We were really hoping for some great bombshell that would explain the sense of vindictiveness, the need for propaganda-like reassurances, the sense of damage control we got through this process. If there really was something big about Scott they were hiding for his sake, that there really was a Christian need to not address this the way normal people would expect.
And yet...
The first thing that struck me was how childish much of this sounded, paying rapt attention to details that didn't seem quite the meat of the issue, retreating to policy and procedure too early in the game, the four-part pattern to address questions, many of which were not quite what we were asking. There was a stench of obfuscation in this. But... it felt childish. It didn't make sense for the respected father of the church to be stooping to almost schoolyard thought patterns.
But I think that's really what this is. Among Christian brethren, this really boiled down to a schoolyard domination that failed and came into the open. Neither side emerges wonderfully, but for the pastor, he has missed so many chances to take a high road, demonstrate wisdom and grace. I think there was little wisdom and grace to show since ultimately we were looking at a petty autocrat whose tactics came close to general exposure. And now he has to defend himself.
It sure felt this way, anyway.
The level of language and thought was too for me to believe Tom wrote this. I assumed the younger elder had, having acted somewhat as an attack dog (in other correspondence), but no, I'm assured this came from the pastor's pen. Extremely disappointing.
Scott Barao’s Examples of Falsehood, Jumping to
Conclusions, and making insinuations to Damage the Elder’s Reputation and thus
the Unity of the Church
The following are a list of
partial truths (falsehoods) Scott has written or spoken recently. We have done
our best to be accurate and transparent in such urgency and with much
exhaustion.
To make reading this long
document clearer, we have used a similar pattern for each example.
•
Here is the pattern explained:
o First: (Scott’s Words):
Scott’s exact words are quoted or a summation of
his words is given.
o Second (Wrong Impression):
We point out the wrong impression his words
leave.
o Third (Truth Scott Did Not
Tell): Information is given that Scott did not tell
or
did not take into consideration when making his statement.
o Fourth (Conclusion): We
point to a conclusion to be drawn from his falsehood.
Some of these examples are
fairly small and insignificant but are included to establish Scott’s pattern.
Of note, the names of the
elders are used so you can know who is being spoken about. The names of others
have been taken out to protect them, but they can be supplied if needed.
Table of Contents of
Examples of Falsehoods
1. The Delta witnesses were ill informed because
they were not in community early enough
2. The witnesses ran to Pastor
Leake to tell on Scott.
3. Pastor Leake believed the witnesses prior to the
meeting with the elders
4. Tuesday’s congregational meeting with the elders
was not truthful and was essentially spin
5. Pastor Leake treated Scott
poorly by not picking up the phone and calling him first concerning the meeting
the elders needed to have about his potentially divisive words on Sunday,
September 24th in the Delta community
6. Scott chose NOT to meet with the elders because
Pastor Leake was unloving
7. Scott is crushed and hurt
because he is being forced out of the church
8. David Mora sent a hurtful email to Scott making
reconciliation difficult
9. The Elders shut off hopebook so Scott could not
get his side of the story out
10.Pastor Leake is heavy handed in decision making on the elder board
11. Pastor Leake is not open and honest with
communication
12. There has been “much
turmoil” on the elder board for the past 2 years
13. There is something fishy
about Rod leaving quickly to another church with no paid position
14. The elder board does not have enough elders for
20 years and that is suspicious
15. Pastor Rod’s departure and Scott’s are related
because both elders were treated poorly by Pastor Leake
16. Tom is pushing out elders to get Master’s
Seminary men at HBC.
I.
The delta witnesses were
ill informed because they were not in community early enough
A. Scott’s Words - in his
email to his flock group (Dated Thursday Sept 28)
1.
“If you were in community
last Sunday, you know how things progressed from there. One interesting thing
to me is that PERSON 1 and PERSON 2 [names redacted]
both arrived after community started and
could have had no actual idea of how
the discussion started.”
B. Wrong impression
1. The witnesses were ill
informed and jumped to conclusions, and Pastor Leake should have checked his
facts before calling for a meeting.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. There were more than two witnesses.
2. In speaking to Pastor
Leake, the witnesses were careful and measured with their words and at least
gave the impression they remembered exact words, flow of thought, and who spoke
and who responded.
3. One of the other witnesses was there from the
beginning and heard how it started and pointed to Scott fueling the issue from
the beginning.
4. The concern the elders had was not if Scott
started the discussion (and this clarification was directly made to Scott) but
his own words, the tone of those words, or what he may have been urging others
to say.
5. The witnesses did not even get an opportunity to
present their concerns because Scott cut off the whole process and became his
own judge about his own actions. So what they knew and what could be
corroborated was never determined. Scott again was rushing to judgment about
them and dismissing them without a proper hearing. Scott refused to submit to
the God-ordained means of accountability for elders. Instead he decided to make
his case online. So, in essence, he discredited the witnesses and declared
himself innocent.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott minimized the
accuracy of the witnesses to make his view appear more reasonable and his
judgments not hasty.
II.
The witnesses ran to Pastor
Leake to tell on Scott. A. Scott’s words - (from communication with a member)
1.
“PERSON 1 and PERSON 2
[names redacted], and maybe one more person, ran to Pastor Leake after
community and reported that I had incited the
discussion and demeaned the other elders.”
B. Wrong impression
1. The witnesses were out to get Scott in trouble
and were in cohorts with Tom.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. PERSON 2 asked for a time
to talk with Scott even over the phone if he was going out of town and was
denied that opportunity that day. Only after this denial did PERSON 2 send his
written copy to Pastor Leake.
2. PERSON 1 did not rush to Pastor Leake but was in
a conversation in which the Delta conversation came up.
3. PERSON 1 made no rush to judgment but gave a
balanced assessment and conveyed that the words were potentially harmful to the unity of the elder board.
4. Pastor Leake made no
conclusions from what PERSON 1 said.
5. Pastor Leake spoke to another witness (PERSON 3)
who had similar but different concerns and details.
6. There were also others in Delta who had concerns
about the tone of Scott’s words or the tone of other people’s words and how
Scott talked about the elders.
7. Pastor Leake knew there
were other witnesses and did not take the time to pursue more information but
to call for a meeting so it could be handled as a team of elders.
8. Scott abandoned and accused the elders of foul
play.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott exaggerated the
response of the witnesses to make the process seem hasty when it fact everyone
was even-keeled and careful.
III.
Pastor Leake believed the witnesses prior to the
meeting with the elders
A. Scott’s words – (from
communication with a member)
1.
“Pastor Leake believed that
report and called me to a meeting tomorrow night to bring 3 witnesses and
confront me.”
B. Wrong Impression
1. Scott’s statement gives the
wrong impression that the elder meeting with Scott and the witnesses was a sham
since Pastor Leake already believed them. Scott’s words gives the impression
Pastor Leake held the meeting to get to Scott.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. Pastor Leake did not believe or disbelieve the
witnesses because he refused to make up his mind until due process was allowed.
It was not one pastor’s opinion that mattered anyway.
2. Pastor Leake only believed
there was enough credibility to receive the accusations after hearing two -
three testimonies as 1 Timothy 5:19 makes
clear. Again that is what 1
Timothy 5 and common sense require in order for there to be a meeting to hear a
case.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott again rushed to
judgment about Tom without facts and dismissed any concern about his own words
and their potential impact on a local church.
IV. Tuesday’s congregational meeting with the
elders was not truthful and was essentially spin
A. Scott’s Words – (from email communication to his
flock group)
1. “And, if you attended the church-wide meeting on Tuesday evening, you
may not have heard completely accurate information so I feel I owe you some
truth. Before I clarify some specific issues that I think were misrepresented
Tuesday, I would ask you to simply ponder the following questions.”
B. Wrong impression
1. The elders are purposefully
“misrepresented” the truth about Scott in the meeting. The elders cannot be trusted
to get facts right.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. No specifics of where the
elders were false was provided.
2. There was no need for the
meeting if Scott would have come in the first place and met with the elders.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott wants to present himself
as more truthful to his flock group than the elders.
V.
Pastor Leake treated Scott
poorly by not picking up the phone and calling him first concerning the meeting
the elders needed to have about his potentially divisive words on Sunday,
September 24th in the Delta community
A. Scott’s Words = (from his email response to
elders, Sept 26 4:52pm)
1. “ … I am completely
confused as to why you would not have simply picked up the phone on Sunday
after church, called me and said, "Scott what in the world
went on in your community today?" That seems like something that a
loving brother would do. That even seems like what we tell the sheep to do when
there might be a misunderstanding or confusion.”
B. Wrong impression
1. Tom did not follow the
Matthew 18 loving steps as a good brother would do and as the sheep at HBC are
taught to do.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. Matthew 18 is not followed
in Scripture in every church discipline situation or potential situation. See 1
Corinthians 5:13 for an example of instant removal from the church. Titus 3:10
also commands a swift rebuke and removal of a
factions man. The fact that
Scott was an elder and was potentially causing divisions or stirring up unrest,
that this was not a Matthew 18 situation where one would go to a brother first,
then bring along two more etc., but instead this was a 1 Timothy 5 situation.
An elder like Scott is supposed to be mature enough to know the difference and
not take offense when his fellow elders are trying to be loving and careful in
their actions. This is the design for elder accountability.
2. If Scott did not have
confidence in the elders to decide this case he should have left the elder
board quietly and not stir up dissension for a local church.
3. Pastor Leake and Alan and
David agreed this is the correct procedure for a potentially divisive issue and
needs to be treated seriously.
4. Pastor Leake followed the
Scripture procedures exactly as the text points out so he could let the Lord
Jesus work in His church. (He also informed the congregation about this on the
Tuesday night meeting.)
5. Calling Scott first would
not have been appropriate because the only way for there to be a solution would
be for all the elders (not just Pastor Leake) to hear both sides.
6. 1 Timothy 5 indicates that
witnesses have to be gathered and listened to by the whole board of elders
first to determine if there is consistency with the testimonies. Then, if there
is, the elder board decides what to do about that.
7. It was not up to Pastor
Leake to get on the phone and talk to Scott, then back on the phone to talk to
the witnesses, back and forth. That was the role of the meeting with all the
elders, which Scott refused.
8. Nothing Scott would have
said on the phone would matter or resolve the case. Pastor Leake told Scott in
his email response to him that Sunday night the importance of following this,
but Scott refused to listen to Pastor Leake.
9. Pastor Leake would have
done the same practice if there were two or three witnesses speaking against
any elder. This was not personal or unloving.
10. Pastor Leake’s role as
Senior Pastor is to make sure this happens the way he said it was supposed to
happen. Scott directly defied that leadership by Pastor Leake.
D. Conclusion
1. Pastor Leake shared the evaluating
responsibilities with the other elders, and he refused to decide a case by
himself.
2. Scott made unsubstantiated
judgments against Pastor Leake’s motives in calling for the meeting first and
not calling him first.
VI. Scott chose NOT to meet
with the elders because Pastor Leake was unloving
A. Scott’s words (from email to elders)
1.
“I am not, and never was,
opposed to meeting with the elders. But, the way you approached this situation
was in my mind unloving and disrespectful of me as a fellow elder. Calling for
a meeting with the elders, bringing 3 witnesses etc. seems like step 2 of
Matthew 18, not a loving response of a man I have served with now for several
years and who knows my heart. That is why I expressed that I was offended. And,
all of this in the context of and on the heels of what Rod went through was
just too much for me to bear.”
B. Wrong Impression
1. The reason Scott did not
meet with the elders was that Pastor Leake was unloving and put elders through
unfair ordeals.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. Scott not only did not meet with the elders at
Pastor Leake’s request but continues not to meet even now.
2. The meeting was meant to be loving of all sides
including our church.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott jumped to a negative conclusion about
Pastor Leake’s actions and motives.
2. Scott used that judgment to excuse his meeting
with the elders.
VII. Scott is
crushed and hurt because he is being forced out of the church
A. Scott’s Words – (from his departing email to the
Delta community)
1.
“I write today with a
broken and heavy heart and a crushed spirit to say goodbye.”
B. Wrong impression
1. Since Scott is “crushed” it
leaves the impression he is not just sad to leave but feels mistreated. Scott
presents himself as a victim of injustice in some undisclosed way.
C. Truth he did not tell
1. This caused great pain to the elders.
2. This entire episode was not started by the
elders but by Scott’s alleged words in Delta community.
3. It could have been dealt
with very quickly without pain for the church.
4. The elders were trying to work with Scott and
understand what he was saying - not falsely accuse him or push him away.
5. There was no talk among the
elders about having Scott leave the church or be removed as an elder -
especially not for just one statement.
6. Scott has inadvertently
spoken words of division before causing some pain that Pastor Leake has soothed
over. So there would be no reason he would not do that again.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott chose to make the
elders look unloving even though the elders were following a just and careful
approach for preserving elder unity and the unity of the church.
VIII. David Mora sent a hurtful email to Scott
making reconciliation difficult
A. Scott’s Words – (from an email to Pastor Leake)
1.
“You should know that I did
receive a very hurtful and accusatory email from David that will make
reconciliation a bit harder with him I suspect.”
B. Wrong impression
1. Pastor Mora’s words were
hurtful, accusatory, and unloving toward Scott. They make reconciliation harder
now.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. Pastor Mora gave an insightful rebuke to Scott
for the way Scott left the church and caused havoc. It was not a personal
attack. It was well measured and laid out so Scott could consider the error of
his way. (Pastor Mora himself agrees that he could have waited for better
timing to send it out.)
2. Pastor Mora correctly pointed out that shepherds
do not abandon their sheep or leave churches in confusion as Scott did.
Shepherds don’t tear down their fellow shepherds. Shepherds don’t cut and run.
That is a mark of hirelings.
3. Pastor Mora pointed out
other inconsistencies to lead Scott to repentance, even affirming his genuine
love for Scott.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott excused his wrong actions, but was quick
to put the blame on Pastor Mora’s motives.
2. Scott has consistently
positioned himself as a victim rather than the one who is causing pain.
IX. The Elders shut off
Hopebook so Scott could not get his side of the story out
A. Scott’s Words – (from email letter to his flock)
1.
“I knew that as soon as I stepped
down my Hopebook access would be suspended and my gmail account would be gone
so I did send out the additional 2 emails right on the heels of informing the
elders. As predicted, they were both gone, I was essentially erased, before
noon on Monday.”
B. Wrong impression
1. Elders are manipulative and
controlling not wanting truth to get out. They cut Scott off from Hopebook to
make sure only their side of the story got out.
1. Scott published his resignation on a forum that
went out to the entire database putting the entire church in a very awkward
position with hundreds of people and missionaries etc. … The elders were
shocked by this.
2. It was an abuse of his use of HopeBook and left
a wake of problems for the elders including upsetting our missionaries.
3. Scott did this without even telling the elders
if he was going to meet with us. So we had no way of knowing how else Scott
would misuse HopeBook.
4. We had no choice but to shut it down temporarily
so no more damage could be done.
5. We were only making a
temporary decision until we could gather facts.
6. As it turns out, Scott’s
continued written communication with his flock group justified our concerns
that Scott was going to shun a meeting and use electronics to make his points.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott used this action by the elders to create
suspicion against the elders.
X.
Pastor Leake is heavy handed in decision making
on the elder board
A. Scott’s Words – (from email to elders)
1.
“To me, this is an issue
related to your heavy-handed rule, a lack of elder plurality in decision making
(as required in our bylaws) I do not question your role as Senior pastor, I
understand you are a leader among equals but the overarching issue at least in
my mind is respect and congeniality.”
B. Wrong impression
1. Pastor Leake is heavy
handed
2. Pastor Leake does not follow the Bylaws
3. Pastor Leake does not respect the other elders.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. The opposite of what Scott is concerned about is
true. Almost all if not all the decisions the elder board has made over the
past three years (where they disagreed among themselves) were not positions
Pastor Leake agreed with. Pastor Leake went along with the majority on the
board and supported their decisions even when he disagreed. Pastor Leake can
only think of one instance when he insisted on his way.
2. In fact Pastor Leake purposely did not insist on
his way because that helped preserve unity on the elder board.
3. This includes important decisions about the
communities, the use of the deacon board, steps in church discipline, radio
timing, facility decisions, pastoral hiring, etc…
4. The bylaws state the Senior
Pastor is the “shepherd of the elder board” and the agreed upon language is he
is “a leader among leaders.” The elders are supposed to follow his leadership
anyway so if he does once in awhile put his foot down, the elders are not
supposed to make that hard for him to lead.
They are supposed to honor
that position no matter who is in it. So leadership would not be heavy
handedness but fulfilling his responsibility.
5. The other elders are to follow his lead. Scott
clearly has not in this case.
D. Conclusion
1. The opposite of Scott’s words is the truth. Tom
has not led on the elder board but allowed the other elders to have their plans
and insights followed.
2. The quietness of Tom’s
leadership has caused a number of people to think Alan was leading the elder
board.
XI. Pastor Leake is not
open and honest with communication
A. Scott’s Words – (from an email to elders)
1. “… and even a lack of open and honest
communication on your part. Let me give you one tangible example that speaks to
me of respect and open communication. You visited at least 2 flocks in my
community recently without even a simple heads-up to me about that. I in no way think it is/was inappropriate for you to visit the flocks,
I hope you visit and encourage them all. I simply think it would have been
a respectful and right thing to do to at
least inform the community pastor in which the flock resides, of your plans to
visit. It was a complete surprise to me to learn from Suzanne Young, as part of
her asking the question that sparked all of what occurred on Sunday, that you
had visited their flock and spoke about the future of the community strategy.”
B. Wrong impression
1. Pastor Leake is hiding thing from the other
elders and potentially being dishonest.
2. Pastor Leake is not
respectful of the other elders because he does not give the community pastors a
heads up about his visits of small groups.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. Pastor Leake did inform the
elders in an elder meeting this year, and in the elder prayer meetings on
Sunday as a request, and the deacons of his attempting to visit all the small
groups. This informing is even in the minutes of the deacon meeting.
2. For example, here is one
hope book post Tom wrote to all the elders and deacons
a) “I
recommend we postpone meeting as communities for these next few months and allow time for a discussion of what strategy
to use - communities or thoughtful
biblical courses or whatever — when we get to the new building. I would also
recommend all the pastors use this time to visit the small groups and interact
with them, have them in the home etc...
I have been doing this very thing and have found it very helpful in
3. Pastor Leake has been here
20 years and never has had a habit of informing the elders of any meetings
unless they ask him. He holds some 15 to 20 meetings weekly. All the elders are
generally aware of his responsibilities. There is nothing secret about them.
4. Pastor Leake has visited
small groups and had them in the Leake’s home since the beginning of the church
and never has never hidden anything he is doing. Everything is right out in the
open and always has been.
5. Pastor Leake is very
overworked - is being asked to do the work of 3 full-time pastors, has had
pancreatic cancer and has a depletion of energy. Pastor Leake has told the
elder board many times he needs lots of help. Even so, though overworked, he
has always supplied information to any elder when they ask. Scott knew this.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott purposefully ignored the work situation of
Pastor Leake to make his criticism seem reasonable.
2. Scott purposefully ignored the history of Pastor
Leake’s interactions with his church and jumped to wrong motives on Pastor
Leake’s part.
3. This was clearly unloving and grossly unfair.
XII. There
has been “much turmoil” on the elder board for the past 2 years
A. Scott’s Words – (in an email to his flock group)
1.
“My heart is broken over
the events of this week but none of this has happened in a vacuum. This is
really the culmination of much turmoil and confusion dating back well over 2
years but which was significantly accelerated in the last 2-3 weeks.”
B. Wrong impression
1. There has been turmoil in
the elder board over two years. Things are out of control and have reached a
climax now.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. Scott never told the elders
he thought there was turmoil on the elder board.
2. Even if there was, he was part of the turmoil.
3. We have had regular elder meetings and worked
through difficult subjects together.
4. The elder candidates were present to give their
testimony to the efforts of the elders to work together.
5. The facility issues became
urgent, strained and difficult but the elders hung together and did the best
they could.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott exaggerated problems
to make the elders seem incompetent or the leadership seem in disarray.
XIII. There is something fishy about Rod leaving quickly to another church
with no paid position
A. Scott’s Words – (from email to his flock group)
1.
“Do you find it odd that Rod would go to a
different place of worship with his family when there is not a paid ministry
position, or even an elder position or even any type of leadership position? Do
you find it odd that he would uproot his family from the church that his
daughters have grown up in and take them to a different church when there is
likelihood that they might soon turn around and go to yet another church if he
gets hired for a paid position? Do you find it odd that he left very suddenly?
Do you find it odd that 2 elders left within days of each other? If you do find
all of this odd, then don't you have to ask yourself if the reasoning given
behind his leaving is really plausible? That is Rod’s story and not mine to
tell. I am just asking if you find these things odd.”
B. Wrong impression
1. Something is very wrong
with the elder board and Pastor Rod’s leaving should tip off everyone about
this fact. This means the elders cannot be trusted.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. Pastor Leake and Alan brought Pastor Rod onto
the elder board years ago and oversaw Rod’s entire training, and ordination.
They have been very supportive of him from the beginning. That is one of the
reasons Pastor Rod expressed his appreciation.
2. The elders voted to pay for some of Pastor Rod’s
seminary and encouraged him.
3. Pastor Leake spent time with Pastor Rod when he
was not an elder to give him wisdom and opportunity as preparation.
4. After Pastor Rod’s ordination, he made it clear
to the elders (though Pastor Rod usually did not speak much or in great detail)
he wanted to be in full-time ministry - possibly missions. So Pastor Leake
periodically provided Pastor Rod with pastoral opportunities to consider and
pursue beyond HBC. This was not a secret.
5. Maybe as many as 5 times Pastor Leake encouraged
Pastor Rod to find a full-time pastoral ministry.
6. That is why Pastor Leake agreed to let Pastor
Rod give a try at Baltimore Bible Church to see if it was a good fit for him.
7. Recently Pastor Leake, Pastor
Mora and Pastor Rod had a serious talk about what kind of leadership a Senior
Pastor is supposed to provide for a church. We talked through various
statements made and expectations. It was a productive, robust talk that ended
in prayer as mature brothers in Christ are supposed to treat each other.
8. Pastor Rod believed his views were compatible
with the Bylaws of HBC.
10. In the process of talking, Pastor Leake informed
Pastor Rod that the church would be looking for an experienced man to be a
first hire to work with Pastor Leake. Pastor Leake wanted a man who could take
over the whole church if his health went back quickly. Pastor Plumley and Scott
were aware of this preference in hiring a more experienced full-time pastor.
11. Pastor Rod still decided to leave HBC now and
help a friend in Baltimore. He wrote out his own reasons for leaving and stated
what he chose to say before the congregation. Pastor Rod left our church
honorably without compulsion from Pastor Leake.
12. Pastor Leake also endorsed
Pastor Rod to another position when another area pastor called him.
D. Conclusion
1. This is actually another
example of Pastor Leake not forcing the elders to follow his will. This is
especially important to understand given hurt Tom has experienced in the past.
XIV. The elder board does not have enough elders for 20 years and that is
suspicious
A. Scott’s Words - letter to his flock
1. “Did you know that HBC has had a total of 7 elders in 20 years? To date,
3 resigned very suddenly, 1 “retired”
(you will have to ask him why), and 1 is brand new. Do you think that says
anything about HBC leadership or how the
elder board functions? (Some of you
may have been at HBC when (Name taken
out on purpose) stepped down as elder.)”
B. Wrong impression
1. Something is wrong with the
elder board. They should have more elders so you should question the elders.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. It is very hard to find men in our region who
believe our definitive doctrinal statement and our exact philosophy of
ministry. We are a normal church in that regard but required elders who have a
hybrid theology that unfortunately few have on the east coast.
2. We are an expositional ministry and doctrinally
driven church, which requires much more teaching from our elders, and therefore
need to take time to train men.
3. We appointed Scott even
though he was not as prepared as others or even properly vetted in all aspects,
in part to show our willingness to keep giving the church more elders.
4. Pastor Tony retired so that he could devote time
to getting ready for his next step.
5. We have 5 elder candidates who Tom is helping
right now to get ready.
“My primary reasons for retirement last July
2016 are as follows:
(a) I wanted to devote my time
with MedMission2000 ministry with its increasing work. Besides, the medical
healing aspect, the Lord has given us the opportunity to work with a likeminded
church (Grace from Heaven in Pasay City) under the leadership of Pastor Leo
Ordiales in friendly cooperation with The Masters Expositors Academy (Sean
Ransom, Wm Vince Green, Allan Luciano and others). In fact, we have had at
least 2 seminars held last year in training Filipino Pastors. In addition we
have work in helping the Prison ministry and Feeding the poor.
(b) Last year, I developed Type 2 Adult onset
diabetes with Hypertension. They are both well controlled now.
(c) As we get up in age, My wife and I desire to
live outside MD where
the winter is not senior-friendly besides she
wanted to live closer to her grandkids (Steven and Jeddah's) in Merced, CA.
I thank God's providence in
our lives and for the remarkable journey He has given us. His sustaining mercy
and grace are real not only for us but also for our beloved Hope Bible Church
with the faithful leadership of Pastors Tom and Alan. Our church will prevail
no matter what people say against it.
Grace to you,
Pastor Tony (Emeritus) (Philippians 3:7)”
6. No one works harder at getting men onto the
elder board than Pastor Leake. He spends time almost every week in training men
for ministry.
7. Some of the men we would consider to be moving
toward being elders moved away including Steve Wreesman, Quincy Jones, Peter
Lee, Steve Gatdula, and Terry Taylor.
8. One elder who was quickly
removed in the past admitted he did not believe in our Bylaws and realized he
had made an ethical mistake, and withdrew himself. The same elder we later
found out had hurt three previous churches before coming to HBC.
D. Conclusion
1. This is a clear attempt to mislead the
congregation away from trusting their hard working and honest elders.
2. This is contentious.
XV. Pastor Rod’s departure and Scott’s are related because both elders were
treated poorly by Pastor Leake
A. Scott’s Words – (in his email letter to his
flock group)
1.
“Is there a connection
between my leaving and Rod’s leaving? Yes, absolutely. Not for the exact same
reasons but based on how Rod was treated over the past 2-3 weeks and how I was
dealt with on Sunday evening and into Monday by Pastor Leake, after accusations
were made against me by some fellow Delta members, I could see what I thought
was the handwriting on the wall.”
B. Wrong impression
1. Pastor Rod was poorly treated and so was Scott
by Pastor Leake.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. Pastor Rod was treated with graciousness and
kindness by Pastor Leake in working through a potential area of disagreement.
2. There have been things that have been very hard
for Pastor Leake on the elder board.
3. Scott was not even at the meeting with Pastor
Rod to know how Pastor Rod was treated.
4. Written communication was
done respectfully and with much prayer.
5. Pastor Rod has been asked
to continue to be one of our teachers in the GAMA Bible Institute.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott may find a
correlation, but it is based on a false impression of Pastor Leake.
XVI. Pastor Leake is pushing out elders to get
Master’s Seminary men at HBC.
A. Scott’s Words - (in his email letter to his
flock group)
1.
“Will the elder board (or
PL) require that if another pastor is hired at HBC, that that man be a “master’s
seminary grad”? The simplest way to get a true answer to that question would be
to say to the elders; “Please share the
job description with the
congregation”.
B. Wrong impression
1. Pastor Leake is not
forthcoming about his true reasons for Pastor Rod leaving and his plans for the
future hiring at HBC. He is trying to stack the elder board with TMS men.
C. Truth Scott did not tell
1. None of the other pastors except David Mora are
from The Master’s Seminary.
2. In our second year of the church we had another
Master’s Seminary man here who was overbearing and was a very poor fit. This
was very hard on Pastor Leake and almost led to him leaving the church. Pastor
Leake hardly wants to repeat that mistake.
3. Scott did not ask for a copy of the job
description for the pastoral hire to know one way or the other.
4. The job description is not even completely
finished since there was no reason for it to be published until the funds were
available.
5. The current wording of the draft on Pastor Leake’s
computer is the following
a) “A Master of Divinity degree or higher
(required)
b) Graduate of The Master’s
Seminary or another like-minded institution (preferred);”
c) This is only a draft and was going to be
submitted to the elder board for alterations and approval at the right time.
But even here with Pastor Leake’s wording specifically states other seminaries
are fine. It is like-mindedness we are after.
6. The last time we were
looking for a full-time hire we did not have a TMS graduate as a requirement
but as something preferred. Scott showed no interest in researching this fact.
7. We work in the GAMA region with those who are
not TMS, like Paul Shirley.
8. Pastor Leake and the elders
are much more interested in the right man than a TMS graduate.
D. Conclusion
1. Scott has made an unfounded insinuation.
Closing
The above documentation is
only what we had time to go back and prove presently. It is my testimony as the
Senior Pastor that there is quite a bit more evidence from the past of Scott’s
mishandling truth or causing unneeded friction between people.
Some of the difficulties of
working with Scott have become public and you know and have seen them yourself,
such as at a recent congregational meeting.
Some of them are more
private and several in the congregation have had run ins with Scott which
required smoothing things over afterwards. A couple of sheep have had their
feelings hurt and almost left the church.
There were also two issues
when Scott was being evaluated as an elder that we had to sort through and
overlooked in hopes they were not indicative of his character. In hindsight
those issues appear to be more important now.
Recently Scott was
corrected by a couple of other leaders for a divisive comment in a hopebook
thread with the elders and deacons.
Elders have asked Scott to
try to moderate his words and not be so reactionary, alarming, or brusk when
working behind the scenes with the other elders.
There have been many
examples of Scott not using gentle wisdom from his over reaction to the deacons
announcing a new logo - to what appeared to be wasted money on the locks on our
doors. Each could have been handled more wisely but were not.
We have prayed to the
Father above that your hearts will not be deceived or think less of us for
keeping a lot of information private. We don’t tell some things because we are
trying to show love and protect reputations. Only when we are pushed like this
do we feel compelled to make some information known for the sake of the unity
of the church and our ability to lead the
congregation. Satan would love nothing more than for your opinion of us to be
diminished by these subtle falsehoods.
No comments:
Post a Comment