We had left the church some months earlier, having presented a formal resignation letter to the pastor, Tom Leake, which while brief, mentioned that this was a decision of conscience pertaining to the direction of the church. Although Tom Leake asked if it would be possible to speak about this in detail later, and that his secretary would set it up, the elders at Hope did not reach out to me thereafter, and I deduced that they had no further interest in my own reasons. I wasn't surprised. A good part of me was consumed with anxiety and adrenaline at the thought of confronting my pastor. Rebecca and I debated how quietly we ought to go, in light of the injustices that we believed we had seen and we struggled with Matt 18 and whether it was right to simply bow out without some a detail and confrontation over the sin. Were we ignoring a Biblical obligation to go to our brother(s) if we believed they had sinned? Were we adding our own sins to theirs? Was this unloving?
In the end we accepted the advice of others, that 1) what we saw everyone else in the congregation saw; we had no better vantage point than the average person (and we would find out that others closer to leadership or administration had seen problems clearer and well in advance of us); so this was no secret sin; that 2) others had already confronted the pastor with similar concerns, both a superset of some and a subset of our own issues; that 3) given the poor indications that either the pastor or the remaining senior elder, Alan, were convinced they were victims, inclined to cover up and obfuscate, and disinclined to change or accept responsibility, and that given earlier and ongoing confrontation they were not responsive, adding our own voice would simply discharge a wooden duty on our part, and 4) if they failed to be moved, there was no higher authority to which we could appeal, so Matt 18 is not practicable here. Thus, we ultimately decided to leave our resignation at that letter. I copied my thoughts and observation to a handful that had also exited, hoping to bolster them, letting them know they weren't alone and we had seen the same.
We were later shown a letter another dear older sister had written to Tom Leake, believing (as we did) that we couldn't leave without an explanation. Hers was fairly well tempered. Alan's response to her was not wonderful, but the words were tempered as well and with a fair amount of humility. It basically boiled down to saying there were things they couldn't share with the congregation that would have exonerated them. However, Tom Leake wrote a much harsher and vindictive letter afterward and we saw that too. I admit, I burned with anger reading it as her tried to tear her down.
I believed I had to say something. Rebecca saw my anger and didn't want to send what I had written. Reluctantly she agreed to at least proofread it and remove or edit any parts that contained information that, while I believe it true, could not be proven easily, or that were simply to harsh. What we sent, is reproduced below.
In the end we accepted the advice of others, that 1) what we saw everyone else in the congregation saw; we had no better vantage point than the average person (and we would find out that others closer to leadership or administration had seen problems clearer and well in advance of us); so this was no secret sin; that 2) others had already confronted the pastor with similar concerns, both a superset of some and a subset of our own issues; that 3) given the poor indications that either the pastor or the remaining senior elder, Alan, were convinced they were victims, inclined to cover up and obfuscate, and disinclined to change or accept responsibility, and that given earlier and ongoing confrontation they were not responsive, adding our own voice would simply discharge a wooden duty on our part, and 4) if they failed to be moved, there was no higher authority to which we could appeal, so Matt 18 is not practicable here. Thus, we ultimately decided to leave our resignation at that letter. I copied my thoughts and observation to a handful that had also exited, hoping to bolster them, letting them know they weren't alone and we had seen the same.
We were later shown a letter another dear older sister had written to Tom Leake, believing (as we did) that we couldn't leave without an explanation. Hers was fairly well tempered. Alan's response to her was not wonderful, but the words were tempered as well and with a fair amount of humility. It basically boiled down to saying there were things they couldn't share with the congregation that would have exonerated them. However, Tom Leake wrote a much harsher and vindictive letter afterward and we saw that too. I admit, I burned with anger reading it as her tried to tear her down.
I believed I had to say something. Rebecca saw my anger and didn't want to send what I had written. Reluctantly she agreed to at least proofread it and remove or edit any parts that contained information that, while I believe it true, could not be proven easily, or that were simply to harsh. What we sent, is reproduced below.
David James Parkinson
Rebecca Sherin Parkinson
November 17, 2017
attn: Pastor Thomas
Leake
cc: Pastor Plumley
Hope Bible Church
7185 Oakland Mills
Road, Suite A
Columbia, MD 21046
Dear
Pastor Leake,
Rebecca
and I heard about your brother, Don. We are hurting for you and praying for you
and your family. I know this cannot be an easy time.
We
have had some time to reflect on our experiences since having left the church.
When you and I said goodbye you asked if it would be possible to have a
conversation later and I was willing. I had spoken with Henry James about our
reasons. I don’t know how much he told you. I think it is right to outline them
here so you know our hearts.
Of
those that have left, our experience may have been different. We did not know Pastor
Scott and, while we liked Pastor Plumley, we felt closest to you. You always
asked how we were doing. You cared about our situation, even as you were
suffering through your own sickness. I cannot remember a time when you were
personally unkind to either of us. You took time to meet with Rebecca’s mom
when she needed to talk. You have been very often in our hearts and prayers.
Over the years, these have been powerful impressions, warmly coloring our time
at Hope, inclining us to believe the best of you and the church.
When
we first visited Hope we had already previewed your familiar style of teaching
that we knew from Grace Community Church. When we met you, you had a certain
weight on your shoulders and a calmness of spirit; you were serious, humble,
approachable and caring. In our minds this validated your teaching in the
spirit of 1 Cor 13. We believed we saw a church that was as caring; their good
hearts a reflection of the pastor’s. You know a little about the group Rebecca
and I grew up in and that we are looking for an authentic expression of
Christianity. We don’t need much in the way of buildings, programs, or resources.
These can be empty of what is important. In Hope we believed we had found such
an expression; that we had found our place.
No
church is perfect. There are always problems, always discomforts. Yet until
January of this year our greatest trouble was that, due to our life situation,
we have been unable to be a regular part of the life of this church. And as
things moved ahead, as the church seemed to expand, as there were more
activities and structure we watched it move away from us. It was inevitable
that we should find something closer to our home, but we delayed this search as
we grew close to many dear friends.
Had
we left in January we would certainly have felt differently than we do now.
Instead we watched with dismay as Hope stumbled recklessly through its Building
Campaign and then callously and carelessly through the resignation of Scott. We
read all the Stewardship emails from the elder board. We read everything
published by you during the Scott affair.
Our
minimum standard for conduct must include that which is above reproach to
unbelievers, to reasonable observers who watch what we do, as per 1 Peter 2:12
, Matt 5:13-16, Rom 2:24.
I’m
attaching what we observed of these two events. We wrote it down, all of what
we saw. There was so much deliberation that we needed our own consolidated
record. It was a hard thing to recognize authoritarianism, unaccountability, and
deceit in this. We saw greed and materialism in the Building Campaign. We saw
both you and Pastor Plumley twist scriptures to accommodate this endeavor and with
a straight face. We saw you carelessly manage questions of God’s will, and it
seemed to us that much of what was done was done by your own will, of your own
power. When you embark on such a program, except in the rarest of cases, you
will send signals to your congregation that money matters more than they do, attempting
to maximize the money. You hope they will comply in their giving, but stop
their ears and hold their noses. Some will get the message and their trust
falter. This is how it works. It is taking a risk with people’s hearts in
showing ourselves so eager for money. This was an informed choice and a
deliberate risk.
During
the affair with Scott, we saw deception, vindictiveness, a lack of
transparency, and imperiousness on full display. We wondered how it was missed
by others or what mental gymnastics are required to ignore it. These things
were not well hidden. We can’t know your heart, but I know that for any
reasonable observer this would be indefensible. There were many times we knew
we could not invite saved people (let alone the unsaved) to the church, who might
see this and leave disgusted, in the vein of Matt 5:16 and 1 Pet 2:12. No
thinking Christian wants this. We wondered what we were supposed to say when
friends ask us for a church in the area. Repeat Jesus’ admonition in Matt
23:1-12 regarding those who make their practice teaching the law: to do as they
say, according to the scriptures, but not as they do?
In
the end we simply did not have the stomach to continue. Hope was changed in our
eyes.
I
don’t doubt there is a lot I don’t know. I believe now that an enormous amount
of details were withheld from the congregation, many that would be relevant to
us deciding what was true and not. From what was written I don’t know if there
is much that you could still reveal that could change our impressions since
they derived originally from what you produced. It wasn’t Scott’s or anyone
else’s accusations but rather how you handled his situation that initially alarmed
us and it was the Building Campaign that first shattered our trust in the
elders. Scott’s mis-handling appeared as a characteristic behavior of guilty
men; and yet men who believed they didn’t have to be careful.
Since
our departure I have seen further evidence to substantiate this assessment and
heard nothing material to refute it.
Pastor
Leake, you know where Rebecca and I came from. We were Jehovah’s Witnesses
before they became what they are today. I have studied the Witnesses as they
are today. It is a hard thing for me to perceive that many of the same
behaviors and culture that they use to rule their congregations are being cultivated
at Hope by its own leaders. Many of these things I never experienced in my own
group.
For
everything that we believed Hope stood for, in faithful exposition of the Word,
preaching it in season and out, something died in us when we saw you and Pastor
Plumley commandeer the spirit-filled generosity of Asia Minor to the suffering
Judean churches, their brethren, to fund an administrative ambition. We learned
that if it is to your advantage you can indeed misdirect scripture. In
defending your handling of Scott, you appealed to 1 Tim 3:15 hoping we wouldn’t
understand the difference between what the text mandated and your application of
it in your own man-made policies. It is almost as if you dared your listeners
to challenge you that the text did not necessitate what you said. Or simply you
knew no one would. And so we knew that when pressed, you can subvert scripture
to cover your own heavy-handedness, claiming innocently that you were only
doing what was Biblical. We saw that scripture is not inviolable to you. And in
fact we find that in misrepresenting it you are in effect adding to it what God
did not intend (Proverbs 30:5-6). Your authority extends only to the point
where you faithfully adhere to scripture. Just beyond that line of integrity,
it disappears. You are compromised.
In
your writings you adopt a stance that so long as the rules are plainly stated,
it’s the fault of others if they sign up and then later cannot comply,
irrespective of whether those rules are right. As Christians we trust, and we
subject ourselves to authorities in trust, often in ignorance of what the other
can do with it. The authority of a pastor is accepted in trusting that he will
be a servant and not rule by fiat but by persuasion by scripture (1 Pet 5:1-3).
What you telegraph is that you set and defend your rules, and others have
options only to comply or leave quietly, without disrupting your system. You appear
to wield your own processes as a weapon and a means of control. Grace has been
markedly absent in your pen and you have expressed the greatest outrage in the
violation of your processes rather than the substance of the original
accusation. This is a mark of an abusive church, and has been the foundation of
many cults. Our distinctions between the two are simply degrees of abuse.
Mercifully your theology has not yet followed.
From
what we read, I must believe your concept of a Senior Pastor is very much
distanced from the Biblical model of “not lording it over those entrusted to
you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5:13)” and “becoming a servant…a
slave…” just as Christ came to serve (Matt 20:25-28). I no longer see in you
humility or meekness.
Inevitably,
we believe Hope is also becoming overly proud of itself. We believe many are
coming to see Hope not simply as one local gathering of Christ’s universal
church, but rather something so unique that leaving is unthinkable because
there is no nearby unaffiliated equivalent in which Christians may grow. We
believe David Mora’s elevation was a mistake – that he does not yet have the
maturity, wisdom, or ability to shepherd people as one who watches over souls
(Heb 13:17). We believe that one family and their inner circle are coming to
wield enormous influence on the church. We believe that congregants who do not
stand out and get “plugged in” are increasingly sidelined and rendered passive consumers
(James 2). We believe we are coming to use flawed metrics for success:
emphasizing size, programs, resources, facilities, at the expense of yearning
for spiritual depth and character. We believe that Hope’s philosophy of
ministry is increasingly a top-down, directed model, where the agenda and needs
are set by you, and you will continue to realize a shortage of workers, unable
to recognize the priorities God indicates in the people he lends you according
to the gifts he gave them (1 Cor 12). We believe that increasingly there is a
valuation of frequent participation in formal church activities as a measure of
spiritual maturity. And finally, we believe we have seen a growing bureaucratic
style of management where processes are formalized and regimented and spiritual
maturity appears to align well with adherence to rules – specifically,
legalism.
It
is well understood what happens when people begin to outsource their thinking
to another and what top-down leadership and cultures of celebrity can do. No
matter how you justify it in the moment, it always ends badly. In treating the
congregation like children to be instructed and to only submit quietly, to have
their doctrine spoon-fed to them and monitored, to discourage as faithless dissenting
opinion towards your initiatives, you will train them to be no more than this.
In
the end, as Hope grows (if it grows) we think you will harvest a submissive, muted,
passive congregation. Those who bring more will find they do not thrive in the
structure you form around them and they will leave as Christ directs. Critically,
what it seems most pastors want and what they should want – an energetic,
vibrant, organic congregation, constantly moving under its own initiative,
making disciples and evangelizing – must elude you.
My
unhappy fear is that you, Pastor Leake, will preside over another Ephesus: this
one less accomplished, less praised than the first; in the end only to hear
that fateful Rev 3 warning that unless you recover the love that you had at the
beginning, your own lampstand (church) will be removed from among you. For all
the difficult sacrifices you have made in your life, many of them for the lesser
people like us, at best what you may be left with is 1 Cor 3: a preacher who
built on the same rock as the others, but of inferior material, and in the end
is left with nothing but his own salvation and silence all around, despite long
years of service.
Pastor
Leake, I do not know what you are hoping to build here. But I believe it won’t
turn out the way you want it. I implore you – I beg you – to give up this idea
of controlling and managing people, to submit as servants to your own
congregation and to look at what God has brought you, to see his will. I
believe you are hurting a great many of Christ’s people, in Christ’s name, no
less. Hope is adding its own chapter to an all-too-common story among the worldwide
Body.
All
of these grand ambitions that Hope seems to have, if you attempt to build them
by your own power, if you treat contemptuously those who cannot subscribe to
your vision, it seems given that God will not establish your efforts. Christ can
build his church apart from you. And nothing will be able to withstand it.
As
for this sacred trust that you have, as men who watch over souls, overseers of
those who are bought with Christ’s blood (Acts 20:28), there are many people
who trust you, and have remained with you. You have a power and influence over
how they think. It is no small thing to say: remember Matt 18:1-9 in the
context of who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven (and Mark 9:42, Luke
17:2). What you do to the least of them, you do to him (Matt 25).
It
is almost a truism that we understand who we are when the natural limitations
of common men are removed, whether restraints of money or power or other. The
man after God’s own heart, as king, decided he could take another man’s wife.
He believed it was no great thing and that it could be a secret, despite that
at the least it was in plain sight of his palace servants. People don’t confront
leaders who can hurt them or who offer them good things. He believed he could
cover it up with manipulation and murder. This led to the death of four sons
and a civil war in which many good people died. Very capable people, including
Bathsheba’s grandfather defected, nearly to the king’s undoing, and he was likely
one David could not easily replace (2 Sam 16:23). We forget in this story of
failed rebellion that the people had reason to question if God was still with
David. David relied on God’s strength for his battles, but when he became
strong he counted the people, so God reduced his numbers at the expense of real
people. Yet David remained God’s friend and chosen king. The wisest monarch in
history aggrandized himself with wives and riches to his undoing. His kingdom
split as a result and many people died on both sides. Jehoshaphat was a good
king but he trusted his strength in an evil marriage alliance. He lost an army.
He returned to God and God defeated the next invader on his own for him. Uzziah
was a good king who overstepped his very liberal constraints, planning to better
serve God his own way, and thankfully only he paid the price. As teachers, you
are judged more strictly than we are (James 3:1), yet we suffer too and good
people leave.
Pastor
Leake, you still have a choice. You are still left as a servant of this small
community of believers in Columbia. You don’t need a radio program and you
don’t need to lead a coalition of churches or to start a Bible institute. You hardly
need to evangelize. God has lent you an army of evangelists. All they need is sacrificial,
gentle care and feeding. (John 21:15-17)
As
they grow stronger you need to fade, as John did, calling all attention to
Christ. (John 3:30)
Hopefully,
Your
brother and sister in Christ,
David
and Rebecca
The Building Campaign
The communication during this campaign is assumed to represent the
whole, unified Elder Board. An outsider without a stake in defending the church
should be able to recognize something encouraging and above-board in the
process and glorify God (Matt 5:16). If it is sketchy by worldly standards,
this is a problem: we cause them to blaspheme God (Rom 5).
In the following ways, the leaders of this church fell over themselves
to extract as much money as possible, mishandled scriptures relating to the
tithe and Paul’s relief campaign for the Judean churches to create a false
equivalency and mandate for the building effort, and handled carelessly and
publicly the question of God’s will as to this effort, declaring a number of markers as
evidence, failing most markers, declaring God’s blessing anyway, then extending
deadlines for giving.
1.
Misapplication
of passages of humanitarian assistance to the Judean churches. Very few in this congregation would
not give beyond measure to help real brethren in severe need, in impoverishment
and persecution. This reflects well on the church body, that they may be easily
mobilized to help people. It is a right and good thing to marshal them, and
call them to sacrifice, for this specific purpose as an act of brotherly love.
However, in Pastor Leake’s sermon of Mar 12, II Cor, I Cor. 16:1-3, Rom
15:25-26, and Acts 20:4 are instead used to defend a strategy of encouraging
people to give and Paul is declared a “financial genius” in his
approach. This is wrong. This is a gross mischaracterization of what happened.
It is not genius, but decency and wisdom for an obviously good purpose. John
MacArthur’s sermon is used as an outline for this but unlike Pastor Leake’s
sermon, his actually focuses on Christian love to people in need. In Pastor
Leake’s sermon of April 2, II Cor. 8:4 is used to defend brethren even begging
Paul for the opportunity to sacrifice, but this is perfectly understandable in
light of the unity of Christians and the suffering of the Judeans. This
passionate intensity ought to be reserved and brought out for such purposes,
and not something as mundane and administrative as a building. The real and
debasing risk is in cheapening the God-given desire to give freely by
misdirecting such intensity and resources to something that engenders no
relational passion. Not one person’s personal misery will be alleviated by a
new building. It is not the same category. In Pastor Leake’s sermon of April 9,
II Cor. 8:13-14 describes giving for equality – rich giving to poor – “a better
cause for their money than in their pocket”. A noble purpose, but employed in
this context of giving to the church for the building rather than helping people
in visible need. Pastor Leake hijacks it for a comparatively unworthy purpose.
2.
Pastor Plumley’s
stewardship letter of 3/5 in a similar way conflates the church’s charitable
response to recognized and urgent human needs of people – as if this is
also the Church pulling together, as it did other times – with this mundane
giving, particular to the administrative building effort. The building might be
legitimate. The passions solicited are not.
3.
Administrative
concerns should not equate with human suffering concerns. There is further danger here, that conflating
these two has moral ramifications on the ability to distinguish and respond to
genuine need when it arises. If one is unable to distinguish between the two
needs and measure out the appropriate response or if one can distinguish
and purposefully chooses not to, one should not lead a congregation as
it reflects an indifferent heart. (Mic 6:6-4, Luke 10:30-37)
4.
Most of Pastor
Plumley’s letters manifestly cannot be shown to those outside the church
who might be interested in coming. While this is obvious, there should be very
little about our practices that will not stand up to scrutiny. At least two of
Pastor Leake’s sermons are not appropriate for outsiders who will take a
perfectly reasonable interpretation that the church is overly eager for its
people’s money.
5.
Pastor Plumley’s
stewardship letter of 2/14 presents an overview of church finances and
analysis of contributions to compel giving by guilt. It is perfectly
understandable that the church faces a financial difficulty. Any analysis of
member contributions is wrong. The tone taken particularly appears to be
intended to shame those who don’t give. This is between them and God. Church
isn’t a cooperative with member dues. God provides for the church. God moves
each to give. Identifying a shortfall in this way conveys a sense that the
congregation is not living up to the leadership vision and is derelict in their
duties not simply to the leadership but to God as represented by the
leadership. They may well be derelict in their duty to God, but not with
respect to the church. Pastor Leake can encourage people to give, but this
effort to provoke guilt is wrong, unloving, entitled, ignorant of what is going
on in a brother or sister’s life, and worst, sidelines God’s provision for the
church. If the income is too low, we make the need known and pray and wait on
the Lord to provide. Outside of the personal upkeep of those who minister as
per 1 Tim 5:17, church activity depends on free will offerings (evidenced by
the lack of other Biblical evidence for mandated church or synagogue support).
Ananias was not ordered to sell any of his property and give his money.
Financial analysis to the level of individual support or grouping people into
tiers of giving and non-giving resembles King David’s census (1 Chron 21),
determining the amount and source of his strength.
6.
Regarding Pastor
Plumley’s stewardship letter of 2/14 -- The church does not have an “income”
per sé. It has a divine provision. The distinction is critical. Counting
divine provision as a rightful income inserts man’s activity in the place of
God. God dictates how much the church will do in part by the amount provided.
We live within God’s means. Corporate planning is complicated if we look at it
this way, but we understand better our dependency on him than on consistent
revenue. This is not a business.
7.
Question of
God’s Will – As per
Pastor Plumley’s stewardship letter of 2/16 – the sense of his letter is that
if giving matches or nears the goals set plainly then we take this as God’s
will. By further implication, if it doesn’t, we won’t. It is not unreasonable
then, as of the Levin letter of 4/2, raising less than 50% of the May 1 goal
and 64% of the Dec 31st goal (pledges only), to wonder if this is
against God’s will. In fact, from the Internet publications of numerous
consultants, a maximum pledge of 1.0x to 1.5x the annual budget is a reasonable
expectation. $1.2M is therefore reasonable against Hope’s $1M budget. $600k in
realized pledges, some of which may not be paid in full, suggests a mediocre to
poor result. It is reasonable to consider from the vantage point of the
congregation that this may not be God’s will. At the very least, God did not
over-provide and demonstrate an unequivocal blessing. The Levin letter of 4/2
“what do the pledge totals mean?” asks a question that was now on everyone’s
mind, reflecting the potential for consternation, despite attempting an upbeat
tone in the text itself. Pastor Plumley’s 6/3 email further highlighted two additional
criteria in securing a bank loan and a lowered price for the property. The
Elders’ 6/7 email from the Elder Board described the subsequent negative
decision of the target bank to loan the money and the to-date failure to secure
better pricing.
a. Goal 1: Raising enough money, close to the
stated goal: NOT MET
b. Goal 2: Better pricing for church: NOT MET
(at the time)
c. Goal 3: Necessary bank financing terms:
NOT MET (at the time)
8.
No written
analysis of God’s will is published with respect to the new totals. Only a new
plan was announced with the statement that by God’s grace the purchase is
possible. The Elder Board letter of 4/3 details alternate plans that can still
get the property, including additional loans and using the emergency fund. This
is completely reasonable in secular business where goals may be stretched and
multiple contingency plans developed and used, where the intent to buy is fixed
and decided. However, by publishing goals and using them to evaluate whether
this is the Lord’s will, and then without general input from the congregation
decided to proceed anyway, this is troubling. What the congregation saw was
about 50% of the first two goals. Either the elders didn’t communicate to them
the true internal markers they were using to see God’s will and the potential
for alternate plans or they quietly moved the goalposts after the test did not
yield the desired result. To an outsider this reflects a lack of respect and
trust in the congregation and potentially an ignoring of God’s direction.
9.
Any
legitimate vision of the church towards future specific ministry (i.e. radio
program, new pastor) was well eclipsed by the calls to sacrifice monetarily. Pastor Plumley’s email of 2/12/2017
describes legitimate needs and plans of the leadership. This was rarely and
inconsistently emphasized during the campaign thereafter. Rather than fire up
the congregation for any of this and sell them on the potential of new
ministries, this was worded like an afterthought. The practice was to convince
people of the need to give, principally connecting to the building. If the
original intent was noble, that through the building other things could flow,
the focus was clearly on the funding. This seems symptomatic of a leadership
wholly disconnected from how this may be perceived by the congregation.
10.
The elders
demonstrate a further lack of general wisdom and good management. Pastor Leake
is the congregation’s servant; they are not his. When you absolutely rely on
the congregation to fund a project, it is responsible to consult the
congregation as to whether they all fully behind this endeavor, rather than
make a plan, fall short, and blame a lack of faithfulness on some, and guilt
people into further giving as they did. The congregation has a right to
disagree with the initiatives of their elders. Such submission does not extend
to subscribing to every iteration of vision, nor is the vision of leaders
infallible. This is an evidenced failure of leadership.
11.
The Levin letter
of 4/2 presumes that some who missed the service, rather than having made a
pledge earlier or found alternate ways to do so, need additional reminding and
means to do so. A simple list of options for any that missed is sufficient. The
long explanation and reminding of the importance should be unnecessary given
the importance presented in the previous months. Rather, this appears as a
passive-aggressive way of compelling missed pledges by those who may not
have pledged, by implying the only legitimate excuse for not pledging is
ignorance.
12.
The Elders’
letter of 4/8 analyzes the pledges given against membership/household numbers
and concludes many did not turn in pledge cards, labeling this as cause for
concern. The language is calculated to provide excuses of ignorance and the
methods to rectify it as well as to shame others into pledging. The language
borrows a lot from religious propaganda. After the bombardment by sermon and
emails about the importance of the pledge dates, that so many have not pledged
is not likely the result of ignorance but of choice. This disrespects the
right of the congregant to choose and sets out that the only reasons for
choosing not to pledge are ignorance or obstinacy. Evidently a number of
people were not on board, but their reasons are rendered irrelevant here and
implied as unfaithfulness.
13.
There is no
legitimized place for those who do not subscribe to the mission. Disobedience to God via
disobedience to the elders is implied, while great care is taken (so far) not
to make this explicit for the sake of deniability. This is a theme which
further emerges in other behaviors of this church: that there is no legitimate
place for dissenters to the vision of the leadership.
14.
Following the
original pledge Sunday totals, where on 4/3 the pledge gained is said to
reflect God’s grace, the deadline is then extended to 4/31, which speaks
less of God’s provision and more of trust in persistent reminders and human
tactics. A reasonable observer concludes that they didn’t get what they
hoped, so they changed the parameters attempting to get more.
15.
It’s worth
remembering that these pledges are essentially just promises to pay and can be
made relatively easy any time before the deadline. It’s not that difficult to
fill in a card. Many didn’t.
16.
A number of
features of this effort call to mind established and published strategies of
paid professional capital campaign consultants. It is understood from a source
I no longer recall that a professional consultant had in fact been interviewed
but the elders (mercifully) decided not to go with his services. However, it
seems likely that they borrowed heavily their strategies. Hope’s “pledge” is
even called a pledge, a term proven to soften the language of asking money and
increase campaign revenues. We are bombarded with reminders to give, and that
giving is Biblical – all with the specific aim of contributing to the building
fund. For months. (I know fellow HBC members who, for peace of mind, stopped
reading the letters and never got to the most offensive ones.) This persistence
of message is professionally recommended to keep the information fresh in the
minds of the congregation. Materialism is couched in Christian vocabulary to
increase acceptability and maximize giving. We see general coordination between
Pastor Plumley’s 12-part Stewardship emails and Pastor Leake’s 7-part “Biblical
Vision and Stewardship” sermons. Here psychology rather than the Holy Spirit
moves people. Professional organizers also recognize that some burnout and
attrition is expected of people but happily assure us that the numbers will
bounce back. A hard-pushing capital campaign is expected to cause damage and
offense to some in the congregation, and should not be entered into lightly.
One small group leader frankly accepted that some people were always going have
trouble with this, as if those were the weaker ones!
17.
Pastor Plumley’s
FAQ letter of 2/26, the final question (viewed in this context) feels
contrived, implying that the principal limit of giving is not knowing the ways
to give. And the church is selflessly willing to assist in helping someone
reorient their finances in order to give to… the church. These should have been
advertised well in advance of the campaign, not beginning one month from the
first milestone. In the context of a heavy-handed campaign a reasonable person
finds this very self-serving without a genuine care for the member. We only
inflict this upon Christians knowing Christians are biased to tolerate it and
think the best of people. No decent secular business dependent on donations
uses its customers so transparently.
18.
Pastor Plumley’s
stewardship letter of 3/2 compares the giving for the building of the
Tabernacle to the provision of the church building, misapplying scripture to
benefit the effort. While it is not unreasonable for the congregation to
fund its own building, the church building is not the focus of worship in the
same way as the Tabernacle was the very house of God within Israel, wherein God
lived and interacted with the people. Church buildings come and go as needed.
They have no vital ritual significance. The tabernacle was something intended
to be relatively permanent and integrally functional to Jewish ritual worship.
The value placed on its building is markedly different than that of a meeting
house. The church is wherever the people are as God is wherever his people are
(Matt 18:20, John 14:17, 1 Cor 16:19-20).
19.
Ken Roussey’s
polite 3/2 email to remove him from the list is shameful. Is the mission
of Hope so very groundbreaking that requests for money are sent outside the
congregation persistently? To former members, non-members? To people who are
supporting their own church efforts? Are we really saying our mission is so
much more important than that of other churches? We are thinking very highly of
ourselves. We have a noble responsibility to provide for our own efforts.
Unless the building is to be an inter-church effort, we shouldn’t be asking
people who aren’t part of it. We are trying to get money from anybody we
possibly can. This was done shamelessly and presents a compromised witness to
others, asking for funding from those with limited relationship who have no
responsibility to provide for a building that isn’t even theirs.
20.
Pastor Plumley’s
letter of 3/7 treats the congregation like irresponsible children who
must be reminded to give if they do not attend church on a given week, and how
to view priorities in income use. People who love the Lord naturally
prioritize. This is their responsibility before God. General encouragement is
good. Various methods of giving are discussed in this letter so that no one can
use ignorance as an excuse. This is so specific as to drive home how much
the church wants its money and how little it views its people as free moral
agents capable of making their own decisions. And if they are not capable of
making their own decisions it suggests a right for the elders to shape those
decisions for them.
21.
Pastor Plumley’s
letters of 2/14 and 3/7 assert that 10% of gross income goes to
the church. If this is explicitly defended only as a recommendation if confronted,
it is treated in the income analysis as a mark of faithfulness to God and the
church. Giving to non-church entities must not distract from 10% first to the
church, and again gross income is stressed. This represents a fundamental and
likely very deliberate mischaracterization of the Biblical tithe (or tenth) in
the following ways:
a. 10% to the church first is now known
to the world as “storehouse tithing”: the notion that 10% of the income is
delivered to the same body or building (in Jewish times that is the Temple).
This is not correct.
b. In fact, when King Hezekiah
reinstituted the tithe (2 Chron 31) the entire 10% was incorrectly brought to
the Temple. The food sat rotting because it was more than the priests and
Temple needed. After Hezekiah’s inquiry, they then redistributed it to the
Levitical cities. As per Neh 13, there were only two storerooms in the temple.
c. The Levites received 10% from the
people around them for their own upkeep, families, ministry and all. 10% of
that Levite provision then went to the temple from the Levites (Malachi 3
describes the Levite instruction to tithe), which effectively represents 1%
of the people’s income.
d. The Levites are not to be forgotten
as per Deut 14, but they are a 12th (or 13th) tribe,
supported by up to 11 tribes (or 12, depending on the particular tribe list).
These tithes are principally food-based, with the exception being a change to
money if the transport is too difficult, and then the repurchase of consumable
items upon reaching the Temple. Although the Temple later had a monetary tax,
this was not the tithe.
e. The tithe was for the upkeep of
Levites who not only served the priests and as priests, but also who carried
out administrative functions throughout the land in the various Levitical
cities. This merges into the modern concept of a tax for infrastructure.
f.
The tithe is a
measure of net income, not gross. Effectively it is calculated only
against the periodic measured increase of the estate. Measurements at
specific times were done on the increase of flocks or estate, which would
naturally exclude taxing of animals that died or were eaten. It would naturally
exclude animals that had been traded for other non-tithing animals or items
otherwise useful. It would exclude what was consumed in the course of the year.
Measurements of farm produce were made on the increase of seeds which almost
certainly excludes the seeds necessary to replant. Understand, there is no
evidence that any records were kept in relation to the tithe of what increased
against what was consumed. Tithe 5% or 20% if it accords with your conscience, the
mint and the cumin as well, but preaching 10% of the gross income is not
scriptural.
g. If this seems like a much smaller
sum than we want for the church, understand that what God promised was great
blessing on his people and certainly was intended to suffice for the needs of
the Levites and others in need. The tithe was not meant to be a hardship (see
the last point here) or a source of guilt, or anxious budget planning. The
members of a church are free to decided how much giving is good for their
church, individually according to conscience, or corporately as they see fit.
h. The Levitical/Temple system with its
mandated tithes existed alongside the synagogue system with its unspecified
means of support, possibly through “seat purchases” or other member dues or
simply free will offerings. Upkeep of the synagogue was in addition to any
tithe. The Pharisees who oversaw the synagogue system were not explicitly
Levites. Therefore the Levitical tithe does not translate to either
synagogue or later church support.
i.
By the New
Testament, the Levitical system is obsoleted for Christians along two lines:
firstly that the early church meetings and liturgy derived from this
synagogue model which had no Biblically explicit instruction for taxation of
tithing, and secondly, after the destruction of the Temple and the
scattering of non-Christian Jews by the Romans, the Levitical system was
impossible. After 70AD the only permitted synagogues in Judea belonged to the
Christian Jews who left their distinctive artwork. The tithe never applied to
Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians could not practically tithe after the
Temple’s destruction in 70AD.
j.
Widespread
church purchases and formal buildings didn’t become possible until Constantine.
We are commanded to provide for those who minister to us, and expected that we
care for brethren in need.
k. Any mandated upkeep specific to the
church is not there in scripture. To treat any amount above the maintenance of
ministers and those in need is adding to what the Bible says. If we
restricted our giving to churches to what was needed to well support our
dedicated teachers, and gave generously and without counting to those in need,
we would be a much poorer church and much richer in spirit. Instead we
are robbing God and building a building.
l.
10% is a truly
arbitrary amount. You cannot guilt people into giving it without overstepping
authority. When confronted, the elders admit that 10% does not apply to the
church but then apply it anyway to guilt people into giving, even of their
gross income, to simply trust that the elders will be better stewards of their
money than they will.
m. 10% given entirely to the
church is likewise arbitrary and has no basis in scripture. Any insistence
otherwise is overstepping authority. We are adding to scripture.
n. 10% (or more) is as noble an amount
as any other for the congregant to give to God if their heart is convicted. So
long as the pastors are provided for, the congregant is the principal steward
as a temple himself of the Holy Spirit, using his wisdom to determine the best
use of the money. To stand on this 10% figure in such a way, especially in
context of the building campaign, is disingenuous at best.
o. Worst of all, in Deut 14, two out of
three years, the Hebrews consumed their tithe. At least a portion of it.
They took the tenth portion of their increase to the Tabernacle or Temple, and ate
it in front of the very God who gave it to them. Moreover, if the journey
was too arduous, they were encouraged to sell it for money, take that to the
tabernacle, and then buy “whatever their heart lusteth for” (I love how
the KJV puts it!), from wine to bulls to anything they wanted to eat. The tithe
was an annual provision for their own feasting, in sight of God! It was only
every third year that the entire tithe was to be taken for the Levites and the
impoverished living among them. I expect never to hear any sermon about how we
can take from our tithes and just enjoy it for ourselves, at church no less,
but that was God. He made giving easy, pleasurable. The elders turn it into a
burden, and insist we are to consider it free will giving.
22.
Pastor Leake’s
sermon of 4/9 illustrates this tone. After reminding us that each one should do
as he has purposed in his heart, that we should not give grudgingly or under
compulsion, that God loves a cheerful giver (true), he recognizes that Paul, in
wanting the people of Corinth to give, did not want people to feel pressure.
a. Pastor Leake preached “Why do people
not give?” and answers “It is the sin of covetousness.” Except this time some
may have not given, or given little, because they did not buy into the cause
and thought it a poor use of what God gave them. They might have seen their
reservation as wise stewardship, but it is pronounced only covetousness here.
If people had been in material suffering I expect we all would have given
without thought. Not all giving is the same. Not all giving is in fact wise or
discerning.
b. He said “Giving is to be done
cheerfully.” “Uh-oh!” he added in an increasingly common mocking tone that we have
seen in his sermons, making light of any who may not be eager to give. We give
easily and cheerfully to worthy purposes and hurting people.
c. He says “A grudging giver gives, but
he doesn’t want to give.” “How did you feel after you dropped your pledge in
the basket? Did you go home and pout, this past week?” I admit we did not want
to give to this. Each letter and sermon reinforced our feeling of greed from
the pulpit.
d. Yet we gave. I almost refused to
sign a pledge card on principle, but for the benefit of the doubt that it was
necessary and determining not to make any commitment beyond what was being put
in that day, I added it. We weighed what we were comfortable with against the
many red flags of this campaign and included that amount at the same time as
the pledge card. We did it despite the elders. We did it honoring the good will
and consciences of our brethren, many of whom gave very sacrificially. We gave
for their sake, for their use, to be part of their efforts, trusting that this
money was God’s who would demand account for how it was spent. We didn’t give
from guilt, but in their campaign these elders certainly stripped all joy from
it.
23.
It isn’t
cheerful giving, giving to just anything. It is cheerful giving when the giving
is for things that matter. Pastor Leake seemed to preach it backward, that we
ought to give when a cause is presented, and then be happy. If the cause is
meaningful, I think many in the church are happy giving. In pushing to give,
without presenting a truly meaningful case, this carries all the feeling of
people who just want the money. Don’t ask, just give.
24.
Pastor Plumley’s
letter of 3/7 states that getting out of debt is necessary, especially
in order to give properly to the church. Then in the same letter it
encourages the taking on of debt in the form of borrowing from retirement
funds or home equity. Get out of debt to give to the church. Go into debt to
give the church. This is grasping, materialistic hypocrisy that betrays no
real concern for the giver’s welfare.
25.
Beyond this, it
seems every avenue is described as to how one can get the money to give to the
church fund. This reads as conniving and materialistic. And unlike a one-time
gift, any debt is persistent for its term. If the congregant leaves for any
reason, including dissatisfaction with the practices or teaching, is he still
paying for a church he no longer agrees with? Is he now to cheat his new
church? And those who leave for jobs, when should their money be presented to
the new church? The one time borrowing has consequences that do not seem to
trouble the leaders.
26.
Church debt
is morally problematic,
even if considered as financially necessary as residential debt. No one member
is personally responsible for any of the debt. If the church declines, does the
church renege on a promised obligation to pay? The banks give worse loan terms
for this very reason, because irresponsible churches often borrow more than
they can ultimately continue to pay and go bankrupt. You can view this in the
cold monetary terms of modern financial saavy or in light of a destroyed
witness as a failure of God’s people to keep their promises to pay. By
approving the debt and no one being personally liable, is this honorable? Are
we committing future generations to pay who have no say in these terms?
27.
Worst, in order
to save the church, we introduce a material and vested interest to keep
people paying in. Will the church risk folding up, or compromise if necessary
to maintain funding? It seems like it already has compromised itself. There
will be now and going forward a new pressure to alter our preaching and styles
beyond principle alone, if we have trouble maintaining the debt. Borrowing from
the individual members of the congregation would have avoided at least some
concerns. And if we didn’t have the money, we have no business committing
ourselves.
28.
What happens
when the church goes bankrupt in debt?
Under current conditions it can scale up or down (generally) according to
changing provision. There is an honor in living within our means.
29.
Pastor Plumley’s
letter of 3/7, like others, only pays limited and final lip service to
stewardship of time and talents, after so many paragraphs detailing how
money can be procured and given.
30.
The idea of the
pledge comes out of professional campaign practices as a best-practice to
ensure giving. The idea is that if you promise the money that is not yet there,
then if you can’t easily pay later your guilt will still motivate you to do
everything you can to make it happen. This preys on those who want to give
much, but don’t have the resources by binding them by promise, even if their
situation changes materially. We disguise this under a banner of insisting
that people trust God to provide for their promise. The pledge may be a
free-will intention but the later payment may become a product solely of guilt
if it is not easily honored. It is not a good burden to place on people. Most
campaign web sites also caution that, of those who pledge, not all will have
the capacity or drive to fulfill them, hence repeated and insistent reminders
are necessary to minimize non-payments.
31.
Pastor Leake
refers to the change in people’s situation, in his sermon of 4/2. That giving
should be based on principle. Agreed, but the pledge is giving money you do not
have right now, that you must pay later. Better to either give when you pledge,
or pledge only when you have saved and can give. Hoping to hold people to their
pledge, despite whatever circumstance God may put them in later, in order to
increase revenue is wrong. We assume here that this cause is so just that God
will bless it, but it isn’t.
32.
The leadership
needed to sell people of the vision rather than arm-twist them into giving all
the while stressing that this is free will. It is not free will if you’re
considered faithless by not going along. This is the implication.
33.
When Pastor
Plumley visited the James’ small group, one respected brother presented the
common opinion that a healthy church must be growing and our growth here is
good. This is seriously flawed. That it was not corrected and allowed to stand
reflects a fundamental esteem of numbers and growth despite the real potential
for growing in unhealthy ways. Growth is in reality entirely controlled by God
according to purposes we don’t know. We grow or do not, and may never learn
why. We have found that the sweetest fellowship is often among the minority.
And Israel was always saved in a faithful remnant as the prosperous majority
fell away. The true church presents a stable medium to disseminate the Word and
minister to its people. Emphasizing growth without significant reflection is
dangerous.
34.
We preach
love, but in practice the ends justify the means.
35.
If any point is
most apparent to a reasonable observer it is that this church really wanted
the building and was laser focused on getting the funding for it, to the
filtering out and disregard of everything else.
36.
Also that the
church leadership seems to feel it is entitled to all funds necessary to
complete this move.
37. (A further and new assertion by
someone is that the evacuation of the Annex may have been done to make one
secretary a full time employee rather than to save money in advance of the
building move as was communicated to the congregation. This is to-date
unsubstantiated via documentation I’ve seen. However the coincidental
introduction of this third secretary with a significant salary necessitates a
higher expenditure.)
At the time we blamed Pastor Leake less during this campaign simply
because he spoke less about it. In his relative silence it was wishful thinking
he wasn’t in this as much as the others. Scott Barao was still more silent
except in points where he appeared decidedly uncomfortable or voiced the
discomfort. Still, conducted as an announced effort of a unified Elder Board,
the behavior was equally contemptible for all. It seemed to us that someone
should have resisted this, and if it couldn’t be stopped come out publicly
against it.
The giving links on the web page
As an aside, I just looked
at the HBC web page again. The very last tab is “Giving to Hope”. Yes, I understand
that in this day and age it’s not a bad idea to have an online link for this,
and Grace Community Church has something similar. It’s good that it is the last
link. But where GCC’s link takes you to a separate page, HBC’s page uses a
drop-down menu. Keep in mind, the front page is for frequently used links only.
Putting on full display links that will apply to very few here is a bad idea
because these carry information as to what the church thinks is important and
what it wants.
“Online Giving”, ok. But
“donate land” and “gifts of stocks/securities” really sends a message as to the
level of what the church wants and that it is not afraid to put this front and
center. In someone’s mind I’m sure this is entirely justified, but they have no
idea just how grasping this looks.
I think it’s just another
example of how disconnected and greedy the leadership is. If a person wants to
give these things, they contact the administration directly and quietly. GCC’s
single link goes to a dedicated page for this, and the only options on it are
those that would apply to the vast majority of people who want to give, using
methods that the vast majority would use. That is normal. This is not.
What HBC conveys to the
first time visitor who looks at the menus is that they are thinking about and
hoping for money enough to put rare and sizeable gift links on the home page.
Scott’s Accusation and Resignation
This
entire affair was colossally mismanaged and escalated by the elders, displaying
all the worst qualities of secular leaders let alone ministers of the Word of
God. It reeked end-to-end of obfuscation, outright deception and corporate
double-speak, with a deliberate aim of protecting the image of the leaders of
the church.
Our
initial conclusion, based entirely on the first two letters that Pastor Leake
sent publicly and the proceeds of the Tuesday night meeting were that, while we
did not have enough information to determine Scott’s character and
innocence/culpability with certainty, we had enough to believe solidly that the
elders were not above board. There were simply too many red flags, all
unforced, all volunteered loudly.
1.
Our trust in the
elders having been eroded during the building campaign, we were left to decide
based on incomplete information whether the elders could be trusted according
to their current words. Lack of trust was apparent in the questions the
congregation asked during the Tuesday meeting.
2.
Pastor Leake did
not understand that he had to build trust at this point, and made little
attempt to do so. The bank was empty, not full, for many of us, and he was not
in a position to make withdrawals. So every word would be scrutinized and
weighed carefully to determine what had happened and who was right.
3.
In such
situations, appearance matters. Transparency matters. Pastor Leake, David, and
to a lesser extent, Pastor Plumley, didn’t seem to appreciate this.
4.
Pastor Scott’s
departure was sudden, and the hurt in his words was plain. But beyond the
implication that he had been hurt, the public email revealed nearly nothing as
to the cause of this hurt. Pastor Leake’s immediate reply volunteered far more than
he should have in trying to convey that Scott had acted imprudently. He
escalated when a wiser person would have produced a softer response. We chalked
Scott’s email up to possible imprudence, and an error in sending to a wider
forum than Delta, and we excused Pastor Leake’s email as that of someone caught
off guard and raw with emotion.
5.
However, Pastor
Leake’s email focused very much on the principal offense of Scott as not having
followed protocol.
6.
He also revealed
freely that there were disagreements ongoing and had been in the past. Maybe
some knew, but for much of the congregation this was new information to cloud a
sense of elder unity. The Elder Board was not truly unified, contrary to their
usual insistence. He volunteered a real possibility as well that Scott may have
been legitimately hurt as a result of a disagreement.
7.
The response of
the leadership was saturated with legalese posturing. Pastor Leake’s email of
9/25, while alluding to past disagreements (suggesting that there may be more
similar past events in view here than this recent one), principally faults
Scott for his violation of process and method of resigning.
8.
It then
bizarrely asserts that the Elder Board (which by now consists only of 2 senior
elders and 1 newly-minted elder) is somehow unified. When a trusted senior
leader resigns, unity is in doubt by default. The board is not properly unified
when one member has left it. This defines disunity in showing a relationship so
broken that one member cannot continue.
9.
This Soviet-like
insistence that the whole leadership is unified, as if it should give us
comfort, is immediate cause for suspicion, indicating that a need to appear
unified in this time is a principal concern for the leadership. The
congregation, trusting Scott as much as the other elders, meanwhile wants to
know what could have happened that this worked out this way. A different
concern.
10.
No detail is
given in Pastor Leake’s letter. Only a reasonable admonition to not gossip or
jump to conclusions. But Scott’s principal offense from the letter, of how he
resigned, wasn’t in whatever the disagreement was. Only that he didn’t follow
process.
11.
One sister asked
on the public forum, under the announcement of the Tuesday meeting, if Scott
would be present. Her comment was immediately removed (despite being emailed to
many already). However a careless error was made and the original post about
the meeting was deleted instead. Ross then emailed to announce its reposting
because of the accidental deletion, unwittingly broadcasting to everyone that
he was actively censoring communication.
a. We have since heard (not from her)
that this sister was apparently reprimanded by the elders for asking. This is
despicable behavior. Rebecca had to stop me from writing a similar question.
I’m sure we weren’t alone in wanting to hear the other side.
12.
The meeting of
9/26 revealed a number of insights but few specific details. Delta, was
disproportionally upset, that was clear. Delta also believed it had more
information than the general congregation. At this point transparency is key to
managing the situation wisely. It’s hubris to imagine that you can tell most
people to not question when they believe that others have critical and relevant
information. This was also a test of how much trust the elders had. Those that
trusted them would censor themselves. Those that didn’t would seek the
information if not given it. This lack of trust is not disobedience on their
part, but the elder’s own fault.
13.
Pastor Leake
began by humbly sharing the pain of the congregation. This helped. But again
the principal sin he voiced is in the violation of process, for which Scott
lost the trust of the elders. Again more assertions from him of unity, which in
this regard is tone-deaf to what most felt. They were not worried yet about a
church split. They worried about what caused such a personal conflict between
people they love. This was not Pastor Leake’s principle concern, so he missed
it. He primarily was the offended party.
14.
The question
about a “church within a church” was startling as were many others. I guarantee
most of us had not heard that before. The points by Plumley and Mora about
trusting the elders of the church were strange, in that the departing elder was
also trusted and the congregation is placed in a position where they have to
consider who they trust more. As if Scott’s departure should cause them to
trust him less. It didn’t for many. That one sister practically baited Pastor
Leake to say more, what some others likely knew, was jarring.
15.
Pastor Leake’s
insistence that Scott was not under scrutiny for a sin issue cast his reaction
in a confused light. If it wasn’t that big of a deal, why resign like that? It
simply does not make sense, and he gave us nothing to make sense of it. His
assurances that he were following established procedures, and Scott bolted,
made far more sense if Scott believed that the process was being used as a
weapon. Process can be used effectively in the business world to get rid of
those with staying power, if you no longer want them. If they commit one
infraction, even accidentally, that is enough to move them out. This happens
all the time. If it came to this between brothers in Christ, this is truly
ugly.
16.
If Scott
provided an explanation to Pastor Leake in writing, yes, he could still stand
on established procedure, but if his innocence seems credible? And he gave us
his assurance that he did not believe Scott’s issue was deliberate. So we
conclude that this seems like it should have warranted consideration and
flexibility. Pastor Leake spoke about following the process, but there was very
little love apparent in his explanation of how this was handled, except in
insisting he tried to be loving.
17.
Humans create
the process. There is no virtue in following a man-made process to the letter
which treats someone callously who is likely not even guilty. Letter over love.
Rather than appear transparent and above reproach, Pastor Leake’s explanation
cast him as ambivalent on the charges. He did not believe that it rose to the
level of a sin and did not believe Scott intended evil, yet he was determined
to follow the process to the letter. Or, really, that what the entire point.
This was the beginnings of our suspicions that the Elder Board was run by
legalism. It’s a red flag when one stands so firmly on process, above all. Good
people don’t do that.
18.
At this point
more transparency was necessary not less. If the elders, even in attempting to
protect people are unable to provide the transparency they still earn a
reasonable, resultant consequence that some people will trust them no further.
That bank of trust eventually runs out without deposits.
19.
Roger’s
trumpeting of the new building, of getting more people, and being able to do
more presented a shockingly casual counterpoint to what we were there to discuss.
It was unnerving. Brandon’s eager nodding and clapping was out of place for the
gravity of the meeting. David’s high spoken preaching, finger shaking and
singing was out of place, as if they all were disconnected from the real
anguish the congregation faced. I believe they were.
20.
This was not a
training opportunity for David. Pastor Leake did not have to put him in. He had
not been an elder long enough to be any comfort to the congregation, nor with
such an upset was he trusted enough. When a senior elder goes, do not send in a
junior in his stead. It looks bad, even if David was entirely competent, which
I don’t believe he is. A wise person would have remained silent. He was eager
to prove himself a member of Pastor Leake’s team and stepped right in. This was
a mistake on the Pastor’s part. Only he and Pastor Plumley could realistically
affect the congregation and build trust at this point.
21.
This all lends a
sense that there are some in the congregation who are either apathetic to or
even welcoming of Scott’s departure. The “what can we learn?” line of
questioning and self-reflection yielded cognitive dissonance.
22.
Pastor Leake
made the statement that Scott refused to meet with one complainant. This is
troubling if Scott was actually headed out of town. Further inquiries and
information from his later correspondence would lend credence to the likelihood
that Scott was not even available for either a meeting with Pastor Leake prior
to the resignation or the Tuesday meeting.
a. Indeed, later, that is the assertion.
Scott wasn’t getting back until Wednesday.
b. Scott’s letter to many in Delta,
following the Tuesday meeting asserts that he attempted to text the one person,
named as Elias, to signal his availability to speak, and no response made it
back before Pastor Leake contacted him.
c. This is critical information. If
this whole resignation boils down to a single missed text message, the Elder
Board is at best incompetent for letting things spiral so out of control.
23.
Pastor Leake’s
second, “reassurance” letter of 9/29 came down further on Scott for violating
Hope resources and process. It has a lot of corporate doublespeak of missing
him (passively) and wishing him well. It also attempts to reassure external
listeners, donors among them. And then like a business letter, goes on to
highlight the achievements of the church which should show that we are healthy
and stable. This is disingenuous and manipulative. The church is trying to save
its public appearance.
24.
Who wrote that
letter? What alternate reality were they from? This sort of callous,
self-protecting, obfuscating language has no business in a church.
25.
Subsequent
emails attempt to revert to a business-as-usual/nothing-to-see-here mentality.
A meet on 10/2 proposed to host a potluck at the Zeender’s house and a prominent
member of that family was overheard as intending “get Delta back on track”.
26.
Pastor Leake’s
reassurance, being anything but reassuring, prompted me finally to reach out to
others and I got a copy of Scott’s letter to Delta that came as a response to
what Pastor Leake said on Tuesday. This was another missed opportunity to
de-escalate. Had he been more careful and transparent, there might not have
been that letter, where we discovered another take on the story. Bear in mind,
at this point, we didn’t know or trust Scott. We just believed we couldn’t
trust Tom, Alan or David.
27.
We have heard
from friends loyal to the elders about what sounds like a behind-the-scenes
character assassination of Scott, that Pastor Leake had to “pick up so many of
Scott’s messes” and he “had to be careful who he laid hands on”. This is
troubling. Behind closed doors there is the same indignant anger as expressed
in the emails. The Appendix in a later email stated the same, laying the blame
on Scott entirely and painting the elders as long suffering. It defies
credibility for a number of reasons, covered later in this document.
28.
What was unknown
to any of us was that Teresa Barao apparently submitted her own resignation
letter in April 2017, detailing unknown concerns she had to Pastor Leake. This
information would have been relevant to understanding Scott’s resignation.
29.
So much was
withheld from the congregation, including none of us hearing what the original
accusation was. Information was contradictory. It was on one hand so important
that an immediate face-to-face meeting was necessary. On the other hand, it was
not a sin issue nor was it deliberately intended. On the one hand, Scott didn’t
follow process. One the other hand it now appears he attempted to communicate
as promised.
30.
I am grateful
that Pastor Plumley spoke sparingly and with reservation throughout all this.
Outright deception during the Scott Affair: The Final Letter and Appendix
This
letter with its appendix was a travesty. Prior to it, we had missed so much
information. We heard conflicting reports and we had to make decisions that
would have consequences based on incomplete data. Finally, Pastor Leake wrote
this long email, and there was an appendix with point-by-point refutations. We
had wondered why he had been so reticent in releasing information, resulting in
so many red flags? The email was consistent with a long-suffering pastor who
can no longer afford the danger of division and is forced to respond. Were he
actually in the right, it felt perfectly reasonable as a response and long
overdue.
When
I saw it I said “At last, the elders are responding in force, with their
complete side of their story!” But no. No. Not at all.
This
appendix should never have been written. Whoever wrote it, their foolishness
stands alongside whoever approved its inclusion into Pastor Leake’s letter.
Fortunately for him, few read it apparently. I read it twice and blackened the
margins with ink. Rebecca read it twice in disbelief.
That
evening we were done, finding that the elders had entirely discredited
themselves. Four days later, we said goodbye. If we didn’t have certainty,
there was ample reason to suspect that the elders’ ill conduct in the matter
dwarfed anything Scott might have done.
Further,
the logic and rebuttal format in this appendix (Scott’s words, truth Scott did
not tell…) are very poor. I initially attributed it to David Mora due to some
similarities to his other writing but I am not certain as to the author. This
author cannot distinguish between relevant information and irrelevant. He
cannot distinguish between information that will strengthen his case or weaken
it. Maybe he believes it doesn’t matter. Is he right?
I
doubt anyone will have read this far, but here are my notes on the red flags,
point-by-point. If even two thirds of these points are correct, no reasonable
person would remain contented to remain under such leadership.
The
absolute worst thing the elders could do is release information on their own
volition that sounds autocratic, that drops hints that they do not consider
themselves accountable to others. If Scott fell afoul of Pastor Leake’s
leadership, and now some are worried about whose dissent may be next as a
target, hoping to be pacified and reassured, this letter is a disaster. It
unabashedly reflects imprudence, meanness, authoritarian expectations and an
appalling and self-incriminating lack of wisdom.
1. There is still no list of events and
timeline provided for how this affair began. This was absolutely necessary at
this point and omitting it could only serve to mask ill intent or misconduct on
the part of the elders.
2. There is still no publication of the
initial accusation against Scott, and therefore no way to gauge how serious or
not this issue is, nor whether it warranted the severity and immediacy of its
handling.
a. Pastor Leake had stated at the
meeting that he believed it was not a matter of sin nor was it intentional.
Isn’t divisiveness a sin? Isn’t it more than enough to put someone out of the
church? This is necessary information.
3. My later personal inquiry places the
timeline of events leading up to the accusation to be something like this:
a. Pastor Leake visited Suzanne Young’s
small group, unbeknownst to Scott as leader of the community.
i.
This may well
have been standard practice, as per later emails from the elders
b. Pastor Leake mentioned that the
communities may be going away as a system
c. Suzanne Young at the Sunday
community session immediately preceding the accusation, asked about the
dissolution of the community groups
d. Scott was apparently surprised
e. Ann Cain said something to the
effect that the dissolution of communities was significant to groups depending
on the pastor, implying that her community, Delta, would be more affected and
possibly resistant to the idea given that they liked their community group, and
by extension Scott’s leadership
f.
Elias (and
Roger) (named by others) reportedly arrived about this time.
g. Elias gave an aggressive push-back
to this statement in favor of the elders’ right to decide, and that dissension
here represented disloyalty to the elders in favor of a single elder, and
therefore division was in view if not confirmed.
h. The accusation is therefore likely
along the lines of whether Scott was trying to create a church within a church,
as asked of Pastor Leake, to which Pastor Leake responded in the negative that
the accusation had not been made by him.
i.
Both Suzanne
Young and Ann Cain would ask questions at the meeting about Scott’s resignation
on Tuesday.
j.
None of this
information was communicated to the congregation as a whole, but obtained by
speaking to others present.
4. Was the hearing to be conducted
while he was away, demanding immediate return?
a. Scott apparently maintains he was on
vacation on Tuesday and wanted to be part of a meeting after Wednesday. If so,
then the timing of the meeting appears deliberately intended to exclude him and
his absence painted disingenuously as an unwillingness to come.
5. [I.C.5] states that the witnesses
could not present their concerns because Scott cut off the process, but they
apparently gave statements of some kind. Corroboration would depend on multiple
witnesses, without Scott necessary to this, unless potential self-incrimination
is hoped for.
6. [II.C.1] implies Person 2 (Elias)
was denied the opportunity that day. Scott asserted in his letter that he sent
a text message when he was available. Elias either did not get the text message
or chose not to proceed with this phone call as intended and sent a prepared,
written copy as his statement to Pastor Leake. This information is critical to
understanding how the affair unfolded further. In providing this early Pastor
Leake might have had a shot at de-escalating this situation.
7. [II.C.2] Scott believed that Person
1 (believed known) did not approach him but went straight to the elders or
Pastor Leake. The implication from Tuesday’s meeting was that Person 1 was
unable to meet with Scott; this “unable” suggesting there may have been some
desire to meet but circumstances intervened. The statement in this appendix states
the account to have simply come up in general or casual conversation with
Pastor Leake.
8. This suggests either a violation of
Matt 18 or a situation serious enough to warrant another procedure, whereby
approaching Scott was the wrong thing to do. However, Scott’s belief is
consistent with what one might have thought if blindsided by the formal
accusation: a hasty but human impression. “Wouldn’t they have wanted to come
first to him?” is a reasonable question. If Scott was wrong about this
information, it is nonetheless consistent with how most humans would act and is
not indicative of Scott trying to re-color the discussion in his favor as is
suggested here.
9. [II.C.7] – as per III.A.1 – may
suggest he was writing early in this process and potentially that a meeting to
hear the accusation was to be called between Sunday and Wednesday at a time
when Scott was apparently out of town. This corroborates information not
discussed at the Tuesday meeting. Why hide that Scott’s being out of town was a
factor in how this played out? Unless Pastor Leake wanted to convince us there
are no legitimate mitigating reasons for why he did not do exactly as he was
told.
10. [IV.C.1] suggests Scott provides no
specifics of where the elders were false, but in fact the elders omit from the
letter Scott’s assertion that he was headed out of town, which made
communication with Elias problematic; a denial of Elias’ request may be
mitigated by Scott’s attempt to communicate his availability by text message,
and painting the failure to communicate as a refusal is misleading,
particularly when it is as likely that Elias did not respond as he agreed.
11. [V.C.1] the references to 1 Cor 5:13
and Titus 3:10 suggest that the issue was in fact serious enough to bypass Matt
18, contradicting Pastor Leake’s meeting’s assertions that no sin issue was
under consideration. Was it serious or not? If it wasn’t serious why did he
adamantly insist on keeping the formality? Was he so wed to his rules at the
expense of the people they are meant to serve? Here is the freely volunteered
introduction of legalism as a governing principle of the Elder Board.
12. [V.B.1] Here, the congregation is
referred to as “sheep” – this is technically true, but problematically put.
Reminding people they are sheep when you are giving the impression (or telling
them) you are withholding information presents a disturbing image of
unaccountability.
13. [V.C.1] These scriptures attempt to
show that Matt 18 may not apply in some serious situations, but beat around the
bush, leaving us to wonder: is the unknown accusation that Scott is causing
divisions and is a factious man? Shouldn’t this have come out earlier?
14. [V.C.2] That Scott should have
resigned quietly if he didn’t trust the Elder Board is true only if the Elder
Board is just. If the Elder Board is not just, it is faulting people for not
walking away and letting the injustice stand quietly, which only helps the
people acting unjustly. It is untrue if injustice is expected leaving a
question as to whether one should one walk away quietly for the sake of
congregational unity at the expense of truth? This is no longer an easy
question. If the elders are unjust, is it right to walk away and leave them to
visit injustice on others? This is an early and possible hint at both unaccountability
and autocracy as pertains to the elders. Is dissension stirred up more
important than truth? Is the unity of elders more critical than truth? Again,
this appendix plants in the mind these very questions by the elders’ own pen.
15. [V.C.3] Asserts that Tom, Alan and David
agreed after the issue had begun that this is the correct procedure. If Scott
did not agree at this point, holding him accountable to the majority decision
appears problematic and indicates that the majority really does rule, rather
than rule by a loving unity. This is another hint at autocratic and authoritarian
operation.
16. [V.C.6] 1 Tim 5 is misrepresented.
Nothing in this verse actually states that a body of elders must be gathered,
nor witnesses gathered, all together at the same time. This, then, is a
practice likely set down as internal rules, constructed as Hope’s application
of this verse. Biblically, if Pastor Leake wants to stand only on the verse, he
has the freedom to hear the witnesses one by one or together as he wishes, and
if elders should be gathered, nothing mandates that they should be or they
cannot hear witnesses independently. An application of Hope’s rules is here
conflated with the scripture, and these used to correct an assertion by
Scott that by scripture alone appears technically correct.
Violations of any internal rules are not tantamount to violations of scripture.
Now we’re back to wondering about legalism. If you want to stand on
By-Laws or other rules, you are free to do so, but do not elevate those
violations by saying we did exactly as the scriptures commanded.
17. [V.C.8] Scott’s assertion is that a
lack of respect for a fellow elder was at issue. The phrasing “Refused to
listen to Pastor Leake” may indicate autocratic behavior whereby no
matter the context, listening to him is always required. This appears as
patronizing language, particularly in the face of a reasoned plea for respect.
Clearly, these fellows are not equals, even as “first among equals (mentioned
elsewhere)” is intended to imply.
18. [V.C.9] Applying this practice
uniformly for any accusation against an elder is in fact a separate matter from
whether the practice applied this way is itself wrong. A wrong law applied
equally, or a law applied consistently wrongly, is still wrong. Standing on
laws wholly, without consideration of their morality, suggests legalism.
19. [V.C.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.” The Senior
Pastor’s role is defined as enforcing internal processes set up by him. This is
dictatorial, authoritarian, unaccountable language, and leaves no doubt
as to a very unequal viewing of the Elder Board. No scripture defines the
primacy of one non-apostolic or non-apostolic-appointed elder over another, or
commands obedience of one to another. In the past some were preeminent. The
accusation of one leader defying another leader can be true, without the act
itself being wrong, or the expectation of obedience being right. Refusing a
leader when that leader is clearly and seriously wrong is a generally
recognized virtue. Scott’s behavior being human, most would object to
compliance in the face of perceived injustice.
20. [VI.A.1] Scott discusses the nature
of a loving response, and of serving a man (he recognizes in writing a
seniority and hierarchy), and is met in the following response lines with a
people-agnostic legalism. You should never put a human-sounding,
gentle response next to harder, unyielding language as it casts the second
language in a very negative light.
21. [VI.C.1] Scott meeting with elders
originally may have been difficult if not impossible. If meeting on Tuesday was
even a physical possibility, in the face of aggression and injustice it is
entirely understandable why Scott does not comply or trust a fair hearing; it
is unreasonable to expect that he would. To fault someone for not following
one’s rules to their undoing is unloving and legalistic.
22. [VI.C.2] How this began does not
sound loving, despite assurances. Again, legalism. This author claims a
process to be loving and blames the human being who, perceiving it normally,
finds it anything but loving. These rules may a weapon and he calls it love. It
doesn’t seem to matter at all to him what a normal person would feel on the
other side.
23. [VI.D.1] If Scott jumped to negative
conclusions as to Pastor Leake’s motives and actions, it is reasonable that
most in his place would jump to the same negative conclusions. This implies a
leader who commands others and is unaccustomed to explaining himself. This
letter paints him as autocratic and unanswerable.
24. [VII.C.2] Scott’s initial words that
began this are not told to the entire congregation, and this evidences a lack
of transparency. The elders appear unaccountable. We are to trust them,
and not demand answers to our questions as to what happened. The elders owe no
explanations to the congregation.
25. [VII.C.3] It may as easily have been
said that the elders escalated the situation and refuse responsibility. Again,
this suggests autocracy and unaccountability. Scott’s original
email to delta contained no specific material to falsify and no outright
assertions of wrong-doing. His more specific email came only after the Tuesday
night meeting.
26. [VII.C.5] Here we contradict earlier
statements that suggest the matter was serious enough that Scott leaving or
being removed was possible, which in turn contradict earlier statements that it
was not serious. This appears as obfuscation and deception, that
the nature of the charge changes depending on what angle you are trying
to sell. This also opens a possibility that not rushing the process may have in
fact been possible but the elders refused. So now, is it possible that the
elders really were looking to get rid of Scott? This appendix raises this
possibility.
27. [VII.C.6] Earlier, untreated issues
reflect poorly on the Pastors. If problems with Scott’s work as an elder were
overlooked by the other elders as parties responsible for handling them, then
they share blame for letting this continue. Asserting that words of division
(which were not brought to committee to defend their current handling of the
event) implies that conclusions were reached without proper process after all.
This indicates either incompetence on the part of the elders for allowing a
potentially divisive man to retain a leadership role or that these were trivial
issues and are brought out only now to reinforce a negative image of Scott.
This is incompetence and/or unaccountability.
28. [VIII.C.1-3] “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.” This is an outright lie, as per
documentation, on the grounds that it was hardly insightful, it was
extremely aggressive and personal, with no tone that may conceivably be
described as loving. That the letter may have been personal and offensive is as
well partly alluded to by David’s “agreement that the timing might have been
better to send it” suggesting that it is not neutral, or would not have been
received as such, and that others had spoken to him about its content
particularly in some vein.
29. [VIII.C.1] (David’s great sin is
only in his timing? Really?)
30. [VIII.C.2] “Shepherds don’t tear
down their fellow shepherds.” True. On the other hand, if wrong-doing is
believed to have been committed, its revelation is not the same thing as the
undermining implied in this phrase.
31. [VIII.C.2] Use of the phrase
“hirelings” to call Scott a “hireling” is enormously disrespectful. Since David
hopes for a full time, paid ministry position and Scott did not, it is also a
poor choice of words which convey contempt by David for Scott.
32. [VIII.C.2] Seen differently, by
communicating with Delta Scott was attempting NOT to abandon his sheep, to “cut
and run”. Slinking away quietly and suddenly would have effectively abandoned
them. The congregation would have a difficult time with an elder stepping down
and remaining a member. A quiet resolution benefits only the elders,
particularly if they are unjust. This now seems likely. The unjust always hope
for the inconvenient person to slip away. The just look for a real resolution.
This suggests outright deception, autocratic and unaccountable
behavior.
33. [IX.B.1] Here we have an admission
of shutting down Hopebook for the purposes of preventing Scott’s communication.
The real issue is the argument of nicer motives than Scott attributed. This
reminds me of Soviet-style cover-up language. No he’s wrong: yes, we did it
to prevent him from speaking or writing, but only for the nicest of reasons.
This is another hint at deception, unprovable assertions,
and even technical agreement with Scott as to what
happened. If Scott is divisive, shut down his access categorically as a matter
of responsible leadership.
34. [IX.C.1] There is the unanswered and
potential accident that Scott’s message to Delta was broadcast to the entire
church. If someone knows more, it isn’t being said. Clearly, the elders are concerned
with their image and resulting awkwardness. Scott’s sin is very much
putting church in bad light. Which is what Pastor Leake was so angry about in
his first email following Scott’s resignation. From the writing, it had nothing
to do with his actual relationship with him. So was the mournful humility
at the Tuesday meeting just a show? We get to wonder this now, too. We consider
a lack of real love here.
35. [IX.C.3] Unless the elders had acted
to remove a sitting elder, how can the author complain that he had no idea what
Scott would do? It’s as if the writer is apologizing to the congregation for
not policing a sitting elder better. Until judged unfit, Scott was technically
free to send to his community prior to agreeing to meet with elders. This is an
inconvenience for the leadership but unless a preliminary judgment had been
made, he remained free to do this. The elders are then incensed by the
inconvenience. Unaccountable and autocratic, they did not actually
conceive that someone would go around them. And right or wrong, Scott did.
36. [IX.D.1] Scott’s introduction of any
suspicion of the elders is at this point dwarfed by the suspicion the elders
created of themselves through their own actions and this correspondence.
37. [X.A.1] Scott’s assertion that
Pastor Leake is heavy handed is beginning to sound about right, just from this
correspondence. His assertion that his overarching issue is a lack of respect
and congeniality is in line with this idea. This is indicative of autocratic
behavior.
38. [X.A.1] The conversation is labeled “from
email to the elders”. This internal conversation with more frank accusations
should NEVER, EVER have been made public as it is far more damning to the
elders than to Scott and bringing it out into the open can only damage Pastor
Leake’s image. This demonstrates the tunnel-vision the elders all had, where
they didn’t imagine anything they said could be turned back on them. They
appear unaccountable. At this point, if they had a good PR person on
their staff, he has long since departed, washing his hands of them.
39. [X.C.4] This suggests “rule by
By-Law” of the congregation and Elder Board. The exact wording may be read as authoritarian
and legalistic. Again, the focus on rules, and enforcement. This is a
persistent theme here, and pushes the notion that breaking the rules is a
terrible sin. Yes, message received by all of us.
40. [X.C.4] These By-laws use
non-Biblical language to enshrine primacy of senior pastor. Elders follow
Pastor Leake’s leadership. “Put his foot down” lends the casual implication of
a leadership that is autocratic. Elders cannot oppose the Senior Pastor.
Dissent must give way to acquiescence.
41. [X.C.4] The Senior Pastor is to be
obeyed and honored by his position, whether or not the person in it has earned
any personal trust – this is written irrespective of any principle. Compliance
can be met by acquiescence or heavy-handedness, but there is no discussion
about convincing people and earning trust. This is autocratic, unaccountable,
language.
42. [X.C.5] Again, the language is
problematic: that the other elders are to follow Pastor Leak’s lead, with Scott
not complying, suggests a heavy-handed response can be applied as necessary.
More autocratic language.
43. [XI.A.1] Again, it was a terrible
idea to reveal internal communication, and as well a non-legalistic,
impassioned, explanatory response from Scott which strikes the reader as
reasonable.
44. [XI.A.1] Pastor Leake has no
obligation, certainly, but Scott is free to suggest that it is respectful and
even a good idea. This may open up questions as to a lack of wisdom or autocratic
leanings on Pastor Leake’s part in not making a habit to keep his leaders more
aware of his visits. It’s a common courtesy used to prevent misunderstandings.
45. [XI.C.3] This wording is
problematic: he “never has had a habit of informing the elders of any meetings
unless they ask him”. More autocratic language that opens the
possibility that “do they really think/act like that?” An assumption is made
that Scott was generally aware which may be disputed by Scott who was
reportedly unaware. Guilty people use arguments like “well, they should have
known” to cover for when they failed to do something that is a commonly
recognized courtesy.
46. [XII.A.1] This should not have been
addressed as it is not relevant to the immediate problem. The author should not
address feelings. Because it makes the elders look callous and pettily
angry with how someone feels.
47. [XII.C.1] Scott’s implication is
that the turmoil was self-evident. The argument comes back, why did you not
tell us? Really? Did the elders really not know? Were the interactions really
so peaceful? Pastor Leake’s very first letter indicates that there were
disputes, arguing the difference here is that this one was not resolved. So
now, we add unreasonable, autocratic, and deceptive language
to this thinking.
48. [XII.C.2] This is a patently
childish response “even if there was, he was part of [it]”
49. [XII.C.5] Here, the writer confirms
that the building issue is somehow at the heart of this. Scott did not mention
the building and this is entirely unforced. This is a terrific lack of
judgment showing that the author is not worried about looking bad.
50. [XII.C.5] And we spin the
language as to the outcomes (somehow we hung together), of an admitted and
serious conflict to preserve some image of childhood squabbles always
resolving. It is simply not believable. The farther into this appendix
we go, the worse it sounds and the freer the language.
51. [XII.D.1] Any outsider reading this
letter carefully may come to the exact opposite conclusion, extracting information
from what the writer attempts miserably to hide. This appears as an unfounded
accusation as it seems from earlier statements that Scott is likely correct
about conflict on the Elder Board
52. [XIII.C] Technically, none of these
items actually refute the assertion of conflict on the Elder Board. All of
these could be true whether Pastor Leake loved or despised Rod. It’s deceptive
language, and clumsy and unnecessary to what the writer hopes to convey.
53. [XIII.C] Documentation exists to
demonstrate that the assertion of unqualified support and care for Rod is an outright
lie, as was Pastor Leake’s Tuesday meeting response that “to his knowledge,
there was no connection” between Rod’s and Scott’s departure.
54. [XIII.C.8] “Views were compatible
with the By-laws of HBC” And we are back to emphasizing the By-Laws. The notion
the writer hopes to convey, that a good relationship between Rod and HBC is
strangely reduced to an agreement with HBC’s By-Laws. Autocratic and legalistic
language here.
55. [XIII.C.11] The unintended
implication of this statement is in fact that Rod did not see a viable place
for himself at HBC – what he can give the leadership is not needed or wanted.
They make Scott’s assertion of Rod being tossed under bus seem plausible.
Inadvertently, are we in fact confirming Scott here?
56. [XIII.C.12] Professional courtesy is
not evidence of cordial relations. Managers do this to despised employees all
the time to get rid of them. This demonstrates little and may be obfuscatory
language.
57. [XIV.C.1] Believe “definitive
doctrinal statement/exact philosophy of ministry/hybrid theology … few have” is
language suggesting controlling, narrowly dogmatic approaches. This exact
vision tellingly leaves out the priority of finding spirit-led people, as if
that part we can assume. Or perhaps it suggests that few people who are spirit
led exist apart from endorsing Hope’s rare, hybrid theology. This is autocratic
language.
58. [XIV.C.4] This could indicate an
actual misunderstanding by Scott or, by the elders and Tony, a possible
stonewalling or circling of wagons despite truth of conflict.
a. It is now recommended that Pastor
Tony is NOT the elder in Scott’s question, but rather Charles Jolly. In which
case, inserting Pastor Tony is either a mistake or intended to be deceptive
by substituting someone who had no issues.
59. [XIV.C.5] We had heard that one particular
person we know, not named in this line, is one of the five elders candidates.
If correct, it is troubling to us. The installation of more potential inferior
or pliable candidates, particularly someone we believe inclines to social
climbing is troubling. If this incorrect, we have omitted his name in this
event.
60. [XIV.C.5.a] Written statements by
both Rod and Tony would have been preferable way to handle doubts, particularly
since Rod’s departure was questioned.
61. [XIV.C.6] This reads like a PR
statement.
62. [XIV.C.8] Referencing the Charlie
Jolly incident. He “did not believe Bylaws”, “realized he made an ethical
mistake”, “withdrew himself” reads like Soviet propaganda; raises more
questions as to supremacy of By-laws [legalism]. If the reactions are noble and
self-correcting, the following sentence (accusing without details) about
hurting three churches is contradictory. Again, these By-Laws are front and
center as the source of conflict. This is a very troubling and unforced
admission, likely indicating a cover-up of what happened.
63. [XV.C.1] Scott makes a plain
assertion. The response here is not actually verifiable. It relies on someone
already trusting the writer. It would have been far better to get a clear,
written statement from Rod. Even if it is true that Rod was treated well, it
may have not been perceived this way by Scott. This is language of possible
deception and coverup and does not actually demonstrate what the writer
intends.
64. [XV.C.3] Oh. Wow. “not even at the
meeting” unwittingly puts one single particular meeting in view, further moving
closer to confirming Scott’s allegations of general mistreatment by identifying
a specific incident that everyone’s mind goes back to automatically. This is
unforced. If intended to discredit Scott’s allegation, it sounds like a damning,
unforced admission.
65. [XV.C.5] “asked to continue to be
one of our teachers at … GAMA” confirms that the meeting was about his
Pastorship specific to HBC. This is an unforced admission, and
possible confirmation of Scott.
66. [XVI.C.2] The accusation of
“overbearing and very poor fit” is here an unsubstantiated allegation against
someone unknown to most of the congregation. This reads very badly as a clumsy
attempt to paint Pastor Leake as an outright miserable victim of bad people. We
don’t know the source of the conflict and we are expected to take this word for
it. It works best if one is already trusted. Here, introducing new people just
to slam them for the sympathy effect appears deceptive and childish.
67. [XVI.C.2] “hardly wants to repeat
that mistake” suggests the mistake is principally Pastor Leake’s and his domain
alone to make decision. It’s the laugh of an autocratic personality,
bemoaning the difficulty of being entirely in control.
68. [XVI.C.3] This job description paper
may have been unnecessary to reflect discussions taking place. Scott is not disproved
in not reading the actual copy if he was party to discussions. The writer
doesn’t understand what is needed to disprove assertions. Addressing false
assertions without being able to disprove them effectively makes them stronger.
The writer is incompetent.
69. [XVI.C.5.c] “like-mindedness” may be
read alternately as absolutely controlling the direction of the congregation.
Here we have authoritarian, autocratic language.
70. [XVI.C.7] Referencing friendly
congregations does not disprove the desire to absolutely control those who are
part of one’s own. It’s a diversionary argument, substituting another element
for the one actually in question.
71. [XVI.D.1] In contrast to the
assertion that Scott has substantiated little, the elders by this appendix have
not substantiated very much either. They have said little that is actually
unfalsifiable and thus true. And they spent 12-16 pages (depending on the
printer) to do it. And freely opened themselves up to a myriad of new questions
as to their own conduct. Just from a secular perspective, the writer who wrote
this appears incompetent. The persons who approved and sent it appear autocratic
and unaccountable.
No comments:
Post a Comment