This week we have a vote on which of our parsonages to sell. The vote will be fairly evenly divided in all likelihood. And votes like this tend to be accompanied with emotion. Our town is blessed with an extraordinary number of people with Master’s degrees, the majority in business and law. And most of us have made our homes the major financial investment for our family savings. So almost every single person at Christ Church regards themselves as something of an expert on real estate.
            Plus, no one likes to make a choice between two limited options. We are in a much better mood when we can choose open-ended directions of different possibilities rather than something which will leave us more limited, regardless of the option we choose.
            I understand that this debate could become heated. Indeed, these decisions in our families are usually heated as well.
            But, I would hope that we will keep to a higher road and remember that we are fundamentally a community of reconciliation, committed to working through disagreement and conflict. We are a Church that is a Spiritual community first and foremost. We hold ourselves to a different standard than the School Board or the Town Council, where the partisan and the petty are routinely on display.
            Our goal is to develop consensus, not just push our point of view to victory. And we need to live with each other, regardless of the collective wisdom of our vote on this matter.
            I would remind us that this is a practical vote on how much debt and real estate we should own. It is not something that rises to a question of moral or spiritual integrity.
            Fifteen years ago, we had an important vote that did have moral implications to it. The vote was whether or not we would become “Open and Affirming”. Would we welcome gays and lesbians when no other churches in our area had officially done so?
            On the day of the vote, we actually only had one person speak in favor of the motion and only one person speak against the motion. Probably because there was so much at stake, probably because it was so personal, speech was minimal.
            This week, we are likely to have more oration, precisely because there is less at stake and practical decisions are so much less tied to our character.
            But in the greater scheme of things, property is much less important than people. We can always solve our property issues with generous giving. I hope we can agree to be generous with each other in the meantime, remembering that we are called to become a ‘Beloved community’, taking up our disagreements and working them through together as a fellowship of reconciliation.
            Don’t you wish Congress had such a mandate?

We've sent out a variety of communications on this subject. All of the documents can be viewed at http://ccsnj.org/Parsonages/index.html

The Rev.