Preferably after transferring the church's liquid funds to an organisation that cares for the poor.
That or the United Negro College Fund. ("Negro" is in the title from its establishment years ago in 1944, when Negro was much more polite than the other N word.)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
According to the AP article in today's paper, the pastor was intimidated by a small group of members, and was worried that if he resisted it would delay the wedding (yes, he's a coward). But the good news is that it's not a universal attitude in the church, and the church has reportedly changed its policy:
quote:
WLBT reported that the church officials now say they welcome any race. They plan to hold internal meetings on how to move forward.
Church member Casey Hitchens said she and other members of the congregation are outraged by the church's refusal to marry a black couple, a decision she says most of the congregation knew nothing about.
"This is a small group of people who made a terrible decision," Kitchens told the Clarion-Ledger. "I'm just ashamed right now that my church should do that. I can't fathom why. How unfair. How unjust. It's just wrong."
But... for all those who say that racial stuff is in the past--this is proof it isn't.
And if the pastor was afraid he would lose his job for standing up for what's right, he should lose it for giving in to evil.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cryptic
Shipmate
# 16917
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
They plan to hold internal meetings on how to move forward.
Great. A committee is on the job.
There are more news reports coming through about this story, saying that there are many folk in that congregation who are horrified at what has happened, and it seems like they had no say in the matter. I'm sure that is true, and I do feel sorry for those people. The saddest part is now that even if there is a change of policy, that church, and any good people in it, will bear the stain for a long time. Even with a new policy, I can't imagine any black people being in a hurry to be married there.
--------------------
Illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 225 | From: Sydney | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Norwood said she believes Weatherford should have married the Wilsons regardless of the risk to his job.
So now it's the pastors fault?
Are you serious? Do you really think the pastor is innocent here?
Racist? Probably not. Coward? Definitely.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think the pastor should have told them to go to hell, and then married the couple. But I know the kind of price he'd be likely to pay for it, and not everybody has that kind of courage. I'm guessing he would have lost job, insurance, and possibly home, with limited chances of finding another situation.
God help them all.
Given the level of publicity this story has generated (I even heard about it down here in Oz), I am sure the pastor could have performed the ceremony, then leveraged the possibility of public outrage at the medieval attitudes of some of the church members into at least a nice severance package - in exchange for silence.
Political, yes ... But as Gandhi taught us, anyone who thinks politics and religion can be separate understands neither one.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Seeing that the pastor excused himself in an interview by saying, 'I didn't want to have a controversy within the church, and I didn't want a controversy to affect the wedding of Charles and Te'Andrea. I wanted to make sure their wedding was a special day,' I in his general direction . What a worm.
[ 30. July 2012, 09:01: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Seeing that the pastor excused himself in an interview by saying, 'I didn't want to have a controversy within the church ...
That went well then ...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Seeing that the pastor excused himself in an interview by saying, 'I didn't want to have a controversy within the church ...
That went well then ...
*snort*
The Pastor is damned either way. He gave in to a small, vocal group within the congregation and moved the wedding elsewhere the day before. The larger, less vocal group within the congregation who is appalled by the racism and cowardice done in their name is likely to want him to consider his calling. Can’t see them being happy that the decision didn’t go through Baptist due process – and wasn’t bought before the members meeting to be discussed and voted on - either.
I feel sorry for him. Almost. Mainly on the grounds that although I always hope that in those circumstances I’d have the strength to do the right thing and not worry about the consequences, I sometimes have the feeling that I would be pecking my food from the ground whilst clucking.
Tubbs
[ 30. July 2012, 09:20: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
When a preacher speaks about the persecution meted out to Christians, s/he invariably talks about that from an increasingly secular society and the way in which people of other faiths are favoured. How often do they consider the persecution of Christians by other Christians and even, in this instance, within the very church of which they are a member or minister!
It's like abusive relationships, which are far more common in the family than outside, but an awful lot harder to bring to any kind of justice.
Motes and beams indeed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I sometimes have the feeling that I would be pecking my food from the ground whilst clucking.
I bet you wouldn't though. The times I have lost courage have been in the heat of the moment - not saying something in a meeting with a beating heart and spinning head until the moment has passed.
But when one has time to consider a decision it is different. That is a different sort of courage that doesn't require a cool countenance or finding the right words. One can think through, make a judgement, decide that if one can't stand up for a particular principle then there's no point carrying on anyway, and once one starts down the path I think it becomes easier to carry on.
If, on the other hand, one develops the habit of rolling over every time then that comes naturally too.
This man wasn't faced down or intimidated in the heat of the moment, he made a decision to call it off, picked up a phone and called the couple. He could have asked for back-up from other congregants, appealed to another pastor for advice, had an open discussion with the couple to see how they felt first... but he didn't. There is more than a single failure of courage here.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think the pastor should have told them to go to hell, and then married the couple. But I know the kind of price he'd be likely to pay for it, and not everybody has that kind of courage. I'm guessing he would have lost job, insurance, and possibly home, with limited chances of finding another situation.
God help them all.
Given the level of publicity this story has generated (I even heard about it down here in Oz), I am sure the pastor could have performed the ceremony, then leveraged the possibility of public outrage at the medieval attitudes of some of the church members into at least a nice severance package - in exchange for silence.
Political, yes ... But as Gandhi taught us, anyone who thinks politics and religion can be separate understands neither one.
It's very true. But shall I confess? Even I, after 25 years dealing with church politics, didn't so much as see the possibility of this until you mentioned it. C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S. There's a reason why Jesus compared the children of light unfavorably to the rest of the world.
To stop smacking my head for a moment, it's quite possible that the church finances wouldn't have allowed for any severance package at all, and he knew it. I understand the size of the average congregation in the U.S. is well under 200, possibly closer to under 100 if you're counting active attenders. That doesn't make for much in the offering plate.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I feel very sorry for the members of the congregation whose opinions weren't consulted before they had international recognition as racists.
Two years ago my husband attended a meeting of 45 people, at his rather large UMC, that decided the church wasn't going to pay apportionments to the conference because they had hired a gay man as an accountant. My husband was the only vote against but I'm positive there were many other people in the church who would have agreed with him. At the time the young pastor (who is dumber than a box of rocks) said that if the man was not fired within two years the congregation would separate from the UMC. Last month the 45 met again with the Pastor shakily reminding them of all the programs and funds they would lose by separating and, this time, pressured them in the opposite direction. This time a Pastor's cowardice worked in favor of inclusiveness.
Meanwhile the congregation remains innocent of the whole thing. I think that's a shame.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
The more I read, the more I want to cut this minister some slack. Most congregations have their vocal, opinionated members and most priests I've known have struggled to deal with them. With racism the issue and 24 hours to the wedding, he made the wrong decision but I wouldn't have liked to be in his place. Maybe he was afraid these bastards would actually disrupt the wedding.
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
That's my instinct too, BS, but I am alarmed by the quote from the Pastor in the linked article, where he says that he married the couple in another church "to ensure that the Wilsons could be married while 'addressing a need within our congregation.' "
I'd like to believe that 'addressing a need' meant sorting out the racism, but it really doesn't sound like that. It sounds as though the congregation's need to maintain their 'record' was the one he was addressing. Yeuch.
Ach. Ambiguity on the internet. Who'd have thought?
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I feel very sorry for the members of the congregation whose opinions weren't consulted before they had international recognition as racists.
Two years ago my husband attended a meeting of 45 people, at his rather large UMC, that decided the church wasn't going to pay apportionments to the conference because they had hired a gay man as an accountant. My husband was the only vote against but I'm positive there were many other people in the church who would have agreed with him. At the time the young pastor (who is dumber than a box of rocks) said that if the man was not fired within two years the congregation would separate from the UMC. Last month the 45 met again with the Pastor shakily reminding them of all the programs and funds they would lose by separating and, this time, pressured them in the opposite direction. This time a Pastor's cowardice worked in favor of inclusiveness.
Meanwhile the congregation remains innocent of the whole thing. I think that's a shame.
Not quite. From what you’ve said the decision not to separate from the UMC was motivated by self interest – wanting to keep their funding, programmes etc – rather than a desire to be more inclusive.
Kudos to your husband for voting against the pastor and the rest of the congregation though – that takes guts.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Anyone have an idea what sort of governance this church is likely to have? Would the power be likely stacked with a group of racist elders/council people who knew they could carry the day if the pastor thwarted them? Or was he so ignorant of his congregation that he wasn't aware the majority would override the racist squawkers who really couldn't carry out their threats?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
I wonder if that church is like many (most?) Baptist churches in my region -- they get together and vote on who can be a member, and who cannot. That is distasteful to me in the first place. Not because it's somehow wrong to recognize who is and who isn't putting his/her life into the church as an actual member of that local congregation -- but because such a "vote 'em in" mentality often degenerates into the feeling that the voters are somehow able to decide if the proposed member is "worthy".
I'd love to see (in writing) the actual policies of that congregation, as such tie into their Mississippi state non-profit-corporation status.
In that arena, my own congregation (in Louisiana, not Baptist, but similarly autonomous) has this big long faux-legalese-strapped "constitution" we inherited from people long dead or moved away. It's one of the things we're slowly replacing with scary, back-to-the-Bible basics.
That is scary. It leaves so much unregulated (because, you know, the Bible does).
You can tell by the crumbling old thing that the big bugaboo of those elder folks was *eeek gasp gibber* Pentecostalism, Charisma... tism? and stuff like that. (They weren't afraid of racial issues 'cause other similar congregations nearby were either already integrated, or at least they interacted well with each other if location/tradition kept them mostly single-race.)
'Course many of our congregations wouldn't marry non-members, anyway, or any hue. Not in the church building where the wedding -- and the presumed salvation status of the couple --might be interpreted to be approved of by the congregation as a whole. Heavens, no.
As for that poor preacher... I have sympathy for his cowardice. Or at least pity. Sometimes the test of what you believe and why you believe it jumps up and surprises you. I wonder just how big a mortgage the man has, and does his spouse depend for her life on medicines paid for by his church/work related insurance?
It's easy to know what the right thing to do is, and to know when it's time to do it, when you're the armchair quarterback.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Thanks for the insight on how things may work, Janine.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Followup story on the issue. It seems the opposition came because some saw the couple was black at the dry run which suggests that some of the opposition were people who would normally be involved in weddings.
Crystal Springs itself seems to be about 50/50 black and white (wikipedia) though the churches are probably one or the other (two Methodist churches, the one with a web site had an all white staff).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I feel very sorry for the members of the congregation whose opinions weren't consulted before they had international recognition as racists.
Two years ago my husband attended a meeting of 45 people, at his rather large UMC, that decided the church wasn't going to pay apportionments to the conference because they had hired a gay man as an accountant. My husband was the only vote against but I'm positive there were many other people in the church who would have agreed with him. At the time the young pastor (who is dumber than a box of rocks) said that if the man was not fired within two years the congregation would separate from the UMC. Last month the 45 met again with the Pastor shakily reminding them of all the programs and funds they would lose by separating and, this time, pressured them in the opposite direction. This time a Pastor's cowardice worked in favor of inclusiveness.
Meanwhile the congregation remains innocent of the whole thing. I think that's a shame.
Not quite. From what you’ve said the decision not to separate from the UMC was motivated by self interest – wanting to keep their funding, programmes etc – rather than a desire to be more inclusive.
Tubbs
Whether the decision was motivated by self-interest or not the decision still worked in favor of inclusiveness. Many a move in the direction of civil liberties has been motivated by less than noble reasons. Lots of schools integrated for the first time solely because the law demanded it. The students still had the benefit of diversified classes.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
Apprentice
# 16728
|
Posted
Saw this on our CBC news - what is this, the 1950s???
Posts: 1 | From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
