HBC Troubles: Alan Responds

Three days later, after I sent my explanation, Alan responded. I have no idea if Tom Leak read it, or (probably) just handed it off to Alan as I believe he, right or wrong, does with a number of different administrative items.

Much of it boils down to that we are considered cowards that we didn't, in good faith, go talk to the elders.

Of course, while I had mentioned this in earlier drafts of the explanation, and Rebecca removed it so as not to incriminate others, I had already debriefed several different people who had spoken with Tom and Alan (and David was usually there).
So I had a good sense of what could be expected. I had wrestled with the question of setting up an appointment for the sake of honor. Since Matt 18 did not apply (for a number of reasons, outlined earlier and later), discretion seemed the better part of valor. It would be an exercise in futility to approach them given what I'm heard, and I would be adding nothing new to them.

As well, I had been shown personal correspondence from Tom Leake to another elder regarding the expulsion of the first of those two departed elders, one recalling him from a sister church in disgrace for not being subservient to that senior pastor, and another demanding his resignation from Hope for the same. So I already knew that what the congregation had been consistently told about the first elder departing, both by Hope's elders and by that elder himself! was deception, lie, spin. (The sad reality is that I met the first elder later -- that whole charade, aided by the victim, done to salvage some benefit, didn't save him from anything he would endure).

At any point, originally biased to give Hope the benefit of the doubt, even if I didn't have enough information to exonerate either of the two elders who left, there simply was no credibility left on the part of Tom and Alan.

From: Alan Plumley [mailto:alan.plumley@hopebiblechurch.org]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:06 AM
To: David James Parkinson
Cc: Pastor Leake Tom Frank
Subject: Re: Parkinsons, departure summary

Dear David,

I read with interest every word of your attachment.  As I got into it, I had two immediate responses:

(1) “Lord, please use this to teach me and to make me wiser,” and

(2) “Lord, please use me to help David.”

I am responding to you here in the context of that second prayer.

Frankly, I am astonished—not so much that you had concerns and questions, but that instead of talking with us directly during these events to get the facts and to discuss key points of biblical interpretation and application, you made judgments about our motives and character, treated those assumptions as true, and continued to interpret all our subsequent words and actions through the lens of your unverified assumptions.  That’s relational eisegesis—reading into people’s words and actions meaning and motives that aren’t there.  Instead of checking with us, you continued cataloging all the things you had against us.  Even if only 1% of your conclusions were accurate, Scripture requires you to have come to us directly to establish the facts so as to correct whatever error (even sin) might have been present in either us or you.  To their credit, others have done so.  You opted, instead, to catalogue your issues over many months, announce your departure, then, as a “final task of conscience” send your list of accusations to us.  Where was your conscience throughout this process?

I would urge you in brotherly love to treat your next shepherds (and any brothers and sisters) with more humility and a commitment to truth and love.

For the Chief Shepherd,

Pastor Plumley