After the frustrating non-interaction with my concerns and ideas, I decided to compile several documents, in hard copy, and send them in a packet, tracked and signed for, to 21. This is the cover letter for the packet, which I mailed on 19 November 2015. The email interactions I described at the close of Exhibit O. follow the letter.

19 November 2015

Dear Pastor 21,

I write because this all ought to be on the record. I am writing to you, and not to A.’s council, as the council has for all intents and purposes laid this on your doorstep, and as the Classis people say you are the ‘point man’ in the Article 17 process. I have spent some money to send these materials, in hopes they will get a fresh reading. Given that, in your last email, you thought you were ‘responding’ to my second letter, I thought I should re-send it and some other documents, with my questions, issues, examples, arguments, and appeals to scripture underlined. I would like to believe you are not aware of how you have been talking down to me by insisting on answering my pleas for serious intellectual engagement with vague generalizations and would-be ameliorative comments about feelings. I think I have demonstrated that I am neither a child nor a woman (I am 28) who is entirely beholden to her emotions, and I demand to be taken as seriously as the squeaky wheels at A..

In addition, I find it difficult to understand why a seminary graduate would refuse to engage with the material I’ve sent at the level I have requested. You have a M.Div., and reading and interacting with texts is a big part of your calling. It is also the case that you have multiple languages under your belt, so you know what I mean when I say that I find it frustrating, your penchant for impersonal verb constructions—‘steps were taken’, ‘things were attempted’. While the passive voice is not as naughty as it used to be, many of your verbs are missing their agents, and of course, while I want to talk about specifics, in terms of who said what, did what, and when, the above assertions you make are never explained or enumerated. Who did what and when? I hope you will find it in you to simply give me some answers.

As I’ve pointed out to others, you and Pastor 22 took on a moral responsibility, even culpability, when you agreed to get involved in this, and all the more when you gave advice, ‘approved’ the Article 17, and since, offered your perspective and review of the situation to people on the outside whose take on it has been shaped by what you have told them. It is incumbent on you to be able to defend and explain your role and actions, and indeed you should do so, just as we should all ‘be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us’. Would you be able to entertain, even for a moment, the possibility that you stamped the seal of approval on this too quickly?

I sum up the sentiment of your email and the Art. 17: ‘This has gone on long enough’—what, a few weeks’ worth of disorganized griping, issuing thrown-together directives and sloppy brainstorming amounts to a total ‘breakdown of diplomacy’? There were no ‘negotiations’, no counter-demands, no redrafting of proposals—it’s absurd to make my dad sound like the PLO. Besides, if I say that this spin of the narrative isn’t true, why do you believe it is? Who (singular or plural) told you that? And I assume ‘this’ refers to the crisis of the past several months. The problems that have been present for several years long predate my dad’s arrival at A..

One more thing: my dad ‘didn’t do anything wrong’, you said, in essence, in your last email, and, ‘sometimes things just don’t work out’. Why then is he being treated like a leper by [another pastor in the Classis who refused to answer my dad’s questions, and later emails, after throwing in an unnecessary review of the CVs involvement to the entirety of Classis: ‘this matter has been handled well by the CVs’. Unprofessional, to say the least, and unqualified, as the answer he finally gave to the question ‘Who told you it was handled well by the CVs was, ‘The CVs told me’. Ah. See Exhibit T. 28 March 2016]? Answer me that one. He [above pastor] had time to toss his bias into this sick soup, before skipping town to [another state], and doesn’t think he has to explain himself either. This string of events leaves me really disillusioned with the [denomination]—it [sic]way of thinking, its way of living the Word (even pastors!), its way of handling problems—which is basically, get it over with quick; if someone asks questions, blow him off past the deadline/final ‘meeting’, so we can sweep it under the rug ‘when it’s too late’, and make him go away quietly. Of course, maybe this only happens in the Provinces, and fairness could actually be gotten in [the city that hosts the denominational headquarters], before Caesar. Don’t know.

I’m asking you, before you either read this or throw it out, consider the fact that what has emerged from our exchange is proof that you and I (and perhaps 22 and I) have a foundational philosophical gap between us—we obviously think very differently, about a great many things. I challenge you to think about this, how we might go about defining that gap, and the possible reason for it—I believe this gap will be clearly demarcated, particularly in my response to your latest email, document 4.

The contents of this packet are as follows:

–doc 1: the very first letter, on the preaching, I sent to you in September

–doc 2: the second letter I sent to you 5 November

–doc 3: the shorter letter I sent to 12 & 11 in late October

–doc 4: the exchange of emails, the one I sent to Pastor 22, and the one I got from you, with my reactions in the text (all these docs have red underlining of points, arguments, examples you haven’t responded to, which I think merit, in fact demand, follow-up)

–Copies of 3 pictures I drew in the last 6 months

–Samples of poetry from February to November

Feel free to share any or all of this material with Pastor 22.

In all sincerity,

ekklescake

Email exchange:

Document 4 of 4; email exchanges, 11 & 14 November 2015

11 November 2015

Dear Pastor 22,

I really don’t know what to say in reply to your email. After last night’s proceedings, I’m left completely bewildered about my and my family’s relationship with A. as a whole. I heard the atmosphere in the sanctuary after the meeting adjourned, and it just sounded like nothing had happened, in spite of the fact that 12. could barely get through the closing prayer. A few women (not the ones we’ve known best–I don’t know why they couldn’t be bothered) approached my sister trying to be sympathetic and saying ‘it’s tough’. These people have no grasp of what they’ve done. ‘Everyone likes the guy.’ Christians who ‘like’ their pastors don’t sack them without hearing their point of view (though I guess that doesn’t matter if he’s supposed to just follow orders), don’t slander them without giving them a chance to defend themselves, and don’t besmirch their reputations while proclaiming how much they’re ‘praying for them’ and ‘wishing them the best’. The Article 17 ‘grounds’ make my dad sound like an absolute jerk. Who would want to call him or work with him? Who would even like a pastor like that? And they’ve all just moved on, it sounds like, based on all the trifles people were talking about as they mingled after the meeting. Moved on, no solemnity, no grief– with which I’m sure that 13-minute spiel at the beginning about ‘journeys’ helped. Priming the pump for the big ‘change’? Which it turns out shook very few people? It’s like everybody already knew.

My sister told me how much smiling there was. How can people do this? How can the council and others make the misrepresentations they have, believe and propagate rumors about a person’s comportment and attitudes without ever consulting him (or even their own memories!) about it (because trust me, my dad never heard these sorts of allegations until last Thursday), and insist it’s nothing personal, they still consider us ‘friends’? How can Christian adults even think that way? It’s completely irrational, or insensitive, or both. It seems no one there knows what it’s like to have to bear false accusations from people you once trusted And when you try to explain yourself, you get shouted down, or people simply don’t care. They’re over it. So few people know how this all came about, what those ‘instructions’ were, the hurry in which they were thrown together, and my dad’s response to them (which was not ‘thoroughly uncooperative’). The scariest part is they can laugh and smile and say, ‘It’s nothing personal, all the best,’ and they believe it; they don’t even realize they’ve done anything wrong.

At the start of my long letter, I asked you and Pastor 21 to read it for what it actually said. In my shorter email, I said explicitly what I wanted to discuss on the phone–it wasn’t confidential conversations. Is any of the material I wrote in my letter worth interacting with, in writing or by phone? This whole thing is a farce if I can spend so much time putting something like that together, be much more clear, biblical, rational, historically accurate, fact-derived, and specific than that Article 17 list of ‘grounds’ (which was so full of undefined, ethereal buzz-words, unsupported assertions [‘active core’?], and therapy-speak that I didn’t understand half of what it said, and I’m not sure 11 did either when he was reading the excerpts last night!) or that pathetic list of instructions (so many of which would not have addressed or mitigated the Article 17 problems anyway had my dad agreed to the whole ‘deal’, which makes me wonder if these men are even sane– assuming they aren’t just coming up with convenient arguments that suit the moment, regardless of whether they’re consistent with what was convenient last week), and no one can be bothered to address any of it to me.

Truth, consistency, justice–none of it matters, evidently. Just feelings–and God’s supposed to have been leading them to do all this? How can real prayer and seeking the mind of God lead to someone’s being punished for not dancing to sub-biblical tunes in this way? And that CYA clause toward the end of the Art.17–‘we know we’ll lose people, but this is about the health of the church’. Can’t they hear themselves? The people who may leave aren’t essential to the health of the church, but the itchy-eared extortionists are. How is that supposed to make the former group feel?

Speaking of feelings, you suggested talking to the council members–I can’t really trust them, since I think two of them don’t even take this all that seriously; two others said one thing to me and then did another 2 1/2 weeks later; and another I don’t know very well. I suppose I will try to call 13, since he claimed he was open to speaking to me (though he still hasn’t replied to my email), and he’s probably the one to beg for more time to get out of the parsonage, because (something I doubt anyone has considered) I will not be able to drop everything and fly over to help them move before Christmas day. Heaven help me, I don’t know why 2 disabled people are being given 8 weeks to move out of a home they’ve lived in for nearly 8 years over ‘no moral failing’ with their 20-yr-old sick cat (all these little bits of collateral damage because some people can’t bear to hear unadorned preaching of God’s Word or be challenged to prove their faith by bearing fruit). And evicted by their church, with the ‘closing’ date the week after Christmas.

I can’t believe this situation wouldn’t have kept for another 2 months. Like people were going to leave in the middle of Advent if council didn’t send my dad packing immediately? Please. But what was so urgent that this all had to be done by the end of the year? How did it happen so quickly? What was the BLOODY RUSH? Was it because the truth would have been discovered sooner or later, so better be sure that when it is, it’s too late? I guess now that they’re free of him and moving on, they’ll have plenty to be thankful for in a few weeks. The irony isn’t lost on me that my Christmas visit with my family will be spent helping them pack and move house (it will no doubt embitter many Christmases to come), or that he was suspended for ‘no moral failing’ two days after Pastor Appreciation Sunday, and ‘released’–how sanitized that sounds!–9 days later. All this sensitivity and generosity and ‘it’s nothing personal’ sentiment really makes me wonder what we ever meant to so many of the people at A.. The severance pay and healthcare stuff may ease their consciences, but it doesn’t change the moral or biblical dynamic of what they’ve done–I’m not sure it’s going to fly with Jesus. You can’t throw someone under a bus, pay for his hospital stay, then steal his house while he’s bedridden and say it’s all good because you paid the doctor.

The ‘pain’ in A.. There’re so many upset people, it must be PT’s fault because they say so. Elijah, Jeremiah, Moses, Paul, Christ himself, and people down through church history–all ruffled a lot of feathers, they may have even made some people cry, because they told the truth. Why isn’t that the test for whether someone gets the boot? Everyone was in such a hurry to just ‘get it (PT?) over with’ that there was no time for sifting through the evidence to find the truth. And if it is just the pressure of the numbers (11 & 12 admitted to me it was that for them, pure and simple), why isn’t that on the Art. 17, and why don’t they stand by it? What is the truth? What does the council really believe? Now I’m wandering back into the material of the long letter, so I won’t go into that again.

I have plenty of other things to do–can’t wait to have my life back–but I have been collating emails and documents going all the way back to 2011 and putting them together into a giant file. I am going to make sure this saga can be accessed somehow, even though I’m discreet enough to change names, if anyone is committed to taking the time to finding out what really happened. And it blows my mind what I’ve read from other people in the congregation, emails from the past few years, feedback that completely contradicts the Art. 17 ‘grounds’ (including members of the same family at the forefront of this apparent ‘journey’ campaign–which reminds me of Nissan ads from the late 90s).

I am hurting, yes, and very much in need of the comfort that only the Holy Spirit can give. But I am also waiting (I hope patiently) on God for justice. I have obviously expected too much from one segment of what is supposed to be the Bride of Christ. 13 can read/talk about how we’re to think on noble things, to ‘edify’ one another, how that’s a command, after what he’s said and done to divide that church, to shut down people who disagree with him (ain’t just Templars, by the way), pander to grumblers (my husband was reminded of CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce–the grumble is all that’s left of some people after enough time passes), and to tear down my father, whom he once befriended and supported, and who openly supported him even when it wasn’t universally approved. This is an absolute fiasco.

In the end, it is of course your choice whether you’re up for a phone call or any further emails. But I’ll ask the question again–is anything I’ve said/written worth interacting with? If it’s not too late, isn’t it important to get to the bottom of what’s going on? If it is too late, then what’s the harm in wrestling with some of these things so I can get answers or even come to an understanding of why this has happened? This disaster will affect my sister’s walk and personal growth (and her ability to trust), but it is my dad’s life, because it is his calling, and it is all personal; if he is to be undone, I want sound, biblical, Christ-honoring, specific reasons for why it’s justified. This is what I would expect from those pastors I know well.

Thank you for your well-wishes and prayers, and for the time you spent reading my letter (and this email, which I know is very indignant).

ekklescake

[There was no reply to this from 22, contrary to his assertion to my father that he answered all my emails.]

14 November 2015 (my responses to the original email [in italics] are bolded)

Dear ekkles,

Pastor 22 shared with me the email without asking me he sent to you, and I join with him in extending condolence in the stress of this time. As I read your email, I thought of my own daughters, and how they would feel if I was going through this. Because, all of us as pastors are well aware that with any turn of events, it could happen to us. In particular, it pained me to think of you sitting in church the day when some of this was being announced.

I cannot add much, as Pastor 22 and I are limited to the immediate situation and the people involved. Are you kidding me? Maybe the better question, what does it mean, ‘limited to the immediate situation’? What does this have to do with my questions?

There is truth in what you say is this an attempt at placating me? What is true, besides the following obvious statement, a given if you believe in original sin?...I am sure that there are personalities and sins in the congregation. Just as it is in every church. This is an insult to my intelligence, but I’m glad I at least got the concession that there could be some sin lurking somewhere in the un-dusted corners of A. church.. Certainly none of it factors into this situation, where only my dad is the one to blame for all this ‘breakdown’. I wish we could find a more precise word; that one is too loaded with multiple relationship connotations for me to find it useful.

ekkles, sometimes it just doesn’t work. This is NOT what the Article 17a grounds say. Quite a while back, I was meeting with your Dad, just the two of us. And I shared with him of a time when my ministry collapsed underneath me and around me. Sometimes, despite our best intentions and desires and hard work, it just doesn’t work. Where is God in this talk about ‘people’s’ ministries? You know what, this isn’t really about my dad or his intentions. This is about people being honest. This isn’t about him even keeping his job. This is about Christians being willing to stand by and defend their choices, and whether they’re able to do so biblically and with integrity, without scapegoating other people.

There are volumes of things to discuss and debate about, Is this is fobbing off? Because while you say there is all this stuff to debate & discuss, you still don’t interact meaningfully with any of my points. What is the problem? Are things unclear? More on the material later; for now we’ll stick with the following point. but the basic meaning of “Article 17-a” is that there is not wrong-doing – certainly not; Have you read the Article 17 document they produced? How could one not conclude that there has been wrong-doing? In spite of the little consolation prize at the very beginning, the grounds are essentially, Pastor Templar makes people feel inferior, doesn’t listen, walks all over everybody and has cost the church members’. What isn’t wrong in that? ‘Lording over’ people isn’t wrong? Being unwilling to listen or cooperate isn’t wrong? Then what are these allegations? It’s not quite the same as, ‘I like chocolate, he doesn’t’. The document, while it isn’t clear, nevertheless clearly makes him bear the blame for the church’s ‘current course’, with no spiritual insight on the state of its members, which is thoroughly imbalanced. I found it very telling that 11 ended his awkward read-through of his excerpts with a shaky, ‘we hope this is the right decision’. Gulp. What does that mean? I thought it was ‘with firm conviction’, though there was no mention of prayer. your Dad is a highly moral and rigorous Christian. Article 17 is necessary when the relationship between a pastor and a church is so strained, and the breakdown so severe, This is assuming there’s been ‘breakdown’, and that he is the cause of it, since he is the only [one] mentioned and being held responsible. that healthy ministry cannot continue. Can this ‘strain’ and ‘breakdown’ be described, and the way it came about be laid out in a timeline? I want proof of what I believe to be an alternate reality, since my dad’s future hangs on it. [Author’s note: a pastor in another Classis has been recently terminated from his church via an Article 17 due to charges, to which he confessed, of plagiarism. Just what exactly is the spectrum of issues the Article 17 covers? If a pastor can be fired with an A-17 because of behavior that is or borders on criminal, how can that not color the reputation of pastors who are sacked under the same article due to ‘communication breakdown’? And how can the A-17 not carry connotations of ‘wrong-doing’? It’s LUDICROUS! Also, see author’s note at the bottom of Exhibit P., 28 March 2016]

All of it seems so unfair. What does this mean? That in reality it is fair? How does this idea connect with the next sentence? I am puzzled. And, early in this process, How long ago was that? You’ve only been in the picture since September. I seem to remember that, ‘early in this process’, I provided some clear arguments that demonstrated that the people ‘on the other side’ are full of it when it comes to their judgment calls on ministry of the Word. Now it’s ‘late in this process’, and I haven’t seen any evidence that any of what I wrote was taken seriously. we tried very hard to put things in place What things? I don’t see how that would be confidential at this point. that would give some breathing space what does that mean?…tried to find ways to heal this divide. This sounds fluffy, like the phrase ‘No-fault divorce’. And, this again assumes there is a divide, and that the people involved know its nature and origin; what are they? Those attempts were not successful. Again, I mentioned what may have been some of these ‘attempts’ in my longer letter; and again, no interaction? Yes, I know ‘stuff’ was ‘done’, but was it appropriate, relevant ‘stuff’? Did anyone ask that question? And like I said in my email, the ‘instructions’ had ZERO to do with what went under the Art. 17 ‘grounds’. It’s like they were meant for two different people. I’ll make my question on that clear: do you think the latter is remotely informed/shaped/inspired by the former? (on the former, a Baptist friend of mine who read it wondered if they’d picked the items at random)

When your Dad and I met, just the two of us, months ago, I shared with him what does this mean, ‘shared’? That you don’t think he has/had self-awareness about what he believes? Give him a little credit. that he has a core set of beliefs about God, and the church, and of what it means to be a pastor. These things within him cannot be altered, because it is his Christian are the two qualifiers ‘his’ and ‘Christian’ of equal value? worldview. At least there’s finally some acknowledgement that this is the foundational issue. The Council, and the core there’s that word again; who is being categorized under ‘core’? of the congregation, has convictions, beliefs, and a Christian worldview also. I have been a member of this church and known many of its members very well. I still don’t know who the ‘core’ is, but those I’ve known best I’ve believed to have the same convictions as my dad, if they take the Bible seriously. There still has been no interaction with my assertion that I HAVE WITNESSED FOR MYSELF that many of the others supposedly in ‘good standing’, including people much older than myself, in A., do not know what the Bible says on MAJOR issues, both moral and theological, and when people think they can decide whether God has spoken or not, or that they can decide what they want to call Him, whether ‘he’ or ‘she’, I would argue that that is sub-Christian, and is therefore wrong. But anyway— Is there more than one Christian worldview? I am shocked to hear this. But since the assertion is made, can the two of them be defined and the distinctives which make them so unmeshable be explained? (As pastor myself, I know how my own worldview is stained with sin and personal blindness – and of how true this is of any church, also). Those two worldviews (your father’s and A.’s) are not meshing, and have not for a long time, and the breakdown in health and function is severe. I actually know a bit about philosophy, presuppositional issues, epistemology, theology, the history of Christian thought, and the way the outside culture impacts and shapes our thinking, even as believers, but this idea that you can have two worldviews that are ‘Christian’ that so seriously conflict with one another, I find very surprising and disturbing.

This idea of there being multiple, or at least two (I assume you imply also ‘valid’) ‘Christian’ worldviews, I simply cannot let go by without saying something. In my line, we talk about intertexts: e.g.,‘This passage in Valerius is obviously influenced by both Homer and Vergil. But it has more echoes of Homer, therefore it is more Homeric than Vergilian’ (there is also discussion of whether something is ‘competently’ Homeric or Vergilian, but we’ll leave that to the side for the moment). The point is, while it may have Vergilian influences, we have determined that it has more of Homer; it cannot be majority Homeric, and majority Vergilian at the same time. [Author’s note: since this is going on the web, I’ll admit here that intertextuality is more complicated than this brief sketch indicates! 9 April 2016] There is either more watermelon than peach in the fruit bowl, or there is not. The amounts could be equal, but it is contradictory to say that more than half is one thing, and more than half is the other. It’s impossible.

No one’s worldview this side of glory is going to be perfect, because we don’t yet see as God sees. As humans, we are going to be influenced by both the Bible and the world, and the way it thinks. But there are two opposing premises: yours seems to be ‘there is more than one type of worldview that can properly be defined as Christian’. PT holds one, A. holds another, and both are valid and can claim ‘Christian’ as a qualifier with the same level of meaning (and merit?). How can it be that they don’t ‘mesh’? Well, here’s my premise: assuming that this worldview clash isn’t over a legitimate Christian doctrinal issue (infant baptism, for example, where both positions can be defended by orthodox exegetical appeals to Scripture…so then it wouldn’t be a worldview clash at all), I can only assume, for myself, that one ‘worldview’ is MORE Christian than the other, or that one or both is/are not Christian at all.

There is a gradation in quality—a Christian worldview, properly defined, is one that is shaped by God’s Word, which is held in highest esteem according to the confessions of the Church and as laid out, for example, in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Therefore, differences in two divergent worldviews, held by professing Christians, are owed to the different degrees to which their minds are shaped by scripture. Therefore, you can have a Christian worldview in the sense that people think, more or less, biblically, than others; but to say that ‘unmeshable’ and contradictory positions stemming from divergent ‘worldviews’ (you yourself put it this way) are both equally Christian is a fallacy. Either ‘gay marriage’ is consistent with a Christian worldview, or it isn’t. Either recreating God in your own image is consistent with a Christian worldview, or it isn’t. Either pluralism is consistent with a Christian worldview, or it isn’t. Either abusing fellow-believers is consistent with a Christian worldview, or it isn’t. Either engaging in gossip is consistent with a Christian worldview, or it isn’t. The Bible has something to say on all these things; if a person consistently subverts the Bible on moral and theological issues, that person’s worldview, cannot, by definition, be (predominantly) Christian, and certainly someone who, in contrast, honors, or tries to honor, God’s Word, on these same issues, must by definition have a (more) Christian worldview (than the other). The first person’s worldview is actually, majority-worldly, not Christian. One parting shot: God is not a God of confusion. He has spoken clearly on the essential tenets of the Christian faith, and His will for how we live our lives is equally clear. If people claim to love the brethren but steal from them or blacken their names, then they are lying and don’t love, or they have an unbiblical idea of what love is (in which case they still don’t love).

I can assure you that the Council is of heavy heart in this, If the council has such a heavy heart about the situation, why was it done in such a hurry? Why did they bully my dad about the ‘list’ after giving him the completely superfluous 3 weeks to think about it? Why didn’t they actually use the three-week suspension rather than rushing this decision through with that murky, morally lazy document? And why, if they were so heavy-hearted and ‘love’ us so much, did they have to add insult to injury (and humiliation) by reading excerpts (all the “he’s an a—hole” ones) aloud during the congregational meeting? MY WORD, I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS! 13 is not heavy-hearted. He’s dishonest—he’s toxic. Why won’t he talk to me now that I’m gone? Supposedly he was all eager to do so while I was in Michigan… And [28’s husband], for example, isn’t heavy-hearted either. He doesn’t even understand what they’ve done. They think they can continue to pray for ‘opportunities’ for him when they’ve skinned him alive and called him a dictator to boot? What does that tell you?

and that there is love in the congregation for your dad and your family. This is another impersonal (and odd) construction. How about a subject, an active indicative transitive verb, and an object? Who loves whom? On the content: how do you know the congregation loves my family? Again, I was in that church regularly for nearly four years; I was a member of the small group; I’ve been back for visits twice a year and kept in touch; and I did several ‘interviews’ when I was home in October. I know this church well, more than half of them danced at [or at least attended] my wedding [reception]; I’ve made a substantial effort to talk to several people, one-on-one, to assess where they’re at in all this. I know who cares and who doesn’t, who’s changed and who hasn’t. How many people have you spoken to? And yes, I even know who’s been gossiping and complaining about my dad for YEARS. THAT ISN’T LOVE!!!!!!! Love is shown through one’s actions, and love for God informs and strengthens our love for others. People don’t throw under the bus those whom they love.

You aren’t listening—no one’s been listening, they’ve just been hurrying the process along, insisting they love everybody and ‘it’s so tough, sorry’. This isn’t a natural disaster. People have made this happen. If my husband and I were having marital problems, would that be the counsel? Sometimes things just don’t work out? People have obligations in life, to God, to each other. If my dad hasn’t met his obligations, then say so. If that’s what’s caused ‘breakdown’, then say so. But then also demonstrate that the congregation knows and has met their obligations, since they get off scot-free, and since the fact they sin is given as a last-minute concession. OF COURSE THERE IS SIN IN EVERY CONGREGATION! The point is, do they know that? They think and act like they don’t—you should have seen the letter my sister got from a woman in the small group. My pagan female coworkers would be scandalized to see a young person with her issues dealt with in that cold way by a Christian mother.

Also, the Council went over-and-above So I should be grateful for the money. What about the moving date? Also, how did ‘Classis people’ know they had to schedule a special session BEFORE my dad even got his walking papers? It’s unbelievable that people can keep pouring on the platitudes without even seeing all this for how sketchy [author’s note: not to mention unprofessional, 19 April 16] it looks. in its financial care package in this potential separation. The mention of the package is not reassuring; how is he to continue with those personality-bashing insinuations standing against him on his record? You didn’t interact with that either—the COUNCIL (TWO ELDERS!) told me there’s nothing to any of this baloney, it’s about the numbers—WHY ISN’T THAT WHAT’S ON THE GROUNDS? IF THEY DON’T BELIEVE IT, THEN WHO GAVE THOSE GROUNDS, AND WHO WROTE THEM DOWN?!?!?!—the severance package is more evidence of how much they just want it to go away, and that they know they haven’t got a leg to stand on. I suppose, too, the bigger the severance package, the bigger the weapon with which to threaten the ‘terminated’ one if he gets out of line.

Also, there were serious and heartfelt attempts to avoid this. You say ‘serious’, ‘heartfelt attempts’. Answer me this: is that what that list of instructions was, or the suspension? Serious and heartfelt attempts? What would silly and hasty attempts look like? And again, can I get an explanation? To avoid WHAT? And–am I being asked to take your word for this? And how much time, really, was devoted to finding the mind of God? Some of the most committed people in the congregation were completely blindsided by this. This was a quickie, and it was not transparent. It was a real joke having members vote on everything from soup to nuts in the congregational meeting, and yet the council could just hand down this directive from on high—‘this is the way it is, take our word for it’. SINCE YOU HAVEN’T BEEN at A., as a member or her pastor, how do you know ‘how long it’s gone on’, which seems much longer than I am aware of? I mean, has someone told you this? Is this person on the council, and has this person known such things the whole time? What does that mean, that so many people are only finding out about this now? Conspiracy?

None of this, I know, takes away the pain, and there is nothing adequate to assuage the suffering you are surely experiencing. Stop treating me like a child or an irrational woman. This is not about my pain or my suffering. This is about Christians not doing the right thing, signing their own church’s death warrant by permitting sin of this kind, and scapegoating my dad for their discomfort in the light of God’s word. Why should I believe you know these people better than I do? And again, how about interacting with my examples? This just isn’t good enough. As I said in my cover latter, the two of you accepted (moral) responsibility for your involvement in this when you agreed to be CVs, and in spite of your initial claims that you weren’t there to offer suggestions or make decisions, everything the council has done, they’ve presented to the congregation as something they’ve done with your ‘approval’ and with your ‘guidance’. If all this was done with your guidance and approval, you should be prepared to justify your actions & advice, not necessarily by naming names or talking about what goes on inside the consistory room, but by interacting with what I’ve written to you. Why won’t you do so? Why can’t you look at one example (e.g., calling Paul a ‘sexist’) and tell me how you believe it squares with a ‘Christian worldview’ that is as biblical as, say, my dad’s? That rings of relativism to me.

Even this course of action—an Article 17—how does that square with a Christian worldview when it’s full of baseless, unexplained accusations that have been drawn from the ether, and the man against whom they’re directed has no chance to defend himself? The Law of God is always crystal clear—‘two or more witnesses’, let the accused speak, go to your brother in private (nothing to say on the fact that there are two sides to that story?). How can it be ‘Christian’ to pass off this muddled mess as official and church-sanctioned? People in the world get treated with more respect! And now, all those people in A. who heard those ridiculous, vacuous ‘grounds’ are going to have their view of him tainted. And why not interact with what I had to say about 13? Your perspective on him is not, I trust, confidential. And what about the Absalom spirit? Being willing to engage with me on that is NOT conceding my point. Beyond that, what about the fact that this sort of thing is addressed in I don’t know how many books, articles, and other Christian resources—pastors are being kicked out for no other reason than that people don’t want to hear the truth, succinctly put by a couple of Welsh retirees. And the discontent fomented by the devil in a few rebellious hearts spreads like a contagion if it is not dealt with in a timely and godly way.

But I wanted to respond to your letter, even in this brief form. This is not a response to my letter. My letter dealt with issues on a biblical level of intercourse, gave examples, specific examples in evidence of this all being a rush to please the consumers. There has been no interaction with that material, there has been no demonstration given that the ‘core’ (For Pete’s sake, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, AND CAN I GET A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE PEOPLE DEMANDING THE FIRING OF MY DAD ARE “CORE”!?) of the congregation is more committed and biblical in their thinking and priorities than I believe they are (and I can back my assertions, again, with examples). What does it take to get someone to meet me halfway, with some intellectual integrity? I’m beginning to wonder if it’s a question of will or ability when it comes to careful reading.

It blows my mind that so much of what I’ve read coming out of the A. corner these past few weeks could have been written by non-Christians in secular business situations, or be notes from group-therapy. Guess I’m just used to people who speak more spiritually than they do in the [denomination], and I guess I’m used to people being able to write what they mean, using words they can readily define, and desiring to be understood.

Sometimes things don’t work out, and sometimes people pull the trigger. How can it be determined what’s the case in a given situation? You have to look, you have to talk to multiple people, you have to ask the Holy Spirit for discernment.

ekkles, I cannot do more than this with you. I can only suggest that you seek out counsel a lot of the counsel, or feedback, that I’m getting from the believers around me consists of references to passages like Matthew 10:14 and comfort from the believers around you. With this letter is prayer for your strength and peace,

Thank-you,

Pastor 21

<—Exhibit R. Exhibit T.—>

Exhibit Q. A Grad Student takes on the A-17.

[Return to Table of Contents.] [Exhibit R.—>]

‘Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.’ -James 3:13-8

After being irritated by both the style and content of the Article 17 document, I decided to treat it like a writing assignment and grade it, using a rubric inspired by those which I used for hundreds of student essays I marked while teaching as a grad student at University of Illinois (at U-C).

NB: at the time I marked this (mid-November 2015), I altered the names of the CVs, church and church coach to pseudonyms rather than to numbers.

Click here to see the Graded Article 17 pdf file.

<—Exhibit P. Exhibit R.—>

Exhibit R. The Congregational Meeting, 10 Nov. 2015.

[Return to Table of Contents.] [Exhibit S.—>]

Life is a journey. Enjoy the ride.

‘Death and life are in the power of the tongue,
and those who love it will eat its fruits.

Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets;
therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.’ —Prov. 18:21; 20:19

‘Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment give off a stench;
so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.

A fool multiplies words,
though no man knows what is to be,
and who can tell him what will be after him?‘ –Eccles. 10:1, 14

I listened to the proceedings of the congregational meeting (as I am still a member at A.) via Skype, as my sister attended with her computer. I will note four things:

1. 13 opened the meeting and began by speaking for nearly 15 minutes straight, about ‘journeys’, enjoying them while they last, their value—it was essentially a nauseating string of clichés and platitudes that reminded me of an old Nissan ad campaign from the 90s. He closed with over-emphatic readings of Bible passages on joy (not inconspicuous was the passage from Philippians—my dad hadn’t been allowed to get that far in his recent series on Philippians, a direct response to people’s complaints; evidently it wasn’t really what they wanted, or it was too late? Or people weren’t even listening closely enough to realize he was preaching on the joy they’d been crying for for so long?). One of them was Phil. 4:8, which my best friend has had posted on her dashboard for years. I wanted to throw up when he read it—could he even define ‘noble’?

2. I could hear over Skype one parishioner approaching the CVs and saying, ‘You know, not all of us had a problem with Pastor T.’ I couldn’t make out their reply, if they had any. This little event was not noted in the CVs’ overview for Classis. See Appendix iv. on implications of wilfull omissions in testimony.

3. Only two people, women, approached my sister to say anything. I could recognize the voices of women I thought were my friends laughing and carrying on in the background. These two women offered what I would characterise as hasty, vague, hollow-sounding sympathy. They didn’t sound sad or sorry at all, or like they understood how ‘tough’ it was. I was so angry. She was so completely alone. [I will add that one woman who has been very good to us over the years sat with my sister during the meeting, but she couldn’t stay after its adjournment.] This church is not what it purports to be. How could they just leave that girl sitting there after having to sit through the reading of those nasty, defamatory excerpts from the Article 17 with her father absent?

4. At every turn, the ‘unanimous conviction’ of the council as they carried on with this course of action was insisted upon, declared, proclaimed. Yet the elder who read the Article 17 excerpts closed his speaking part with something like a sigh and, ‘Let’s just hope this is the right decision’, in a tone that made me imagine Judge Judy crossing her fingers. The elder who led the closing prayer could barely keep from weeping. I’m not convinced that this was considered the best decision ever, even then.

<—Exhibit Q. Exhibit S.—>

Exhibit P. The Article 17, 5 Nov. 2015.

[Return to Table of Contents.] [Exhibit Q.—>]

‘Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.’ –I Tim. 5:17-9

Exhibit N. Further Proceedings & Email to 2 Council Members, 26 Oct. 2015.

[Return to Table of Contents.] [Exhibit O.—>]

    ‘Hide not your face from me.
Turn not your servant away in anger,
    O you who have been my help.
Cast me not off; forsake me not,
    O God of my salvation!
For my father and my mother have forsaken me,
    but the Lord will take me in.’    –Ps. 27:9-10

It took all of three days of meetings, sine pastore, between the CVs and the council, to make the following, the Article 17a, ready for ‘presentation’ to my dad. More than one parishioner wrote to the council and/or the CVs, weighing in after the 1 November announcement, challenging or questioning the suspension. My dad wrote a letter to 21, per Matthew 18, telling him that as a fellow pastor, he’d let him down and betrayed his trust—that he hadn’t heard him or listened to his take on the situation at all. I’m not certain whether my dad ever got any kind of response to this. The CVs offered to ‘meet’ with him to find out ‘how he was processing all this’. As you have seen for yourself, it is doubtful how helpful this would have been. At any rate, it most likely would not have changed the outcome of the series of meetings—which all happened in such a short space of time that it could hardly be called an ‘outcome’. I believe the meetings ‘were entered into’ on 2 November, with all parties (sine pastore, again) knowing full well that they were going to draft and request an Article 17 termination, contrary to the council’s claim that they had no idea 1 November what they would do. That’s right—I am saying that claim was not true. There was too much pressure on even those uncomfortable with the decision to oppose it—and the reason given me, more than once, was: ‘We can’t afford to lose any more people.’

DSCF1071

Over the course of the week of 1 November, my dad had an inkling of what was coming. I was petrified about what it would do to him. And I was furious with the CVs, and with the council members with whom I’d spoken, whom I believed had admitted to me that this was wrong. It was under this impression that I had written the following to them after I returned to the UK in October, on the 26^th, the day before the meeting at which my dad gave his response to the List (only one day before he was suspended):

Dear 12 & 11,

First, let me thank you again for your time week before last. I really appreciate you sitting down with me and being so frank. I’m taking you up on your offer to get back in touch, and hope you don’t mind.

I’ll try to keep this brief, because I know you’re both busy. I’ve been reflecting a lot on what we talked about, and on my meetings with other people while I was home, trying to make sense of things. There were a few thoughts I’ve had that I’ve wanted to share with you.

Predominant is a jarring inconsistency. With more than one person I talked to, the theme of compassion in sermons, and the quality of A. as a loving, accepting church came up. Those things, compassion, love and acceptance have been swirling around in my mind, and crashing up against several events. In your church interviews, A.ns apparently said that the church’s loving and accepting attitude was what kept them coming. Some people claim to want Christ’s compassion preached from the pulpit (which they had every week in the Matthew series, but it seems that wasn’t what they really meant), but in my opinion, the church is not living it—the following things come to mind, and don’t seem compassionate, spiritually mature or accepting to me:

–to ignore or enable bullying behavior in a church, or ignore God’s Word on human sexuality, while resenting a pastor for 7 years for not having attended school board meetings in the months following his wife abandoning him, or finding it unacceptable and irritating that he doesn’t read the newspaper

–to extort a church council, saying, “Do something with this guy or I’m leaving”, while admitting the pastor’s preaching is biblical

–to threaten a pastor who has served a small local body faithfully through such personal trials (many people can’t continue in ministry with those sorts of setbacks) with loss of his job and his home, without biblical grounds

–not to hear out a church leader if he has a serious concern about satanic threats to the church, or to threaten Christian brothers or sisters with ostracism if they speak out about something unfamiliar

–to refuse to acknowledge or return the greeting of my autistic kid sister at the “Fall Fun Fest”

–to take out frustrations with the pastor on his child. The situation of the worship committee is downright scary—it looks like someone’s service is being blatantly valued more highly than another person’s, and without explanation to herself, a young adult member of the congregation, with special needs, is getting the boot. And the questions are not asked, “Is God calling people to serve on this committee? What does He want out of this situation?” Jesus is compassionate—how does he see this treatment of my sister? To treat my dad the way people have is one thing; to punish my sister is a “whole ‘nother level of nasty,” to be blunt

–to demand a pastor “be out in the community and meet people in their workplaces” while cutting him off from the youth Sunday school with no discussion (this is inherently contradictory). The former, I would conclude from Acts 6 and the pastoral epistles, is more the duty of deacons, while the latter is as natural way for the pastor to cultivate relationships with people in his congregation, as in church-managed small groups and Bible studies and as a source of Christian counsel (for which he’s always been available, and of which opportunity some have availed themselves). And the pastor’s involvement in youth education is actually a role of his job outlined by the denomination.

Even if a pastor were to be able to step into the position of going to people’s jobs (this has never happened in any church I’ve been in), it would be awfully hard to meet this hitherto unexpressed expectation once he’s felt alienated and cut down the way my dad has. How can he possibly expect that people would want to see him socially if a parent demands he be “kept away” from the Sunday school room? This is the local church’s shepherd, and shepherds are God’s gift to the Church! In the “green” political arena, there’s a lot of talk about “sustainability”. How can this kind of nonsensical treatment of a pastor be sustainable? It’s interesting that people apparently talk so much about what a pastor does or doesn’t do—the apostle Paul talks more about who and what elders and deacons are, their personal qualities and commitment, rather than getting into minutiae of what the roles entail (for pastors and elders, there’s not much besides prayer and teaching).

As you both admitted, people are getting nitpicky. Last week at our church Bible study (we’re doing a series on Christian ethics), we talked about the value of human life—and how respecting it the way God respects it goes beyond just not killing people. We were reminded from Matthew 5:21-26 and 1 John 3:14-15 that hating your brother is murder. And while some at A. may protest that they “love” or “like” my dad personally, it’s by one’s actions and fruit that his or her priorities and attitudes are known. In the Bible, and in our criminal justice system, people are permitted to answer allegations against them. For people to demand change or dismissal of a pastor, anonymously or through another person, because of their feelings, with no chance for the person criticized to defend himself, is neither loving nor fair.

I know some say they did “talk” to my dad about “things”, but that’s not what he says—what’s the truth? The only way to clear the air is to bring parties together face-to-face, like the Bible says people ought to do in the first place, as soon as there is offense or an issue. And that doesn’t mean mentioning things in passing in council meetings. It means meeting privately, one-on-one, to address the issue. If this doesn’t happen, people fall into traps of bitterness, resentment, and then perhaps gossip. We’re supposed to bear with one another; sin we address, but quirks and idiosyncrasies we tolerate, and love people despite them (this might include people in the church who actually do have “control” issues, though perhaps we ought to challenge those who demand unquestioning conformity to their expectations even when they’re not biblical and not told to the pastor when he first takes the job). How do we distinguish between the two?

I guess I’ll say just one more thing and leave it there. In talking to all the folks I did while I was back, certain things were said by A.ns like, “There are people in the church who bring bad attitudes and negativity with them, and they affect the whole church”, and also to the effect of, “Immature people are holding the rest of the church back”. I have a couple of unchurched friends in the community: they have shared about some interesting experiences with several A. members outside of the church context, and one word characterizes these interactions: rudeness. And Love is not rude. Of course, someone from A., upon hearing this, might say, “Maybe there are explanations, or extenuating circumstances.” Shouldn’t a pastor get that kind of benefit of the doubt? If any or all of these things are true, shouldn’t they be acknowledged and addressed? After all this, I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think A., as a group, isn’t as loving as it thinks it is. Of course, there are several exceptions—real, committed and spiritually mature believers in the church, but who is, or are, in the driver’s seat at present, demanding “something be done”?

I got the impression you both believe that my dad’s preaching is balanced, and that all the other issues are things people have simply tacked onto the list to make it longer. I believe that, and so do others I’ve spoken to. If it’s true that there’s something wrong with the way people hear God’s word, and if it’s true that the spiritually immature are holding the church back (and it’s biblical to say that some people are responsible for their immaturity—see Heb. 5:12-14), and if it’s true that people want “love” preached but don’t understand it or don’t live it, then maintaining the numbers, and giving folks what they want so they’ll stay, may just lead to stagnation. If people want the “abundant life”, but don’t want to hear the full counsel of the Word of God, can’t bring themselves to treat their pastor like a brother, and can’t abide teaching on the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts, what does “abundant life” mean to them? Is it worth challenging people to meet the pastor halfway? Is the church in the hands of the Lord, or in the hands of man? Indeed, if all these things are problems, ongoing problems which go unaddressed, why would God bless A. with growth, especially numerical growth?

I know this can sound preachy, or like overkill, or could be things you’ve thought about already, and I know what you two are dealing with in the council room and outside of it—a lot of pressure and some very strong personalities, among other things. But at bottom, the biggest issue in this situation can be summarized like this: my dad is being told to change because people don’t like being told they may need to change. He’s supposed to repent of calling people to repent (if you buy the narrative—he hasn’t been hammering repentance—we hear the r-word much more in my church here!). Even if repentance is present in the preaching, it’s as a call to take our spiritual growth seriously in response to Christ’s love, and a promise that the Holy Spirit helps us to do that. It’s exhortation and encouragement, but I think plenty of believers just don’t like being reminded that they haven’t “arrived”, or that even though God does love us no matter what, He requires something of us—our lives should reflect Christ. That attitude doesn’t keep a church healthy—if they won’t hear it from one preacher who preaches the “trustworthy word as taught”, they won’t hear it from the next, especially if the church building itself doesn’t have the protection of the Holy Spirit.

I’m sorry to add to your burden, but I really felt I had to send these latest thoughts to you. I welcome your feedback if you have time, and in the meantime I’m praying for A., and for you and the rest of the council. May the Lord lead you by His Spirit.

ekklescake

<—Exhibit M. Exhibit O.—>

Exhibit O. 2nd Letter to the CVs, 5 Nov. 2015.

[Return to Table of Contents.] [Exhibit P.—>]

‘If anyone says “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.’ –I Jn.4:20-1

Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

A.145….receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense…–Westminster Larger Catechism, emphasis mine; see full text of Q&A at Appendix iv.

It will be very easy for me to forever remember on which day my dad was handed the Article 17a. It was 5 November, Guy Fawkes’ day.

My husband remarked on how fitting it was that it happened on a day on which the quashing of a radical’s violent attempt at overthrowing lawful governance is commemorated. I knew it was coming, so did my dad—so did his other confidantes and encouragers. My heart was breaking, but I had time, so I wrote again to the CVs:

Dear 21 & 22,

I actually wrote much of the following late last week, having to get things down ‘on paper’, but given the events of the past five days, I’m glad I waited to send it. I guess the meeting tonight, Thursday the 5^th, is going to focus on the means by which my dad is going to be sacked. Nearly two months ago I made an appeal to you on my dad’s behalf, and was as professional as I was able to be, focusing, for the most part, on the content of my father’s preaching and countering the criticisms of it of which I’d been made aware. This is a much more personal appeal. This letter is very long, but I pray your patience, and ask that you give me some credit—research, collection of evidence, interaction with ideas and presentation of arguments is my bread and butter. Nothing I say is said without having been first considered, as should be obvious by the fact that I waited a week to send this, and have slept on it, prayed over it, and revised it. I also ask that you read it for what it actually says; I’ve read some reactions to things recently which I’ve neither said/written, nor even implied. Like I said, most of it I wrote last week, but hopefully it’s still relevant.

I have heard what took place on last Tuesday night, 27 October (from my dad’s perspective, of course). I was in prayer for him & that meeting for hours on Tuesday, taking a 3-hour coach to and from London, and phoning him around 6pm EDT to pray with him once I’d arrived back in my home village. I was anxious about all sorts of possible outcomes, reactions to his written response to the council’s list of ‘instructions’, anger from certain quarters, further accusations of wrong-doing, etc.

I was speechless when I checked my email Wednesday morning. Of all possible contingencies which I did my best to put in the Lord’s hands, the presence of the two of you was not among them! Apparently, it sounds like it was a surprise to most everyone in the room. Amazing. I thought my dad was supposed to be the one with the communication issues—and yet, the council, or individuals on it, keep dropping the ball on that count. Like I said, amazing.

Anyway. I did come ‘home’ to A. on the 7^th of October, for 9 days. Roughly $800 and 3.5k miles to try to help, and to get to the bottom of what’s going on. I guess that didn’t come up in the meeting last Tuesday. Got some hugs, some cold shoulders—one council member hugged me and insisted how much they all ‘love’ me. They ought then to stop throwing my dad under the bus. At any rate, I arranged 6 meetings with 8 different people, and heard some very interesting things—many of them contradictory. You’ll catch a glimpse of what some of those things are in the letter I’ve appended, which I sent to 12 and 11 on Monday the 26^th.

Here’s my bottom line—I’ve been told (though probably not as many times as my dad has) that ‘it isn’t just 13’. Before last Tuesday, I’d always assumed the ‘others’ were people in the congregation; come Tuesday, it’s apparently ‘the whole council’. Amazing—I have to keep using that word. It doesn’t fit with the conversation I had with two of the elders two weeks ago. At any rate, the assertion that ‘it’s not just 13’ is actually totally beside the point. Some people in the congregation who have been grousing have been known quantities for years—some of them described by others in A. as ‘negative’, ‘shallow’, ‘mean’, ‘proud’, ‘closed-minded’. I don’t know if those characterizations are true for some of them—never had more than two words with them, but that’s what others have said. But, yes, they were ‘up on the board’ as critics years ago, though what their beefs were was never quite clear to my dad, because despite assertions to the contrary, they never did meet with him to address their ‘issues’. If they had, believe me, I would have heard about it.

I was living in Illinois at the time the first non-event happened—the letter to 72 (that ‘story’ has been misrepresented and mischaracterized in the aftermath; rumors and the contagion of gossip-mongering spread easily in rural churches, I gather), and my dad calling on the council to step up and do something, which those three elders have, I believe, ever after resented. My dad was alone by then (my mom was gone), and I was his fairly safe confidant, since I was long-distance; I heard about things as they played out: the letter, the reactions to it from the various parties involved, by phone and email. There was no deliberate meeting of the minds at that time to discuss any problematic aspects of my dad’s preaching. People who believe such conversations took place either have faulty memories, or claim they had them and addressed the issues to my dad ‘years ago’ to bolster their case now.

So, anyway, that takes care of at least four of the families involved in all this. 13, and the ‘new’ people on the list of the ‘opposition’, is an entirely different can of worms. These are people who have been my dad’s friends and supporters since he first came to A., and the younger couples were part of the small group since at least 2011—I went to several of the meetings before I moved to the UK, and my husband and I went whenever we were visiting in the US. When that fizzled out, thereafter came the first signs of discontent from the people with whom our family has been close.

Admittedly, things started getting strange with 13 last autumn. I have the email conversations with my dad going back to that time (ever since the Ss made their first scene last summer, I’ve had a file going labeled ‘A. Saga’—little did I imagine that their little drama would morph into this farcical tragedy). 13 was repeating certain phrases to my dad when the two of them would talk (this is, again, going back to last autumn), but my dad at the time wasn’t sure what he was getting at. Apparently 13 now holds it against him that he didn’t ‘do’ whatever it was he was telling him, as well as that he didn’t ‘catch his drift’. 12 told me at my meeting with him & 11 on 13 Oct. that 13 thought he was ‘coaching’ my dad back in the winter and spring. Okay. 13 can read my dad’s emails for himself from back then—to use a British phrase, my dad ‘didn’t know what 13 was on about’. That aside, what would give 13 the qualifications and grounds to ‘coach’ my dad anyway? It’s not like he was a seasoned pastor, and I’m sorry, but someone who calls the apostle Paul a ‘sexist’ (that was from a conversation I had with 13) isn’t really qualified to give certain kinds of advice, at least, not in my book.

I’m suspicious, now, of course—I’ve heard it from the elders and from 13’s wife that he tells them my dad won’t talk to him. Sorry to be blunt, but that simply isn’t true. It’s a lie. I told the elders at the time, and I’m telling you, I have the written run-downs of several ‘episodes’ where my dad tried to talk to 13, to clarify things, get things out in the open—my dad has a pretty good memory, and both he and I write A LOT (as you can probably tell). For all intents and purposes, these events and their details are on the record. Let 13 read what my dad wrote and refute it point by point. My dad wanted these issues discussed—he wanted to know what 13 meant, and most importantly, he wanted to know what 13 wanted in all this, and why their friendship had broken down—this is the point; not that ‘it’s not just 13’—the point is, 13 was my dad’s friend, my dad was his—my dad rode in his campaign car in a parade while he was on chemo. 76, 88 & 89, 91, 72—they weren’t friends. They didn’t surprise or disappoint. My dad was cut off by 13 with no explanation, and made to feel like a nonentity—13 wields great power at the moment, because he can talk and talk and talk, throw out accusations against my dad which are just left to float out there, with no challenge to explain or prove anything by anybody, deal out blandishments and niceties to everyone else, get angry with my dad for asking for an explanation or even JUST TO BE HEARD, while making everyone else feel important by working overtime to highlight their significance, tell them they’re doing something, complimenting them on everything from their careers to their brains to their smiles to their ink pens, praising them for ‘stepping up’, making important contributions, so on and so on (by the way, my husband is absolutely the funniest mathematician EVER. I know, 13’s told me a million times). No one will take my side in seeing his behavior for what it is if he’s so skilled at making people feel good about themselves. I address that in the letter attached: namely, the way the church self-identifies, and how it was emphasized in 54’s report. They are perfect, just ask them. And boy, does 13 like to praise that church, beyond measure—isn’t there something in 1 Cor. 3 or 4 about that? They’re super-loving, accepting, smart and mature (that’s not what everyone in the congregation thinks, by the way, and I’m not talking about me or my sister). 13, in the meantime, is the one making end-runs around my dad, telling him what to do, where to go and when, stepping into the clerk’s position by making phone calls, meeting with people ‘in secret’ (like 54—was it appropriate for 13 to have him over to his house in all this?), as it were, and trying to hurry this process to—what end? He even made sure that his was the ‘team’ meeting with the three disgruntled ex-elders and 72 on the home visits. Was that to determine whether their complaints were valid and biblical, and to support the pastor as he swore to do when he was ordained as an elder? More on that below.

The other elders have told my dad and me that 13 wants my dad gone (I suppose this sentence has an expiry date, given the meeting tonight). And why? Is my dad ever going to get a straight answer from this former friend? The man who was so welcoming to my husband, the man and his wife who had us over on our honeymoon, who had our family over for something like 6 Thanksgivings in a row? 14 and 15 played piano and organ at my wedding, for heaven’s sake. I sent him a note to that effect, reminiscing about all these shared family memories, and asking how it could have all come to this. No reply, and so when he came to shake my hand while I was visiting A., I asked him if he’d received it—he was manifestly uncomfortable, hemming and hawing and something about being busy, and ‘there’s a lot more going on than just that’. I’m sure. Apparently he was trying to talk to me that Sunday evening, but I wasn’t really up for it. I emailed him two weeks ago, asking if we could correspond, even offering to call him from here in the UK. The eagerness to clear the air prompted an immediate reply. Not—I haven’t ‘heard a peep’.

There is something really wrong with people who can throw over friends without ever even talking about it, but with 13 especially that he can treat somebody (a pastor no less) like this. Perhaps I shouldn’t even get started on what’s happening to my sister—but what the heck; I’ve got nothing to lose. 13 can calculate a cutting remark (a corrective on some FB post), wait ‘til an opportune moment to throw it at her in front of the other elders on her doorstep, and then corner her on Sunday mornings and try to get her to shake his hand. SHE HAS ASPERGERS. What kind of insensitivity is that? I thought it was a power-play, that he could make her shake hands even though he knows she’s uncomfortable and that he’s hurt her; my dad gave him the benefit of the doubt, offering simple insensitivity as an explanation. But how about this? One night, in the council room, before my dad arrives, 13 can tell the council members that my dad was ‘lying’ about 14 and 15, and then when my dad comes in, fish around for some compliment, like, ‘My dad went to U of M. Thank you for wearing that hat!’ and shake his hand. Not five minutes between the statements! WTF. IT’S SICK! And that handshaking and ‘enthusiasm’ comes after that series of half-conversations where my dad attempts to iron things out, work things out, get some clarity, and he’s simply told, ‘I’m not going to discuss it.’ That’s what you might call controlling. That’s a way to keep power, because it’s a way to keep knowledge, a way to cut off exchange or short-circuit someone’s defense. I use that word again—amazing.

So. Communication. Openness. Compassion. Acceptance. Apparently with everyone except the pastor. He doesn’t get his day in court. He expresses concern about the overall spiritual health of the church, and it’s called a diatribe by the person who’s such ‘good listener’ and is ‘just trying to help’. Interesting that some people think he’s a good listener, while others in the same church say things like, ‘We know 13 likes to talk’ and ‘He doesn’t listen real well’. That’s a real difference of opinion. And of course there’s his reputation outside A.. Back in the day I refused to hear a word said against him, always assumed it was ne’er-do-wells on the wrong side of the law. Of course they wouldn’t have a good experience of him. Now… one young woman, not in any church, looks askance at him because of his, shall we say, apple-polishing? That wasn’t her term. Now, reputations can be ill-deserved. I ask—does my dad get the benefit of the doubt? Is anyone going to ensure he gets a chance to answer accusations leveled against him, and most disgusting, anonymously or through a conduit? It’s not biblical—even the world operates more justly. People in court are allowed to face their accuser, to help inform their defense (amazing, they even get a chance to defend themselves), and also to cross-examine. What has my dad got? 54 back in the day talked to the council about the importance of accepting one another, hearing one another out—my dad finally gets up the courage to speak his mind, and our hero calls it a ‘diatribe’. And… someone else in the room apparently wanted to know if ‘there had to be a discussion’ when my dad wanted to go through his response to the instructions. Thanks a lot, gang. And all the time people are crying out for ‘Christ’s compassion’ to be preached. I’m really feeling Christ’s righteous indignation at hypocrisy.

Then there’s the instructions themselves. I was in a pew the Sunday morning that the elders (all three, why?) came up and 11 read their announcement about what was going on (this sentence is also apparently out of date; I’m referring to the 11 October announcement). I was crying through most of it, but able to listen—there were so many passive voice verbs in that thing it was impossible to know who was doing what, except at the end, where the only clear thing was that some ‘suggestions’ had been given to the pastor—so, he’s supposed to fix it, or, he’s done something wrong? Impossible to tell! More than one person was left a bit, shall we say, confused? It was a gaffe and half—poorly executed, nothing explained, just a worrying ‘There’s issues!’ thrown out there, and then people can go home and speculate and wonder. As for the instructions, they were written up in the hour before they were read to my dad in a meeting a few weeks ago. I’m not inspired with confidence—even the ‘authors’ don’t know what half of them mean, I’ll wager. And who gets the delightful task of telling my sister to ‘step down’ or whatever? (This is also now out of date, since I guess tonight’s meeting will render her membership and involvement nil?) If anyone makes my dad do that, he has a spine of wet spaghetti. They’re demanding it, one of them should have to do it and explain why. I think it’s gutless—no one’s even asked what Jesus thinks about a council doing this heavy-handed thing to one of his handicapped children with no justification. What is this, sheep-beating on demand? You can tell I’m pretty disgusted. If my mother hadn’t fallen off the spiritual bandwagon, and were a part of A., she would not be standing for her kid being treated like this. My dad has to put up with it to some extent because, well, because he has to apparently put up with all these ungodly whims if he wants to keep his job. (Now also out of date!)

Jobs. What is an elder’s job? Don’t they have to take an oath or something? I’ve been told that 13 thinks he was doing his job and ‘helping’ by giving my dad the handwritten dogma back in July, pushing it into his hand and saying,’ Just read it, I don’t want to argue about it.’ Um…what gives him the authority to do that? I assume the ‘I don’t want to argue’ means—you should just do it. No matter whether there are grounds for what is said, or that it isn’t clear how the person is supposed to go about doing them. Has anyone put himself into the pastor’s shoes, for one moment, to consider what it would feel like to get something like that from a person you trust? Who’s apparently been acting as the HR department, and instead of sticking up for you, has been collecting complaints and loading them up into a cannon to fire at you? And then—the content—‘spend less time on the internet,’ for example. In the real world, i.e., business world, people would know that, as long as the person’s Christian blog-reading or sermon-streaming doesn’t affect the quality of his work, it’d be nobody else’s business. I’m asking you, as fellow pastors, what the *^&% was that about? And my dad was just supposed to ‘do it’, with no discussion? WHAT?!?! That is crazy. And come to find out, while I was doing my own visiting, 13 apparently thought my dad should have thanked him for that note—for having the courage to undermine him to his face, or something. WHAT COLOR IS THE SKY IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN? I thought it was blue, but I could be the deluded one.

After my meeting with 12 & 11, I was under the impression that they’re actually quite sympathetic to my dad, but are overwhelmed by the council experience and by the pressure to keep numbers—‘something has to be done’, regardless of whether they believe my dad has done anything wrong. (Something must have happened in the past few weeks!) And regardless of whether it’s true that his preaching is imbalanced or whether he’s actually controlling. Even if they disagree with the grumbling contingent, they feel they have to ‘do something’. For its own sake. And fast. Maybe it’s because if I put something in a paper that is hopelessly vague, or doesn’t make sense, I am very bluntly asked to explain and defend it, or else retract it. 12 & 11 asked me what I thought they should do, if they were able. All I could ask for was, ‘Slow this down. Hurrying, being in a rush is what leads to mistakes. It’s what gets people hurt.’ If people ‘just want to help’, I have to ask this: help with what? What if you really need an amputation, but the doctor, well-meaning as he is, just wants you to feel better NOW, and gives you some antiseptic cream and a Band-Aid? It’s a complete waste of time and resources to just ‘do something’ for the sake of looking like you’re doing something, and urgently, for the sake of looking like you care. Doing the right thing the right way takes time. Most importantly, it takes time to seek the Lord. In one of the Embers to Flames lectures on spiritual warfare, the speaker mentioned one of the signs that you might be dealing with demonic opposition: there’s insistence that a decision be made in a hurry. Why is A.’s council in such a hurry? And again, to do what? What is the matter? And what’s the cause?

I have another question—it was my first one when I read my dad’s email Wednesday morning. ‘Can they do that?’ Can a council ‘suspend’ a pastor outside of disciplinary action? What did he do, exactly? My husband pointed out that when such things happen, it’s because of some gross sin. Note what the ‘official’ reason was—there’s been a ‘relationship breakdown’. It’d be laughable if it weren’t really happening. It’s interesting that it took over an hour for them to come to that decision, by the way. I’m beginning to wonder if some people found their voices, and it took that long for them to be brow-beaten into submission, to agree to scapegoat my dad when they believe he doesn’t deserve it. AMAZING. Just like grace, except not.

My denominational membership papers are still at that church. I’ve been considering asking for them to be destroyed, as I’m a bit soured on the whole denomination. I know it’s not fair to think that way—I’ve been in some truly Spirit-filled, God-centred denominational churches—I’m just emoting. But what passes for Christianity in that area boggles the brain. I take what happened to LB as my first example, and people’s outspoken opposition to likely perfectly sound and relevant sermons on the dangers and ubiquity of sexual sin (at the late McB– and at L—). Gotta wonder—do people chafe at the mention of porn in sermons because it ‘just isn’t done’, or because there’s something they don’t want to let go of? One older woman, again not in church, in that area believes it was definitely the latter. It’s beautiful country, with, I’m sure, many sincere Christians who have and want a meaningful walk with the Lord. But there are also plenty of people who think they’re fine, and to whom the Word of God actually doesn’t mean much, and to whom the challenge to grow is perceived as a threat. And almost all people up there act like the Devil is dead.

That’s how what happened with the Ss can be so easily forgotten, and my dad’s convictions about the consequences of that episode dismissed as a diatribe and left in the council room when those men walk out that door and go home. But the change in the friends and supporters, especially the small group members, can be traced back to that time. Something shifted. Do people really want to know the truth? Do they really want an answer from God? Do they really care about doing what He wants them to, to get His blessing back? For many of them, no—they don’t want to have to face reality, which is that they’re not the kind of church they think they are. Their biggest fear is shutting like McB–, when it really should be whether they’re a zombie church. I know these people, have been befriended by them, I was in this church and love them—ditching my dad is not going to ensure their survival. Even if it did, just having the doors open and a quota does not a healthy church make. Just look at Joel Osteen’s church—numbers are no promise of whether the Gospel is preached and the Holy Spirit is present. A church that exists to feed people’s self-esteem and give them a go-pill for the rest of the week is not a church. What is the point of ruining a man’s life just to cater to people who think they’re smarter than God when it comes to the absolute basics of morality? Or believe the world’s tired, threadbare argument that the Bible has mistakes in it? Or who want an edited version of Jesus who will wink at sin? Or who excuse a man acting like a raging Rottweiler because he’s not attacking them at the moment and will get them what they want? I feel like I’m going crazy.

So, to go back to my very first point. No, it’s not just 13. But it is very much about him and his actions. As things have gotten this far, and can’t get much worse (I am not naïve on this), I’m compiling all my written correspondences and blogposts from the time of the 72 letter up ‘til now, and I’m going to put it all in a monster document. That way, anyone who doubts the way all of this has unfolded can simply read for him- or herself. It may have started out with good intentions, or whatever, but since before July, 13 has been working very hard to ‘set my dad straight’, ‘put him in his place’, and after that didn’t seem to be working, he’s now been working to get rid of him. Christian? Worthy of an elder? Consistent with the emphasis on ‘compassion’, which my dad supposedly doesn’t preach? And it hasn’t just been what’s happening face-to-face—encouraging this characterization of my dad as controlling is completely dishonest (actually, for my money, it’s the pot calling the kettle black—who’s been behind all this? And if people only knew over the years what my dad personally objected to or preferred, but kept his mouth shut and let things slide! It’s a total snowjob!). And it’s out-of-line for others in that council room to stand for it without allowing my dad to address it. It is WRONG. At least now that we’ve come to this point, we can cast off the platitudes and excuses about people needing more grace or compassion in sermons. For some, the whole time, it’s been about his unfluffy representation of God’s word as it is, and about not having to hear it anymore by getting rid of him. My dad hasn’t even been given a chance to respond to any of this (although he did get a few chapters into Philippians—odd how that isn’t even acknowledged; or is it proof he can and does want to interact with these things, and someone doesn’t want him to be able to prove it?) . We can all be frank now that people are acting like extortionists. Some of the council members themselves admit the complaints are groundless, but they HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, or else these people are going to leave. We’re ready to get rid of a perfectly good leg in order to keep leprous fingers.

You may have believed your role as church visitors was to ‘do nothing’ (that isn’t what the elders said in their announcement to the congregation on 11 October, by the way), just make sure they all talk (apparently that doesn’t include my dad? he’s not even allowed to speak for himself—something was said at that meeting by one of the visitors which he considers a breach of confidence). But you came to the council meeting at 13’s request—his was the initiative that brought you there. No one else was consulted or informed—you don’t find that strange? It was inappropriate for him to spring that on everybody, and I don’t think he even cared. What happens in that council room is his show—ask what happened when he actually had the wrong story on whether you two were coming to the other meeting (I forget the date—it was the day of a Classis meeting), or whether my dad was supposed to be there. He contradicted my dad, and used the most pretentious wording he could find to tell him to get lost—I know it in my mind and in my gut: he wanted to both boss him around and to humiliate him. And when he found out later my dad was right, was there any apology? Not on your life.

But as for last Tuesday, why did he want you there, and omit to prepare everyone else for your involvement? Frankly, it served his purposes for you to be there, and he chose to keep that close to the vest. I don’t know what other communication you’ve had with 13, but I urge you to take 100% of everything he’s ever ‘told’ you with a grain of salt. Again, like I said, it served 13’s purpose for you to be there that night—why do you think he wanted you there? I would strongly urge you to talk to the other elders about this business. (Guess it’s too late for that appeal—you already met Monday and yesterday). Beyond anything else, what happened last Tuesday was, overall, a joke and a charade. What difference did it make, giving the man three weeks to think about the ‘instructions’? Nobody gave a &%#* what he thought (even whether it was originally presented as a package!), what his concerns were. Why bother saying anything, opening things up for discussion, offering to talk? Nobody listens anyway. Well, maybe somebody did, but that person’s resolve did eventually break after an hour. The injustice of all this is staggering. No one can see that 13 (and yes, we know it’s not just 13) is running this circus? And all the details change when it suits him—it wasn’t originally presented as a whole, but that was 13’s thought, so naturally, when he goes person to person to get individual affirmation, who’s going to disagree, seeing what happens to my dad when he disagrees with 13? And so everything he says goes, even if it’s impossible to keep up with the lack of clarity or moving of the goalposts—it’s always what suits 13 at the time. And you’d better back him, or he’ll call you a name or get angry and accuse you of something that he’s pulled out of another galaxy, and you’ll be so blindsided that you can only sit there agape while everyone moves on to something else.

I’d really like my life back. A. and what some people in it have done to my dad (even the decisions of the council, of which my dad is a part, are now made with no regard to him at all, decisions which had been phrased as being the council’s and the pastor’s; things are done to him rather than with him), to his sense of security, to his sense of belonging, to his spiritual and physical health, has me climbing the walls. I know what goes on in his room in that lonely parsonage. And the people who insist they want to help, from several different quarters, simply don’t listen, aren’t open to questioning their biases and presuppositions, and are content to make him pay for other people’s spiritual shortcomings. And they’re content to throw my sister under the bus too.

This is page 7. The biblical number of completion. I will say just one more thing, and try not to make it snide. Have you ever heard of an Absalom spirit? A. is being had by one. This march to ‘do something’, without asking God what to do or especially why, can only play into Satan’s hands. He loves division, he loves accusing the brethren, he loves Christians falling into sin, he loves them idolizing ideas of themselves and putting worldly thinking before Scripture, and loves them talking amongst themselves and panicking, doing things in a rush to ‘save’ their churches, with no thought to pleasing God or seeking Him in prayer.

I am pleading with you to rethink your interpretation of this sad string of events. How can it be that in such a short time, after the visits and what came of them (who even knows whether those were the right questions to ask in the first place, but that’s a different story), when so few people at the time had anything remotely serious enough to merit this course of action, now it’s in the whole church’s best interests to, in just a number of weeks (who saw this coming in September? Not I!), to throw him out? How could it have come to this so quickly?

I waited 4 days, and after hearing nothing from them (not even acknowledgement of receipt!), I wrote to the CVs to see if they got this letter, and asked whether they would be willing to talk to me over the phone or Skype. 22 said that as a CV he was ‘not at liberty’ to discuss anything with me. 21 bought time by saying he would get back to me. We never did end up arranging a phone call, because I replied to 22’s email, which 22 then forwarded to 21, who wrote to me. See Exhibit S. for these exchanges, the only (indirect?) response(s) I got to the above letter–but not really, you see, because neither of them interacted with anything I said. So it could be that I was dreaming when I thought they had actually read it. At any rate, this wasn’t the only non-PT plea to the CVs to slow down and have a think about this, as 42 also wrote to them multiple times; its counterparts were also fruitless. I don’t feel I wasted my time, though, because the responses one gets to such communications shows what the correspondents are made of.

<—Exhibit N. Exhibit P.—>

Exhibit L. The Council Meeting, 27 Oct. 2015.

[Return to Table of Contents.] [Exhibit M.—>]

‘They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.’ –Jn. 16:2

Summary of and excerpts from email sent me by my dad the night of the council meeting, 27 October 2015, two days after Pastor Appreciation Sunday:

I arrived at the Council room a little before 7; much to my surprise, a
few minutes later, who should walk in but the …ChurchVisitors….

To say I was caught off guard would be an understatement! It was all I
could do to keep a straight face. I almost wanted to say, “What are you
doing here?” I told them that I wasn’t expecting them, and some of the
other council members seemed surprised. There were questions about
whether they were supposed to be there– was this a good night– is this
a regularly scheduled council meeting– should we come back– etc. Then
it came out that 13 and 21 had talked (I gather they talk a
lot) and that 13 knew or expected them to come because after all “this
is a continuation of what’s been going on and I think they should be here
so they know what’s going on” or something to that effect.

He did mumble an apology about the confusion and people not knowing that
the church visitors were going to be there. So then we had a vote and
almost everyone voted that the church visitors should stay. Although I
spoke up and said I didn’t know why they needed to be present! So there
was more awkward conversation, with 21 pointing out that they
weren’t there to tell us what to do or anything, that what happened was
up to the Council and pastor and that we would have to decide what we
were going to do, blah blah blah. So the decision was made to have them
stay, because, as 13 said, “There’s no point in having them go up and
down the road,” and besides, “we need to deal with this, we can’t keep
kicking the football down the road.” (And all this time, I thought it was
a can!)

13 made it a point to let everyone know that “the pastor and I don’t
talk. He doesn’t talk to me.” [author’s note: see Exhibit D on one particular
incident; prior to that, my dad had sent several emails and made several phone
calls in an attempt to talk over the issues; when a conversation did take place,
like in Exhibit D, nothing was actually discussed; 13 would just get angry. In
addition, I will further catalogue my own experience of trying to connect with
13 and being ignored.] And then he made a couple more comments
which I don’t recall. I really don’t mean to bore you with all the
details, but at several points, 13 was rude to me, misrepresented my
position, and lied about me. I guess that’s plain enough!

I spoke up in response to 13’s assertion that we don’t talk/ I don’t
talk to him. I simply had to point out that I PLEADED with 13 to talk
to me in early August, and he REFUSED to do so! Then he said, “We
disagree” followed by “I’m-not-going-to-argue-with-you-or-debate-with-
you,” the same phrase he used several times on August 2nd! This was said
in an angry, condescending tone, along with some other declarations of
what he wouldn’t do. I will also note that there were two or three other
instances when I questioned something or wanted clarification, and he
expressed something more than irritation, suggesting I was argumentative.

Well, let’s cut to the chase. After getting off to this auspicious (!!)
start, they needed to discuss how the meeting was going to go. I had
planned the agenda so we would do our routine stuff first, and then close
with a discussion about my response to their instructions.
That wouldn’t do since the Visitors were there, so we agreed to discuss
my decision right away. At this point, 21 weighed in and tried
to summarize where we all were and how these recommendations got written
up and that I was given three weeks to decide if I would agree to them.
He asked if he had a copy or if 13 had given him a copy or some suchthing.
He also pointed out to me that even though I think 13 is the one who
has issues with me, I need to know that “it’s not just 13, the whole
Council, (no doubt, every last one of them!) agrees with these
recommendations.” 21 looked at the group and asked, “Isn’t that
right?” Their heads bobbed up and down. You may wonder why 21 would
inform all who were present about my thoughts regarding who has issues
with me. I certainly did.

When I informed the group that I was prepared to discuss their
recommendations, 21 wanted to know if such a discussion was
necessary. It seems that he thought I was handed the list and that I was
to inform the Council “yes” or “no” on the whole package.
What followed was something on the order of a “straw poll.” This was
conducted on the spot by 13 to determine if, in fact, the intent of the
Council was to have me agree to all of their recommendations or not! This
was certainly 13’s understanding, by golly, and he said so! So
then, 13 went around the table and asked each Council member if that
was his intent! One by one, just like polling the jury, each member said,
“Yes.”

After he finished polling the Council, I said, “But that wasn’t my
understanding at all. No one specifically said that this was to be
handled as a package deal.” 13 then shot back, “Well, all six of us saw
it THIS way.” Or words to that effect. To which I replied, “Yes, you may
have all had that assumption, but that was not specifically stated.”
We finally agreed that since I had copies for everyone and had taken the
time to write a response I should go ahead and read it. I mean, “shoot,”
as they say. What the heck, and all that. It’s the least they could do,
right? …

So I read it, just about straight through. I made a couple comments here
and there, but not as many as I intended, because I could tell they
really didn’t want to be bothered with it. (They really didn’t give a
d*mn about it?) At one point, 13 and I got into one of those things he
really doesn’t like– a discussion– and after that went on for a few
minutes (13 managed to include some accusations that I was not allowed
to refute), 21 redirected me to my write up, which I finished.
Within mere moments, they (13? The Council?) made the decision to meet
without me to discuss my response. So I, along with the Church Visitors,
were shooed out of the room. I was to be secluded off stage in a sound
proof booth– sorry, that’s the Newlywed Game– rather, we were to be
“excused” for approximately 15 minutes. So, I went to my study and made a
phone call.

Then I waited. And waited. By 8:30, over half an hour had gone by. Soon
it was 8:45. Then 9:00. By this time, after much thinking, waiting, some
praying, and more thinking, I decided “I’m going to get my jacket and
ball cap with the Old English “D” and go home!” Or thoughts to that
effect. I figured to leave a note asking for the offering schedule and
including a quick “bye bye!” A few minutes later, 22 came toward
the hall and said, “There he is.” Finally, after an hour and ten minutes,
they were ready for me.

When I sat down, with my jacket on and my bag in hand, ready to leave, elder 12
said that they were going to finish the offering schedule
and adjourn the meeting. They, the Council, had decided, by a UNANIMOUS
VOTE — he was sure to point out that they had voted unanimously– that
because of “all the tension and conflict” that I was to be suspended from
the pulpit until November 15. There was some garbled stuff about “because
we’re divided” or some such run-on sentence, but I can’t remember. Deacon 16
closed in prayer, asking the Lord to help us love one another and averring that
sometimes life is hard and how we all look forward to the
time when we’re in heaven so we won’t have to go through these hard
times, etc.

When he finished his closing petition, 21 piped up. He seemed to
feel the need, as a representative of the Classis, don’t you know, to
tell me that I “might want to go to church somewhere else the next few
weeks”, because “relations are strained,” and “of course, I can’t tell
you where to go to church,” but we’ll want to make sure that we “conduct
ourselves in a godly way over the next few weeks as this goes forward.”
He also recommended (lots of recommendations in this room!) that both the
pastor and church act humbly at this time.

21 also made one more reference to the Classis, but it’s 1:30,
and I can’t remember what he said. I’m surprised I remembered this much.
Anyway, when he finished with his prophylactic warning, he paused and
looked at me, waiting for a response. I simply looked at him for a
moment, and didn’t say anything. Then I got up, picked up the coffee
decanter, and walked out the door with my bag in the other hand. I didn’t
say a word to anybody.

And that’s how it ended. For me, anyway. Now it appears that I’m
“suspended” from the pulpit for three weeks.

Some obvious questions: How will this be announced on Sunday? What are
people supposed to think– that I’m guilty of some crime or malfeasance?
What have I done to deserve suspension? Is there just cause for this? How
do I come back/conduct myself after this shabby treatment?
This is so UNDERMINING! I can’t help but think one of the driving factors
was to “show me” that the Council is in charge! (After expressing my
convictions that it’s inappropriate for the Council to “Lead” the
pastor!) And. What am I supposed to say? Will I ever, ever get my day in
court? Or get to face my accusers, or explain my point of view?

<—Exhibit K. Exhibit M.—>

Exhibit M. The Announcement to the Congregation, 1 Nov. 2015.

[Return to Table of Contents.] [Exhibit N.—>]

‘Be not a witness against your neighbor without cause, / and do not deceive with your lips.’ –Prov. 24:28

What would follow here is a transcript of the announcement of my dad’s suspension on Sunday 1 November during the morning service, but I find it too personally embarrassing to the council to include it, whole, in this forum. If you would like a copy of the complete transcript, please contact me via email or the comments. It is salient because it thoroughly misrepresents my father’s response to the List and his interaction with the council the Tuesday before. It is utterly dishonest. I include here two parishioners’ questions and the council’s replies:

…42: So the church visitors approved this then?

Someone from Council: Yes.

Elder 11: Yes. We met with them this past Tuesday. They approved this…

24: What’s the long term plan? Is it termination?

Elder 11: We…. Ahhhhh……mmm…. I don’t know if I can answer that right now, 24. We got… We have not figured out exactly what all is gonna happen yet.

24: Is, on his end, is there things he has to do to make you guys happy? What’s the– what’s going on in these three weeks that he’s supposed to do or to make it okay that he can come back? What’s the– what’s the plan?

11: We can’t say, 24…. We don’t….

24: So is it an open-end deal? I mean, there’s no, there’s no plan? You just told him to take three weeks off and we’ll see how we feel after that?

11: No! We told him to take three weeks off while we figure out what the next– what is gonna happen next…

12: (to 11, muffled) And seek the opinion of church visitors

13: Be patient and pray for the council and for the pastor. We ask your prayers and your patience.

11: As soon as we got more of a plan, 24, we’ll let you know. We’ll try to keep you guys as well as informed as we can. Like I said, we’re meeting with the Church Visitors tomorrow. And we will know better what– uhhhh– how we proceed after that.

[I refer the reader to Exhibit H. on 21’s claims about the CVs’ involvement.]

<—Exhibit L. Exhibit N.—>

Exhibit J. The Mighty List, 6 Oct. 2015.

[Return to Table of Contents.] [Exhibit K.—>]

‘So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogues with the Jews and devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there.’ –Acts 17:17

Just before I arrived home in the US, there was a council meeting, at which the List (capitalized because it has grown into something of a monster or mythical creature in my mind) was handed over to the pastor. In a previous meeting, the Church Visitors had suggested the council come up some requirements/suggestions/requests/recommendations (what they were called varied depending on whom you asked) for my dad to consider—I assume, though I can’t be sure, since it was so rare for anything to be clearly articulated by anybody involved, it was to let him know what people’s concerns were, how he could address ‘people’s pain’ and stop being the problem. Or something. As I said in the introduction, this was the ‘last straw’, this was what the council told parishioners after the fact why they had to sack my dad. This was also the ‘event’ that got the A-17 ball rolling in earnest. Oddly enough, it got him terminated before the council had even seen it–in the classis documentation written up by the CVs, PT’s firing was backdated to 25 October, the day before the meeting where this was shared. Clerical error? Deliberate misrepresentation of the timeline? Hrm.

Part a.

The ‘List’ of ‘Recommendations’ given to my dad by the Council, 6 October 2015 (preceded by abridged contextualizing comments, written by my dad, as they were offered to Classis in December 2015):

List of Instructions

On October 6, at 6:00pm, the Elders and Deacons met, without the pastor, to discuss a “list of instructions” that they were going to give him at the Council meeting the following hour. This meeting came one week after meeting with the Church Visitors..

The Church Visitors, who entered our picture on September 15 with declarations that they weren’t here to “do anything” or “tell us what to do,” rather, just “make sure both sides talk” recommended to the Council (on September 29) that after all the pastor has been through, he should go on a retreat for three weeks. They also recommended that the church have a “cooling off period” of one month, where the pastor would absent himself from the church for 30 days.

The Council presented the list to me at the October 6 Council meeting, and they were read to me by the Clerk of Council. The instructions had been cobbled together between 6 and 7 o’clock and consisted of two sheets of paper on which were longhand notes, written in pencil.

The “List of Instructions” follows:

{I have re-worded and clarified number one somewhat. Numbers 2 through 6 are written as I received them.}

1. Do a three week retreat at Alongside Ministry

Go on a four week Sabbatical; this ”separation” would serve as a “cooling off period.”

2. Build a sense of unity and communication with teachers, committee members, and church members

3. Visit shut-ins / Nursing Home 1 -2 times per month

4. Be available to counsel church members and make people welcome to come and share (time?) and give encouragement where needed.

5. Sermons be less about sin and guilt and more about Christ’s love and grace. Have more compassion / more encouragement.

6. Have [ekkles’ sister] step down from committees during my “trial period”

Part b.

My dad’s response to the ‘List’ (which in the intervening three weeks became, unbeknownst to him, a ‘package deal’; dear reader, you will have to ask the Council of 2015 what this means), given to the Council and read in meeting 27 October 2015. The response to the list was prefaced by some (re)orienting comments and reflections by the pastor, which I will not include here (some of them were references to many questionable remarks made by ‘elders’ in the church’s council room in the past, most of them questionable because they were unbiblical, some bordering on heretical). I may make them available on my personal blog, and then link to them. Alternatively, the Council should have a copy of this document, and be able to make it available to anyone in the church who asks for it.

Council Meeting October 27, 2015

….

Now, for the list of “instructions.”

At the October 6 Council meeting, I was given a list of “instructions” which were compiled prior to the scheduled Council meeting. I believe we’re familiar with the events which precipitated compiling the list, and I won’t review them here. I do feel compelled to point out that, as far as I know, the Council never took the time to pray together, reflect, and “define the problem” which is ostensibly addressed by the list of “instructions!”

Remember, what led to our meeting with 54 and N was the belief that we needed some direction because things weren’t going well. There was a sense in the fall of 2014 that something had changed, and this was expressed at the congregational meeting in November.

You may recall that what disturbed me was people thinking there was a problem, or detecting something was wrong, and talking about it to each other, trying to find solutions, whatever, but nobody came to me and asked me, “Pastor– what are you seeing? What are you sensing? Are you feeling like something’s wrong? What’s your take?”

Nobody asked me, which I thought was odd. After all, as the pastor, I’m charged with leading the church, spending time in God’s word, and seeking Him. It just seemed strange that no one would ask how I see things.

Then I informed you all that in seeking the Lord, I believe He showed me some things in the months of January through March. Does any of this ring the proverbial bell? Do you remember that I mentioned counseling with Spiritually gifted people outside our church who hear from God and received insight from Him about our church? Some of this happened in an office at #### K—- Avenue– the headquarters of the [denomination]!

I noted back in March, and I’ll reiterate: The Lord has shown about a half dozen people some things about our church and our community. Are you interested? That said, what follows is the list of instructions, including my response to them.

List of Instructions:

1. Do a three week retreat at Alongside Ministry

Go on a four week Sabbatical; this ”separation” would serve as a “cooling off period.”

I do not feel God’s leading in this matter. While spiritual retreats are great and have their place, that is not the need at this time. The need at this time is for the Council to encourage and support the pastor as they vowed to do when ordained/installed. This would include telling people who have complaints to talk to him, rather than gossiping behind his back. It would also include gently correcting those who have an improper understanding of the pastor’s role or don’t know what biblical preaching is.

With regard to the four week Sabbatical. I am not in favor of this either. I am especially opposed to characterizing it as a “cooling off” period. Who needs to “cool off?” Is somebody “hot?” Is there some animosity or heated conflict that I am unaware of? If so, what is the BIBLICAL way to handle this? When I read Galatians 6, Ephesians 4, Philippians 2, and Matthew 18, I don’t see anything about “cooling off periods.”

In my opinion, calling it a “cooling off period” suggests that I have been engaged in provocative or offensive behavior. I have not. Period. In fact, there are current members as well as past members of our Council who have firmly stated that I haven’t done anything wrong.

Finally, and I say this tongue in cheek, those who need to “cool off” are free to take a month away from me, if that will help. Seriously, what does it say about certain of our members who have allowed their level of offense to reach a point that they need a “cooling off period”?

And– has anyone thought about what [the pastor’s daughter, ekkles’ sister] would do during these three weeks?

2. Build a sense of unity and communication with teachers, committee members, and church members

I am all for communication. I’m not sure why or how this is perceived as a problem, since I try to be diligent to communicate what we’re doing as a church on a regular basis (special services, speakers, etc.). With regard to unity: Unity should start in the Council room, and we should lead by example. But this is a unity of the Spirit, which comes as we openly share and bear one another’s burdens. I informed all of you last March that I did NOT feel comfortable doing that in our Council room, and I also told you why. I cannot build a “sense of unity” with teachers, committee members, and church members. They will have to do that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit as they spend time together in authentic fellowship. [author’s note: I would refer the reader to the duties of elders and deacons in the church order; see excerpts thereof in Appendix ii., 25 March 2016]

3. Visit shut-ins / Nursing Home 1 -2 times per month

I agree with the recommendation to be regular in the visiting of shut-ins. It has been my goal in the past to visit shut-ins at least once per month. At times, I have done so successfully. With recent health issues, it has been hit-and-miss. The conflict and stress of the past 10 months has required a great deal of my time and energy to deal with.

This might be a good time to inform the readers that being mistreated as I have been has caused me considerable emotional pain and stress. At any rate, I remain committed to visiting shut-ins at least once per month.

4. Be available to counsel church members and make people welcome to come and share (time?) and give encouragement where needed.

This recommendation, like number 2, is unclear. It also raises questions. Who is in need of counsel? Are there people who don’t feel “welcome?” How widespread is this problem? Did you hear this concern from 2 people or 22? If there are members who are truly in need of counsel and feel unwelcome, shouldn’t I know who they are? (Yes, I should.)

One of the elders and I discussed the merits of having office hours for people to drop by. I am willing to create that space if it will foster a greater sense of availability.

5. Sermons be less about sin and guilt and more about Christ’s love and grace. Have more compassion / more encouragement. Don’t have the series go on so long.

As I stated in my report at the August Council meeting, I seek God diligently for both the subject AND the content of the messages. I will continue to do so.

6. Have [ekkles’ sister] step down from committees during your “trial period.”

I do not agree with this at all. Quite honestly, I am troubled that Council members would entertain such a proposal. I have served with [ekkles’ sister] on the committee in question for many months. The VAST majority of the time, she is quiet and generally offers input only when asked. To blackball her from committee involvement seems to me to be inconsistent with the “acceptance” and “love” our church professes to have, and which was such a point of emphasis in 54’s report. Finally, I must ask, how is it that the term “trial period” was introduced into this discussion?

Conclusion:

I want you to know, I have taken these suggestions seriously and sought God’s leading on them over the past three weeks. Even though I am in agreement with the intent and desired outcome of a few of them, the underlying problem(s) to which I have made reference earlier must be addressed if we are to have the Lord’s blessing and favor on our church.

Cordially,

Pastor S.T.

<—Exhibit I. Exhibit K.—>

A Christian Education: Exposing Injustice & Incompetence in the Church

Formerly veritas praebita: Truth on Display

Month: April 2016

Table of Contents.

(Condensed Table of Primary Documents below.*)

Updated Anonymity Statement & Definition of Terms.

Preacher’s Corner: Messages by ‘Simon Templar’.

EXHIBITS:

Prelude: Summer 2015.

Crisis: Autumn 2015.

Exhibit J. The Mighty List. 6 October 2015.

Travesty: November-December 2015.

Aftermath: 2016 Correspondence.

Aftermath: 2016 & 2017 Commentary on Classical Activity & Procedure; ‘Churchianity’ & Cultural Christianity.

Poetry & Short Stories.

2018:

VeraVox Series.

2018 Documentation:

2019:

*Condensed Table: Primary Documents.

Exhibit J. The Mighty List. 6 October 2015.

Exhibit S. Sparring with the CVs, Nov. 2015.

Exhibit Q. A Grad Student takes on the A-17.

Exhibit R. The Congregational Meeting, 10 Nov. 2015.

Exhibit P. The Article 17, 5 Nov. 2015.

Exhibit N. Further Proceedings & Email to 2 Council Members, 26 Oct. 2015.

Exhibit O. 2nd Letter to the CVs, 5 Nov. 2015.

Exhibit L. The Council Meeting, 27 Oct. 2015.

Exhibit M. The Announcement to the Congregation, 1 Nov. 2015.

Exhibit J. The Mighty List, 6 Oct. 2015.

Part a.

Part b.