Interview with ST, ep .1 (VeraVox 3)

The long-expected first instalment of the planned series of interviews is finally here! Simon discusses at length the early stages of the Aetna disaster, focusing on the destructive involvement of Church Coach 54, and the enthusiastic but ignorant, partisan, misguided, and paladinesque intervention of the Church Visitors, 21 & 22. Listeners are directed to the more relevant background documentation, especially Exhibit E., Exhibit L., and Exhibit J.

Alias Key: Stan Koster=54; Keith Mannes=21.

An Update–& Launching VeraVox!

It’s been over a year since I bade readers and fellow sojourners farewell from the battlefield in Fin. While I’ve been working on my dissertation, teaching Latin and having a baby, the plodding wheels of the NM Classical steamroller have continued to slowly, inefficiently crush everything in their way: Simon Templar, mostly.

I’ll outline briefly in bullet points what has happened in the past year, and then introduce you to veritaspraebita’s new feature, VeraVox. For those of you who are new here, before reading this outline, please check out the Introduction, and Table of Contents, along with the latter posts of 2017 to get yourself up to speed. I will include a few events from earlier in the ‘process’ for additional context:

–Early September, 2016: ST severs ties (‘fires’) initial Oversight Committee for numerous failings, including lack of transparency, obfuscation, overreach of mandate, and antagonistic conduct.

–Mid-Late September, 2016: representative of the OC delivers libellous report about ST to Classis; ST is forced out of the ‘Executive Session’ by an ad hoc voice vote (thus was not allowed to hear what was said about him; only learned the content when he solicited a copy of that report from the Clerk of Classis and received it some weeks later). ST’s character and integrity was also called into question publicly by the notorious Church Visitor 21 and a member of the OC. (See Open Letter to Classis, Oct. 2016.)

–December, 2016: the CIC recommends that Classis defrock ST (for failure to bow to the whims of the OC).

–December 2016 to January 2017: ST’s counsellor intervenes, persuades the CIC to allow Pastor-Church Resources personnel and himself to oversee ST, recommends continued counselling and a quarter of Clinical Pastoral Education at Pine Rest in Grand Rapids, MI.

–Summer, 2017: ST completes quarter of CPE.

–September, 2017: ST’s counsellor and supervisors at Pine Rest recommend ST be declared eligible for a call by Classis Northern Michigan. For reasons known only to themselves, the CIC rejects this recommendation, and, ah, ermmmm, wants him to stick around and…do some stuff. Like the ‘busy work’ you do when you have a substitute teacher in your algebra class.

–November, 2017: ST gets a list of recommendations which the CIC brainstormed at their meeting in October after the Classis meeting in September at which they and Classis rejected the recommendations of the professionals who had actually been working with ST over the preceding year (two of the CIC had not had any contact with him in that time, one of them had never even met him). They rejected the recommendation of the informed, qualified people without having a plan of their own. Or a justification for their decision. One of the tasks for ST in this list was to do a critical ’empathetic’ reading on Exhibit B., ignoring its truth value and its real significance in the unfolding of the original events at Aetna. (NB: Exhibit B. was discussed by ST and the CNM regional pastor in September; he was the one who trotted it out at the October CIC meeting.)

–January-August 2018: ST liaises with Pastor-Church Resources (who have declared their wariness to get involved; more on this in a later post) and Classis Zeeland for guidance and support in pursuing both progress (escape from Limbo) and some sort of resolution with members of CNM. The air needed to be cleared. especially after the debilitating and works-gumming circulation of and acting upon bad information. This culminated in a meeting between ST, the CIC of CNM, and two pastors of Classis Zeeland. I may get persmission to share ST’s complete Time Line of Events at a later date.

Result: the Classis Northern Michigan guys still don’t get it. And the regional pastor warned ST that, regarding his credentials and his desire to be declared eligible, ‘some’ in ‘Classis’ won’t go for it. On what basis, since this whole mess is now so old it’s got cobwebs on it and predates the tenure of many, and since the CIC itself is ignorant of even its own failings, much less what happened at Aetna, how can ‘Classis’ be in a position to declare or decide anything? But we are not surprised. This is where we stand now.

Note 1: Someone recently asked ST if Church Order was consulted/followed in Aetna council’s initial suspension of him in late October 2015. He wrote to the current Aetna council about a month ago to find out. For those of you who’ve ‘been around’ on this blog, you know what kind of rubbish reply he got–‘get lost’, in semi-professional lingo.

Note 2: I recorded this post two weeks ago, on the 18th of September. There are a few important bits of news that we will hopefully be able to discuss in the next post, which will cover Rules of Disclosure, and the Ethically-Challenged-Executive-Session Meme.

With that in mind, allow me, in this first episode of VeraVox, to offer a bit of commentary on these more recent developments, and issue an invitation to Classis Northern Michigan. Have a listen (it’s about 36 minutes), and please suggest songs for future bumper music in the comments! Thank you for your patience, one and all–maintaining baby, house and dissertation forces projects like this onto the back burner.

(Big, big thanks to the IT Schmo, who gave me a crash course on my amateur sound-editing software and prevented this from being aired on the All Humiliation Network!)

REVISION UPDATE (11 October 2018): in the best interests of a third party, I have removed segment 3, in which I discussed a recent event at one of the local farms and how it is symptomatic of the ‘toxic subculture’ of the area. I will cover this topic in a later instalment of VeraVox. I have also added our sign-off ‘call sign’: IUSQUE FASQUE.

Inhumanity, pt.3.

Inhumanity in the Church, pt. 3 of 3.

<–Inhumanity, pt. 2. Back to Table of Contents.–>

pt.3: Yawn.

In pt. 2, we looked at some of the issues which get folk anxious for ‘action’ in the CRC at large. It’s possible that some of these same issues might not raise the temperature at A., though I know of a few individuals who would readily approve of these churches’ notably PC demonstrations.

But typically, the general population at A. doesn’t get mad over things you might expect. Things I would consider absolutely unacceptable anywhere, but especially in church, people apparently don’t care about. These issues don’t get their Irish up at all. You have to commit a ‘real’ sin–well, probably they wouldn’t use the word sin–let’s just say you do something really bad, like offending people’s sensibilities or saying something is wrong which they think is unobjectionable, before they get up in arms.

You have an underdeveloped sense of morality.

Just like preaching Jesus doesn’t get many people at A. excited, seeing someone else getting mistreated, for example, doesn’t get those same people angry. Below, not listed in any particular order, are some of the sins and types of behaviour that have characterized several interactions at A. over the years, but are rather typical of events of 2015 and the 2016 aftermath. Keep in mind that these sorts of things are actually condemned as sinful in the Bible, or can be called sin and disciplined by the church based upon reasonable, responsible extrapolation from biblical teaching on similar topics. (Praising church-sanctioned ‘lament’ over Synod’s confessionally sound decision on gay marriage, in contrast, is not biblically justified–see Robert Gagnon’s book, and multiple programs and blogposts on Alpha & Omega ministries).

Bullying: see Exhibits B., D., J., L., and W.; basically everything connected with 13; perhaps there will someday be a file devoted to parishioner 72.
Lying: see Exx. E., H., I., M., P., R., T., U.
Slander: see Exx. B., I., L., M., P., T., W.
Rudeness: see Exx. B., C., I., L., S., V.
Gossip: see Exx. B., C., E., I., U., W.
Faction-building: see Exx. B., C., E., I., L.
Stonewalling: see Exx. S., T., V.; What would YOU do? pt.1.
Denying Justice to Fellow Believers: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com; esp. Exhibit T.; Appendix iv., v.
Misappropriation of Funds: see Exx. U.,V.
Cruelty: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com.
Blasphemy: see Exhibit R.
Cowardice: see Exx. I., O., T., V., Appendix v.
Dressing up the Carnal as Spiritual: see Exx. B., I., J., P., R.
Lack of Conviction: see 12.
Double Standards: see Exx. E., G., H., I., J., L., O., P., S., T., U., V., W.; Appendix ii., v.; What would YOU do? pt.1.
Hypocrisy: see Exx. P., R., S., U.
Wilful Disenfranchisement and Marginalization of Vulnerable Church Members: see Introduction & Exhibit J.
Rebellion: see 1., and Exhibit W.
Sexual Sin: see Exhibit W. (search for the word ‘skeletons’).
Apathy: see Exx. C., E., I. Also note that A. has recently had trouble recruiting members for their pastoral Search Committee.
Critical Spirit: see Exx. B., E., G., I., J., etc.
Arrogance: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com
Conspiracy: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com, esp. Exx. C., J., L., S., T., U.; What would YOU do? pt.1.
Corruption: see 23 and Appendix v; My Mistake.
Peddling of Heresy: for example, starting an under-the-radar small group—presumably in order to avoid oversight—in which people read books like The Shack.
Abuse of the Bible: De-, Re-, or Mis-contextualization and misreading of Scripture to support unbiblical positions. See Exhibit R.
Rewriting History: see Exx. I., L., M., R., U., W.
Spiritual Coldness: see Exx. B., E., F., I., L., R., V., W.
Readiness to Accuse (worth noting that Satan is the accuser of the brethren?): see Exx. B., E., I., J., P., T.; What would YOU do? pt.1.
Abhorrence of Sound Doctrine: see Exx. B., E., G., I., J., K., O., P., S.
Resentment of the Preaching of Repentance: see 30.
Refusal to worship God on His terms: see 30.
Jezebel-like Exercise and Love of Power Over Others: see Exx. B., D., F., J., L., P., R.; also note the following two events: the reclaiming of furniture which had been gifted years before to a family now without furnishings because of their eviction from their home by their church; and the unjustified withholding of a security deposit which would have meant much to the young person from whom it was withheld, and little to the person/people who didn’t return it to her.
Spiritual Abuse: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com; Appendix.
Treachery.

So, to sum up: if you’re afraid of making a certain brand of Christian ‘righteously’ indignant, don’t worry about causing offense by asking your parents to move your girlfriend into their basement; never fear getting caught lying about someone else or dragging his name through the mud; you needn’t watch yourself lest you pass on an unsubstantiated bit of gossip (at least 2 problems there!); and don’t hesitate to make a show of excluding someone you don’t like from church social functions (chances are that’s a popular thing to do, after all). No, those sorts of things are fine. Just don’t tell people they’re wrong, need to change, or that God has expectations, including that they use their brains when hearing His word, that they love all people like He commands them to, and that they are to apply biblical standards to EVERY aspect of life. That’s what will get you in trouble. For more on acceptable sins, see the book of a very similar title by Jerry Bridges.

[I will make one personal comment here–it’s one thing to lie, another to look the other way when someone else has lied… and then there’s being lied to. That really pisses me off. I wonder how many others feel the same when they learn they’ve been played for fools, or taken for a ride?]

We close this mini-series with a devotional drafted by 21. Reminder: 21 is also the author of Exx. H., P., parts of S., and U. How to reconcile the passage below with those, and with the ghastly ‘Overview’ document drafted by 21 for the Special Meeting of Classis in December 2016?

Devotion Entry for September 2016 by Rev. 21, entitled, ‘Sanctified–and Clueless’ (No, I’m not kidding):

“My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. — 1 Corinthians 4:4

Only now, over 20 years later, do I realize how clueless I was as a young pastor. I didn’t really know what I was doing with the little church we were starting. I had been to seminary, had read books, and had been to conferences. I also prayed my heart out and worked very hard. It all made so much sense at the time. Yet, looking back, I would do a lot of things differently today.

In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul is pointing, at least partly, to the mystery of not totally knowing what we are doing. I might know more now than I did, but today I will not get my life and faith 100 percent right. And if I live another ten years, I will look back to this time and realize how much I didn’t know, and I’ll probably wish I’d had deeper, stronger wisdom.

But God knows exactly what he is doing. He is weaving all of our “not knowing” together as our story, which is part of his story.

This calls for deep humility and total openness with God, from the heart. It calls for daily confession, repentance, and surrender—asking God for wisdom and direction.

Sanctification requires “a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17). That’s what I have strived for—to seek God and wrestle with God, all in a humble and honest way.

Are you doing that too?”

…

Now, think about it.

…

I’m practically LOLing, as the kids say. And of course it occurs to me once more that 21 really has adopted (or co-opted) quite PoMo, Emergent-y (is that even a thing anymore?) lingo. This ‘story’ stuff is really starting to get under my skin. Like the term ‘brokenness.’ I prefer CS Lewis on ‘story’; reading 21 in toto recalls rather Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. For CS Lewis, ‘Story’ is about getting at Truth, even if only at one aspect of it. For Postmoderns, ‘Story’ is about validating and legitimizing even competing and contradictory experiences which are then treated like and acted upon as Truth. *sigh*

Perhaps after we have completed part 2 of ‘What would YOU do?’, we will do a short exegesis of the devotional.

<–Return to Table of Contents.

Anonymity Update & Definitions of Terms.

[Return to Table of Contents.]

I had originally meant to protect the Christian denomination in which all this occurred by keeping it as well as all individual parties nameless. Since my disappointing (non)interactions (some of which are catalogued here, for example) with some of the higher-ups in the denominational leadership, I have decided that anonymity in this case will only reward the apathy, the deliberate attempts to excuse, deny or cover up the ‘crime,’ and the shocking disrespect shown me as a young Christian woman. At present, I plan to do my best to keep individuals and congregations anonymous.

The denomination in question is the CRCNA, the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Its churches range in size from very small to very large, vary in composition by ethnicity (more on that below) and age (though it seems that in many areas it is aging), and can be found in both rural areas and in large cities. My impression is that, economically speaking, the denomination has been predominantly upper middle class. Doctrinally it has much in common with presbyterianism, but has its roots in the continental rather than the insular (i.e. British) reformed tradition. It has historically enjoyed a reputation for theological conservatism and intellectual vigor, placing great emphasis on the importance of sending one’s kids to ‘Christian’ school (see the About page). Per the Better Together Project Report, some in the CRC believe the intellectual vigor, and indeed rigor, still characterizes the denomination: “[w]e’re very good at carefully building highly cohesive and articulate studies of issues” (5). Whether that is the case remains to be seen. Ethnically, it remains predominantly Dutch, but is growing more diverse and has a considerable Korean contingent. Its strongholds are in the American Midwest, especially Michigan, where the denominational headquarters are located, and in Eastern Canada.

Because I had been preserving the anonymity of the denomination, I did not think it necessary to explain in detail what these components are or how they relate to one another. Now that all know it is the CRC, it is worth briefly describing the different levels of leadership and how they work. More information can be found on the denomination’s website. Further background on this situation can be found at Exhibit A., and more definitions of denominational/situational particulars (e.g., ‘classical deputies’) are included where relevant throughout the blog. Because it is a good-sized group of churches and people, disclaimers about generalizations stated in the Introduction apply.

At the local church level, leadership is composed of the pastor(s) and a council, made up of elders and deacons, typically lay members. These elders and deacons are generally elected to office by their congregations, and hold office for two years. In my experience, some churches have office elections every year for half of the seats; there is thus some continuity year to year (e.g., a church has 3 elders and 3 deacons total; one year there will be elected 2 new elders and 1 new deacon, while the other positions are filled by those who were ‘new’ the year before; in the next cycle those 2 deacons and 1 elder will step down, and so on). The council is meant to be a representative leadership, ideally peopled by Christians qualified to lead according the standards set out in the pastoral epistles. They along with the pastor are responsible for leading the congregation and overseeing the church’s affairs, from spiritual to financial. Interested readers can check out the particulars in the church order. The denomination’s website offers this brief overview of church governance. In practice, I have learned that councils need their congregations’ approval before calling pastors to their churches; they do not need to even inform congregations of their intent to terminate pastors before they do it (see, for starters, Exhibits L, M, & R).

Loosely speaking, a group of local churches in a geographical area make up a classis. Classes are then grouped into regions. These regions vary in size, as seen in the classis page map. These classes meet regularly, with a minimal number of council members and pastors from every congregation in the classis required to attend. For more information on the classes and what they do, see the above-linked page. Classes are the bodies to which local churches and their councils are accountable. In an Article 17 case like that described in this blog, the termination of a pastor by his council must be presented to the pastor’s classis and ‘approved’ by it. Weirdly, the same classis is then responsible to aid the pastor in ‘getting back in the saddle.’

At the top is the denominational Synod, which meets every year (similar to the Presbyterians’ General Assemblies). For more information on Synod, see here. For our purposes, it suffices to say that issues—from theology to morality—discussed and ruled on by Synod are generally binding on all churches in the CRC. Synod is also the place to appeal decisions such as Classical approval of an Article 17. Classes are ostensibly ‘accountable’ to Synods.

Denominational publications include the CRC’s magazine, The Banner, mentioned in a few places in the blog. I am not interested here in discussing what has ‘gone on’ in The Banner over the past several years, but its features, columns, and expressed sympathies have not been without controversy. The CRC also puts out a daily devotional called Today, relevant in the upcoming post on inhumanity and hypocrisy.

12 July 2016.

<–Return to Table of Contents. Exhibit A.–>