Presbytery makes unattributed
allegations to oust minister
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman, April 21, 2009
STORM LAKE, Iowa – The Rev. Brian Rihner faced no formal charges, only accusations, when he appeared on April 16 before Prospect Hill Presbytery. There’s a difference between charges and accusations. That difference apparently cost him his job.
When one is formally charged with an offense, the Presbyterian Church (USA) Constitution requires that he be allowed to face his accusers, require evidence and be allowed to answer the charges. But unsubstantiated accusations by a committee before voters in a presbytery meeting require no identification of authorship or accompanying evidence. In this political, rather than judicial forum, Rihner knew that his goose was cooked.
Blaming the pastor
The presenting issue was the fact that Rihner’s session at United Presbyterian Church in Denison, Iowa, had examined the record of Presbyterian Church (USA) policies and programs, concluded that the denomination had departed from Biblical faith and morals and was ready to recommend that its congregation seek membership in an evangelical denomination.
As moderator of the session, Rihner called for transparency, encouraging his session to share its findings and recommendations openly with the congregation and giving notice to presbytery representatives. So the session called a congregational meeting with clear intentions of notifying the Presbytery of Prospect Hill after it was concluded.
Presbytery officials rushed into Rihner’s church, ordered the session to cancel its congregational meeting, interrogated Rihner and his session separately, issued a gag order against letters and other written communications among members of the congregation, demanded access to the church’s minutes, rolls and other official documents, conducted a search for “loyal” PCUSA members within the membership and met separately with the handful that responded.
Behind closed doors, the presbytery officials decided that Rihner was the culprit. Either the pastor was the source of the congregation’s dissatisfaction with the denomination or he was cheerleading those who were. Therefore, Rihner had to go.
Rihner says that he shares his session’s concerns over the denomination’s drift from Reformed faith and practice but the session voted unanimously to do something about those concerns. He believes that in placing the blame solely on him as pastor, presbytery leaders are following lockstep the advice that is coming from denominational headquarters (“The Louisville Papers”), and that they are discounting the well informed and sincerely held convictions of the church’s lay people.
Rihner did not learn directly of the presbytery commission’s conclusion that he be ousted. During Holy Week, he learned by an email grapevine of its intention to call for a presbytery meeting to do the deed. He did receive an email copy of the meeting notice that was sent to all churches.
Unsubstantiated accusations
It was not until the meeting itself that Rihner saw allegations against his leadership. He says that when he heard the accusations read aloud for the first time at the meeting he was shocked.
“If they had ever bothered to ask me about any of these things, I would have gladly answered them,” he told The Layman.
Among the “reasons for the dissolution” given by unsigned members of the presbytery commission are: “Pastor Rihner’s integral role in the division and polarization of the Denison congregation … [and] failure to exercise effective and proper moderator skills.”
“What ‘integral role’ are they talking about?” asks Rihner.
The pastor readily admits that he moderated session meetings in which his elders’ dissatisfaction with the denomination was discussed, but he insists that he was fair and made sure that all points of view could be expressed. (The session voted unanimously in August 2008 to call a congregational meeting to discuss possibly changing denominations.)
Rihner is also baffled by the commission’s unspecified statement that he was guilty of “the negligence and exclusion of pastoral care to members of the congregation.”
“What members are they talking about?” asked Rihner. “When? Where? On what occasion did I neglect or exclude anybody?”
The pastor says it is entirely possible that within his congregation of 250 people that some individual may not have been satisfied with the level of pastoral care they received and it’s certainly possible that he may have made some statement that unintentionally hurt someone’s feelings. “If that kind of complaint came up when the commission was polling our membership list, I would have appreciated having been notified so I could make amends,” he said. “But vague, un-attributed accusations like this don’t help anyone.”
Money matters
But the accusation that floored Rihner was this one: “Inappropriate and unethical arrangements regarding pastor’s signatory and access to church financial accounts.”
The only arrangement that Rihner has with the church’s financial accounts is the same that his congregation has always had with its pastors, namely, that the pastor is a signatory on the church’s financial accounts.
“When I came to Denison I was taken to the bank to fill out the necessary forms” he said. “The secretary writes the checks the treasurer normally signs them. I am simply one of those authorized to sign. Isn’t that the way most churches operate?”
There have been no allegations of unauthorized disbursements from the church’s accounts.
A conditional severance
The presbytery approved the commission’s motion to dissolve Rihner’s pastoral relationship with the Denison church, and it approved a four-month severance package for the pastor, contingent on his willingness to sign his consent to the commission’s allegations.
“There’s no way I can do that,” said Rihner. “I’m not about to sign a statement that says I was guilty of ‘inappropriate and unethical’ financial arrangements.” If that’s what I have to do, the presbytery can keep its severance package.”
An additional condition leveled by the presbytery is that Rihner must “promise to seek remedies for grievances only in the Courts of the PCUSA.” Apparently, presbytery officials believe that they would fare better in a denominational conclave than before a court of law whose judge requires the parties to fortify their accusations with evidence.
Rihner, who has secured legal counsel, is not about to sign that condition either.