Hope of becoming a lay pastor have been shattered
Posted Monday, October 31, 2005
As a lifelong Presbyterian (49 years old), I’ve recently felt called to become a lay pastor for a small town Presbyterian church but after reading this article my hopes have been shattered based upon some of my past experiences with presbytery and knowing how they react to these types of “callings.”
David Whitson
PUP member had no argument to refute local option charge
Posted Monday, October 31, 2005
I heartily concur with Peggy Heddon’s analysis of the PUP report. She is succinct and spot on in her assessment of how the report actually does not clarify as its authors purport but in fact obscures. I surmise we all would have much less to disagree on if they had omitted a single concept (and all its associate terms and phrases) – “essential.” The report, with its repeated uses of terms like essential doctrines, essential practices, essential standards, etc., unequivocally qualifies the entire discussion and conclusions. I used to be a bit confused at how the crux of ancient church controversies could sometimes be boiled down to a single phrase, concept, or even a single letter (e.g. homoousious vs. homoiousious; the i making a significant difference not only in the concepts they conveyed but in their ultimate acceptance or rejection). The inclusion of “essential” terminology is not merely a simple inclusion of a concept, but in fact a qualifier of paramount import. It qualifies not simply the entire report, but even perhaps might be said to have determined its outcome.
And this raises another element of Peggy Heddon’s keen analysis. She also refutes the report’s claim that it does not change the existing ordination standards. (My thought was that if in truth it does not change the existing standards nor change the existing AI there would be no need to add anything to it.) In a similar vein the report claims that it does not intend to change the Authoritative Interpretation of 1978, for in recommendation #5 (line 1308) it recommends to the 2006 GA “to remove no existing authoritative interpretations.” While it sounds good, the fact is the recommendation is that governing bodies, in the event of a departure of standard, be given the right to determine what constitutes an “essential” from one that is not. Since there is no such established determination, it seems nothing less than local option (which the report emphatically states it does not – line 1134).
At a recent seminar on the PUP report held at Westminster College in New Willmington, Pa., during the approximate half hour or more of question and answer time allotted I asked the question as to how the “essentials” qualification could or would not be interpretted as “local option,” especially since there are ever-growing instances in which churches are precisely moving to local option regardless of constitutionality and/or objections to, and legal actions against, such decisions and actions. The presenter, one of the task force’s members, didn’t have much of an answer, either succinct and straight forward, or long, tedious and obscure. He simply said that that is one of the questions or issues at hand. I thought to myself that if he had some sort of an answer that would have precluded local option as an exegetical conclusion he had surely missed an opportunity to lay it out and convince us. In short, he had no explanation or argument to refute what some of us see as the only proper exegetical conclusion of the report – local option because of a qualifying concept.
There are other word games that seem to have been played. The report adamantly states that “The task force was not asked to resolve all the controversial issues in the church or to relieve the church of all conflict. Rather, the task force was asked to help the church deal with current and future conflicts more faithfully.” (lines 416-419) Again, “The task force was not asked to take a position on human sexuality or ordination and we have not attempted to do so.” (lines 573-574) And again, “The task force was not asked to adjudicate the issues named in its mandate …” (lines1213-1214) While all those statements are perhaps in one sense true, there are other factors that make them less so. I fail to believe that most Presbyterians thought the task force would fully resolve any one issue, especially the sexuality one. Nor did most of us figure the task force was charged with, let alone be capable of, resolving “all” the church’s issues. Again, perhaps they were not asked to take a specific position on sexuality or ordination issues. But the fuller truth is many of us hoped they would at the least have pointed us in a given direction on the issue(s), not simply a recommendation to continue the conversation and struggle – that’s what we already have. And again, similarly, adjutication may not have been the issue, but guidance in a given direction was the hope of a great many of us and would have been helpful to many of us. In the end, we have a report that basically calls us to remain united (in and of itself a laudible theme, but in the end perhaps disastrous – time will tell) and continue the study and conversation. That’s all we’ve had for several decades and we are urged to continue.
Word Games? Precisely so. Kudos to Peggy Heddon for a succinct and helpful article.
Oh, yes. We all should commend Parker Williamson for not only his column on the same subject but also for his gracious acknowledgement of the task force. “Throughout its report, PUP refers to its joyful discovery that individuals from radically disparate perspectives could love and honor one another. That’s a claim that we neither question nor disdain. We are happy for them that they had such an experience of personal friendship and togetherness.” Indeed so. In one sense we also ought to commend the task force for their hard work and commitment. They all are well-intentioned, committed and intelligent individuals. While we may reject exegetical methods, presuppositions and even their conclusions, we must love and respect them. It has been suggested that their work will be accepted by some for a time, but in the longer historical context the report will be set aside. In this context and if it turns out to be true, it seems to me that the task force was given a task it could not fulfill – helping the church come to at least some sort of resolution or head us off in a given direction. At present we cannot know, but perhaps it was doomed to failure before its first meeting. My heart has ached repeatedly over this possibility. But the assessment is yet to be completed. It is in this sense of incertitude that we head to GA 2006. Let us all be loving and kind, but clinging to the truth.
Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church , Wellsburg, W.Va.
Why do PCUSA moderators bring the property fight into the sanctuary?
Posted Monday, October 31, 2005
They did it again! Despite the court order not to disturb our installation service on Oct. 2, or any of our four regular worship services at First Presbyterian Church in Torrance, Calif., on Sunday, the dissenting minority, this time led by none other than the former moderator of PCUSA, Rev. Syngman Rhee, marched in on our 8 am worship service and forced us to start 20 minutes late. We have a video clip to prove that. I was leading that worship and I had to implore with them to refrain from disrupting the service. Yet they all came in with their own sound equipment and choir members and began setting things up while the worship was going on. I just can’t believe a man of his stature would stoop so low. And Mr. Ufford-Chase’s incident is still fresh on most of our minds, too! I wonder which other former moderator is lined up to come in and meddle in individual church’s internal affairs? Why can’t they understand that TFPC is no longer a member of PC USA? Why can’t they let us be until the property matter is settled in the court of law? Why do they bring the fight into the holy sanctuary of worship?
I am beginning to get more and more upset and disappointed at the conduct of the PCUSA officials. A week before our church officially joined KPCA on Sept. 8, Rev. Robina Marie Winbush, associate stated clerk and director of the dept. of ecumenical and agency relations, sent a letter to KPCA, suggesting them not to receive our church as a member, accusing our senior pastor of unproven charges and offering to provide all the detailed information. Isn’t that illegal? Doesn’t our land have something called privacy act that protects personal information? Then, a week before the installation service of our senior pastor on Oct. 2, the legal counsel of PCUSA sent a letter to KPCA Western Presbytery, threatening the KPCA of possible lawsuit if it doesn’t stop the installation service, fearing that KPCA will take interest in our property. He also submitted an ex parte to the court on Sept. 30 to stop our existing 8 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. worship services on the same day so Rhee can come in with the dissenting minority and take possession of the sanctuary. It was denied, of course. I think there’s something seriously wrong with PCUSA, the denomination I still hold so dearly in my heart.
When Rhee and the dissenters realized that they had to abide by the ruling (this time, they knew better not to rush the pulpit), they spilled over to the adjacent fellowship hall and began their own worship service with the portable PA system they brought, disturbing our regular worship services which are conducted only 15 feet away. They stayed through our third worship service, making noise and ruckus in the fellowship hall and preventing our people from accessing the hall. The only reason for them to stay that long when their worship was long over was to wreak havoc. Rhee did try to call them out at around 11 a.m., but some of them refused and altercation ensued among themselves. Rhee even threatened to abandon them if they didn’t listen to him.
To claim that they had 400 and 600 at two separate worship services is a blatant lie or somebody told Rhee a fairy tale. We counted them. Besides, our fellowship hall cannot accommodate more than 300 at a time. They might’ve held two services (breaking the fire code, of course) but it was the same 200-250 people who stayed for both services. They were sometimes mixed with our people wanting refreshments between services. Some of us also went to their worship location previously and counted no more than 300, total. So where does he come up with 400 for first service and 600 for the second?
Last night (Oct. 5 Wed.), Rhee marched in to conduct his own worship service, again, at 7:00 p.m. in the main sanctuary with 40 of their members. They know we have our regular worship service at 7:20 pm every Wednesday where about 300 of us come together to worship. When they realized we already started our worship, they called the fire department, for the third time, making false report that someone is locked up in the adjacent small chapel, so they can force their way into it. Is Rhee totally oblivious of these things? Give me a break!
Of course, Rhee, being the self-appointed peacemaker he is, called our pastor to set up a negotiation meeting for Oct. 6 for the joint usage agreement, which, the legal counsel for PCUSA, incidentally rejected twice already. If Rhee is serious about negotiation, why does he keep raiding our church with his people, disturbing our existing worship services? He led his group to our church again this morning at 5:30 a.m. and gained access through the emergency door, whose latch they unscrewed last night while they were here. That’s illegal entry! They are threatening to come in every morning at 5:30 a.m., just thirty minutes before our regular 6 a.m. daily morning services, and prior to just about every scheduled worship service we have so they can lead our services or have theirs at the expense of ours. We made it clear to them we want peaceful worship services with our pastor; why do they keep insisting that they have to lead our worship services or interrupt?
Every time they come in they break doors, take out bolts, unscrew latches on emergency exits, put super glue in our keyholes to prevent us from securing the doors, disable pulpit cameras and make false reports to the police and fire department, tying up the valuable resources reserved for the city. I question why Rhee would condone such an un-Christian and uncivil behavior. PCUSA always championed peace and reconciliation, but all this is so contrary to what we all believe in. This all breaks my heart.
Rev. Rhee, what purpose does it serve to continue attacking our worship services? We offered you and the dissenting minority group rent money for your present worship location so we can be separated and avoid any possible conflict or undue stress such as what we are experiencing now. If that place is not suitable, we’ll help you find another. We also offered to share with you for free our second largest sanctuary we have on the other side of the campus, which can accommodate 420 people with its own fellowship hall and classrooms. You rejected all these offers and insisted having our main sanctuary that seats 1,000. We have 3,000 adults and are in need of the main sanctuary until after 3 p.m. Every week we have newcomers registering for membership. As a matter of fact, we’ve had 57 families joining our church last month alone. Why do you want to disrupt the trend and take away the space we so desperately need to carry on the work of Jesus our Lord? By breaking into our small chapel next to our main sanctuary, you have intimidated our kids so much that now they don’t want to use that space anymore. What did you accomplish by forcing your way in to our worship chapel?
You have 300 adults maximum, first and second worship combined. We counted and you know it. Taking over the main sanctuary does not make you 1,000. I implore you to please hear the 3,500+ voices of the TFPC, including the kids, and make sound judgment if you have come here to mediate between the dissenting minority and TFPC. You know they have left our church only because they didn’t like Rev. Pak’s evangelical style of ministry. That doesn’t give them or you the right to march right back in here and demand to lead all our worship services and take possession of the church property. The majority had spoken; the minority should’ve submitted to the will of the majority. Isn’t that what happens in a democratic society? Your actions remind me of how a handful of resourceful and unrelenting communists almost took over the entire Korean Peninsula following the Japanese rule. Let’s learn from our history. Please listen and listen very carefully to all the voices and not just to your own or the discontent few.
Rev. Peter B Min, associate pastor Torrance First Presbyterian Church
All presbytery COM’s should read analysis
Posted Monday, October 31, 2005
Ritchie Jones’ descriptive analysis [letter to the editor, posted October 25, 2005] of the yearning for relationship within congregations, and the violence often done to relationships by clumsy presbytery involvement is absolutely brilliant and God-breathed. The letter ought to be read, with humility, by every COM in the denomination.
Rev. Matthew L. Richardson Chambersburg, Pa.
TAMFS not interested in pastor’s rebuttal
Posted Friday, October 28, 2005
Thank you very much for running my response to Rev Rigby’s article on your website. I thought you might find it interesting that I also sent it to the website of That All May Freely Serve, but they have failed to post it. I guess the proof of Scripture is not something that TAMFS is interested in – only their agenda.
Robert Brown Nor Kirk Presbyterian , Carrollton, Texas
While divesting in Israel, PCUSA is investing in other denominations
Posted Friday, October 28, 2005
The Presbyterian Church (USA) is promoting divestment in Israel and other American corporations that are doing business with Israel. At the same time The Presbyterian Church (USA) is investing in the Baptist, Methodist and other religious organizations. Good Christians are leaving the Presbyterian Church, joining other religious organizations and taking their pocket books with them.
This Presbyterian policy is called “Trickle Down Stupidity” and it starts at the top.
William M. Reeves Birmingham, Ala.
PCUSA was severely criticized for not giving Israel fair and equitable treatment
Posted Friday, October 28, 2005
Recently on Fox News there was a segment called, “Invest or Divest in Israel.” Again, the PCUSA was severely criticized for being on the divestment side and not giving Israel fair and equitable treatment. Ariel Sharon has been very accommodating in striving for peace with the Palestinians by giving land back. The “peaceniks” in Louisville who demonstrate anti-Semitism don’t realize that Arab Muslim states attacked Israel in 1967 for the purpose of destroying it. Had it not been for military support by the United States, Israel would have become another holocaust. They attacked Israel again in 1973 with the same result. In order to secure their borders and keep Palestinians from firing short range artillery in to Israeli cities, some Palestinian land had to be occupied.
While still on Army active duty, I visited the Israeli Army in 1976 to discuss counter terrorism.
Several officers were asked, “Will there ever be peace.” The answer. “There will never be peace because the Palestinians do not recognize the existence of Israel, so how can you be accused of killing something that doesn’t exist?”
It is instructive to note that when I entered the Israeli Military Headquarters, there were three huge murals in the lobby. The mural on the left showed swords being used as weapons of war. The center mural showed swords being melted down in a furnace. The mural on the right showed that the swords had been turned into plowshares. Is this message from Scripture or what?
Jack Vanderbleek, elder Northeast Presbyterian , St. Petersburg, Fla.
NCC is secularizing itself to advance a secular agenda to the ends of the earth
Posted Friday, October 28, 2005
Now that the not-so-well kept secret that the NCC derives more financial support from secular interests than religious institutions has been disclosed, it should serve notice once again of the inability of Clifton Kirkpatrick and the Louisville brain-trust to put 2 and 2 together.
Each year, the PCUSA rank and file are informed that its denomination is slowly dying on the vine with accelerating membership declines. Each year, Kirkpatrick insists that the cause of the decline is the result of people leaving the PCUSA for a secular lifestyle. And each year, Kirkpatrick utters this claim with a seeming sense of astonishment and perplexity, and of course, no serious answers to reverse the trend. Aside from the fact that the PCUSA leadership hasn’t done its homework well enough to be able to make this claim with any kind of statistical or anecdotal confidence, the fact remains that this rather simplistic explanation has some plausibility. Why? Just look at the NCC. Whatever line may have existed in the NCC to distinguish the religious interests from the secular interests is now completely gone.
As Reformed folks, we can and should reject the Platonic dichotomy of the sacred and the secular, since kingdom eschatology involves comprehensive global transformation. But the NCC’s version of this is increasingly non-Christian. The secular interests that are propping up the NCC are not doing so to advance a distinctively Christian kingdom to the ends of the earth. Rather, the NCC and its remaining religious contributors are secularizing themselves to advance a decidedly secular agenda to the ends of the earth.
How is this relevant to the mainline’s slow death? The mainline leadership is choosing to embrace secular values and causes, not to reshape them within a Biblical framework, but to reshape Christianity into a secular framework. Increasingly, there is little that the mainline is offering the world that is distinctively Christian. That means it’s a very small step for PCUSA folks to leave the denomination and embrace secularism with no strings attached. Increasingly, people can take this step without getting their feet wet, because there’s so little difference between them. Don’t believe me? The NCC is Exhibit A, and Kirkpatrick, of all people, should be able to put 2 and 2 together here given his rabid affection for the NCC. The fact that he can’t, or won’t, is emblematic of his inability to lead in a spiritually or intellectually responsible manner.
Jason Foster Orlando, Fla.
PCUSA’s support of leftist shell organization will continue to the bitter end
Posted Friday, October 28, 2005
Lessons in leadership from the NCC: Want to stay afloat and keep people on the payroll? Just sell your soul to the highest bidder! I know that this sell-out approach is not news to Bible readers (remember what methods for “success” Satan offered Jesus in the wilderness?), but to the church supporters of the now all-but-dead church reunion movement embodied by the NCC, this may be the needed wake-up call. But alas for us Presbyterians, there is little doubt that our gravy-train funding of this corrupt leftist shell organization will continue to the bitter end. Cliff Kirkpatrick and Co. will write the checks until there is no money in the bank … which if present trends hold up, will be soon.
So, Bible-trusting Presbyterians take heart! Here are two things we can do right now: Stop buying the NRSV – the profits go back the NCC. And begin building relations with your evangelical brethren as we await the demise of our present denominational structures. Fortunately for the elect (in every nation, race and clan), God will preserve his church, not the NCC!
Toby Brown, pastor First Presbyterian Church, Cuero, Texas
PCUSA’s problems will only become worse if it doesn’t repent
Posted Friday, October 28, 2005
It should be no surprise that membership is declining and, more importantly, the money is declining. No money, no mission and the PCUSA will disappear without any notice. The PCUSA, by the way, has lost its mission.
The example Mid-Kentucky Presbytery is in sad financial shape and why? The answer is simple, the poison of satanic liberalism destroying the PCUSA, a covert plan of Satan seeking to be the most high, Isaiah 14:28, and the top leadership has bought the lie as did Eve, Gen. 3, being told she will be like God. We know the truth of the lie.
This will only get worse if the PCUSA does not turn from its wicked ways, repent and become Biblical. Otherwise with the mighty falling, the death of the PCUSA will not be noticed by anyone within 100 years.
Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del.
Rigby has a ‘perverse interpretation of what it means to be Reformed’
Posted Friday, October 28, 2005
Mr. Rigby, I tried to correspond with you directly but the address you provided was a blind – certainly so that people like I cannot answer you directly. At any rate, below are the thoughts I wanted to share with you after carefully reading your facile and convoluted rationalization of the defiant behavior.
- Rev. Rigby:
- I have carefully read your lengthy and comprehensive rationalization of your defiance of the constitution of our church. I am amazed that you are so facile in your manipulation of Scripture and distortion of our confessional standards. Where did you get your perverse interpretation of what it means to be Reformed? I note that you rely on the fatally flawed C67 and ignore the core Westminster Standards. Sir, you and the tyrannical minority you represent are trying to force apostasy down the throats of the great majority of faithful Presbyterians in the congregations. Have you no shame? Have you no humility? How can you misinterpret such clear teachings as 1 Cor. 5 and 6?
- I will not attempt to reiterate the brilliant rebuttal offered by Mr. Brown. I will however completely agree with his position. I believe you expose yourself and your lack of understanding of our theology, doctrine and practice in your own final statement, copied below:
- “From our forebears we gratefully receive the principles of the Reformation, but we cannot, and should not, force their answers upon a different time. We must think with today’s science and act upon today’s necessity. To be worthy of the Reformation we must struggle against all human systems that enslave the mind and spirit. To be worthy of the Reformation we must know that God does not live in some musty past but calls to us from the future. To be worthy of the Reformation we must know that God’s greatest word is yet unsaid.”
- Nonsense! Clearly sir, you are committed to an ideology of accommodation to culture and to personal desires over faithfulness to God’s Word. I implore you to prayerfully consider what progressive church or organization would be better suited to your ideology and to consider moving your service to that place.
Rev. James C. Yearsley Pittsburgh, Pa.
We must take our stand for Lord’
Posted Tuesday, October 25, 2005
I carefully read Robert Brown’s article which was posted in the Layman Online today. Regarding it, I can only say – “Right on, my brother in Christ!” We Christians need to hear more of this inspirational word of the Holy Spirit, for we are in a war with Satan and the forces of evil. In my church, I am quite aware of the ramifications of this war. We must take our stand for Lord!
May the Lord God Almighty bless and keep you always in the palm of his hand!
Larry Paxton, elder Member, First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood
Christians must surround minister with ‘honest-to-goodness prayer’
Posted Tuesday, October 25, 2005
I have been a member of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church for over 10 years, having served as an officer for three years. Certainly, while this is a difficult time for all parties involved, we cannot lose sight of what is at the heart of our Christianity: Forgiveness, forgiveness, forgiveness. Certainly, this does not mean we must (or ought to) condone this behavior of such a high-profile minister as Dr. Tewell, but it does mean we must realize we are all human beings, and we do make mistakes.
Sometimes our emotions clog clear thinking, sometimes our decisions are not well-thought-out and sometimes our actions cause an enormous rip-tide effect on a wide arena of people and institutions. Realizing these issues, we must surround Dr. Tewell and his family – and FAPC – with real, heart-wrenching, honest-to-goodness prayer. We must not make our own, most likely, erroneous findings and judgments on this situation. The matter is in the hands of the NYC Presbytery, as mandated by the Presbyterian Church (USA) Book of Order, for their investigation and ultimate decision. Our prayer needs to be that God’s will be made known in this decision.
Dr. Tewell is a magnificent preacher, a brilliant Scripture scholar, and a truly genuine human being. I respect and admire him to the highest degree. Yes, he made a mistake, albeit, a big mistake. I go back to my opening statement: The three F’s – forgive, forgive, forgive – the very crux of Christianity.
David L Carpenter
As with a heart transplant, removing a pastor is a painful, risky operation
Posted Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Rick Penner’s analysis [letter to the editor, posted October 18, 2005] of First Presbyterian Church Hollywood is brilliant and spot on. He clearly illustrates how we are all looking in the wrong place to explain what is happening in our churches. What happened at Hollywood is not a fluke. There but by the grace of God go all of us.
I’d like to underscore the relational aspect of his analysis and emphasize its importance.
It may or may not be a “revolution” but more and more I see that what people are looking for in church is, first and foremost, “relationship.” If they can’t find it there, they leave. I think what is driving this search is the fact that “relationship” in our culture has been devastated by loss and brokenness. Our families and our jobs are not secure. Our communities can form and disappear almost overnight. The divorce rate in the evangelical churches is no lower than the greater population, and it’s huge. In the ’50s divorce was a scandal. Today people talk about starter marriages like they talk about starter homes. Corporate America treats its people like second-hand furniture. As a consequence, we routinely experience the loss of jobs, livelihoods, friends, spouses, children, parents, all those relationships that give meaning to our lives. As a culture, we are suffering from a perpetual state of chronic pain from all this loss, to the point where narcissism is becoming a necessary and even admirable survival trait.
Our hunger is for trusting relationships that will last through thick and thin. We want human interdependence based on love and forgiveness, not retribution, retaliation and office politics. Many of us come to church hoping against hope that in the community of faith we might find a place where human relationships can flourish. We want a place where it is safe to forgive and start over, to be vulnerable and loving, where it is safe to overlook each other’s faults, and where our own faults will be second to our being, rather than the inescapable definition of who we are.
This, I believe, is the rock bottom hope and expectation the middle age and younger church member has when he or she first walks through a church’s doors: an institution whose first priority is to promote the relationships we need to stay alive, or at least not be hostile to them. It is natural that this is different from the more traditional approaches to church, because it is precisely our culture’s abandonment of traditions that has lead to this sense of alienation and hunger for more stable connections. It might even correlate with becoming an adult after the sixties.
The relationship between a pastor and his or her congregation is, in essence, the sum of all the individual relationships between the pastor and each member of the congregation. These relationships are forged in the peaks of spiritual highs and in the lows of major life crisis and suffering, cemented in prayer, and carry on their shoulders the burden of holding fast when all other relationships fail. In this context, the relationships between pastors and their congregations can become cornerstones in the fabric of people’s lives. They are fiercely and jealously guarded.
Enter the church incorporated. The failure of church leaders and the institutions they serve is the failure to fully grasp this dynamic. Every time a relationship between a pastor and his or her congregation is forcefully cut off, it means breaking up each one of these deeply personal individual relationships. It invokes full-blown fight or flight syndrome. When church leaders act behind faceless bureaucracies to inform even a single grown adult that one of the most meaningful relationships they have in life must be coldly severed for reasons they could care less about, they are seen as pure evil. By most definitions they really are, in that moment, pure evil. The role they assume has no other analog in human experience, and they would be safer standing between a bear and her cub. In today’s environment it is sheer madness.
These broken relationships and the methods behind them are killing our churches. How could they not? Why anybody would ever step into a church again after suffering such a loss is a testament only to the real power of the Holy Spirit whose chief role continues to be to comfort his people when all hope is lost. So, sometimes, we try again.
The interesting thing is that when you ask someone who left why they left, they often give different reasons, at least at first. I think it’s a measure of how much the real cause really hurts. Ask someone who stays why they stay, however, and more often than not they say something like “my friends and loved ones are here – I won’t leave them.” Finances, doctrines and theologies do not hold a candle to “relationship.” Not today.
Another point that needs to be made is that it is inappropriate to judge pastors according to the rules of sports or corporate America. Churches are not football teams or religious versions of Microsoft. They are living organisms. Their pastors are not their coaches nor their CEOs. They are more like essential life-giving internal organs that pump oxygen and nutrients throughout a body, and whose own lives are symbiotic with the life of the congregations they serve. The corporate and sports team models do not lend themselves to this kind of talk, but the organic one does, which is why the Apostle Paul used it. Ironically, the Book of Order (however defenseless it is against cynical manipulation) supports the organic model of the Church much better than the corporate or sports team model. Maybe that is the paradigm shift we need.
Sometimes replacing a pastor is necessary, just as sometimes a heart transplant is necessary. However, as with a heart transplant, removing a pastor is a painful and risky operation. The medical team needs to be highly trained and credentialed, and must have a proven track record. Patients must be kept fully informed of their condition and all their options. The patient – i.e. the congregation – must have a right to a second opinion (!) and also to refuse treatment (!!). A new compatible heart must be found. There may be complications. The congregation can really die.
So, following the metaphor, FPCH has just had its heart traumatically removed, but the surgery (badly botched in the eyes of some, not required in the eyes of others) is only half done. If the diagnosis was correct (heart disease?), it might well have been better to find a way to keep the old one. I pick on FPCH only as a recent public example. Like “divorce,” it is really a story that is told repeatedly in large and small churches all throughout our nation, regardless of doctrinal and political affiliation. People choose sides, things get ugly, blah, blah, blah. In the end, where is the payoff?
To be sure, there are also natural ways for pastors to move on that are not so painful and do not fit my graphic metaphor, and whether or not the pastors of FPCH should have been asked to leave and by whom is not mine to judge. In general, however, it is by now safe to say that the business of amputating pastors as a catch-all remedy for church problems is way too routine. The best we can say for it is that it is unimaginative and usually ineffective in bringing about positive change and growth.
If Jesus taught us anything, he taught us that our faith is all about “relationship.” His relationship with the Father, ours with him, and ours with each other. Maybe it “is” revolutionary. Given the current state of affairs, I think it would be well worth experimenting with new protocols for solving church problems. Relationship-mending sounds like a really good approach to me. When certain skills are found lacking in the staff of a church, maybe presbyteries could use their authority and resources to shore up a congregation’s needs rather than dynamiting it. Pastor firings and forced resignations are just too simplistic and devastating. Surely we can all agree with that much.
Ritchie Jones Los Angeles, Calif.
Perceived guidance of the Holy Spirit against Biblical basis is just feel goodism
Posted Tuesday, October 25, 2005
I cannot remember ever reading a stated position against homosexuality that was as clear, powerful and easy to understand as Robert Brown. The weak point of his argument is that you have to have some respect for Scriptural authority over secularism or political correctness. That is where our denomination’s leadership differs with most Presbyterians. The perceived guidance of the Holy Spirit without or against Biblical basis is just feel goodism. This trendy ethic is what is guiding the leadership not truth!
Douglas Anderson Southlake, Texas