Commandments

God's laws aren't to "confine" you or "take away your freedom". They're there for your own safety and protection.

Example seen on a random website:

"Married mother of two Els Van Doren was caught up in a love triangle with two other members of her skydiving club: Marcel 'Mars' Somers (male), and Els 'Babs' Clottemans (female). Perhaps it was wise of Mars to choose two lovers with the same first name -- he'd never say the wrong one by accident. But it was less wise to abandon one for the other in the same house. Even less to leave the jilted lover alone with the skydiving gear. In an obvious move in retrospect, Babs got a pair of scissors, cut Van Doren's parachute cords, and headed off to bed. One week later, the trio leapt from a Cessna at 13,000 feet."

Wow. And it all could have been prevented, had only someone paid attention to that whole "adultery" and "coveting" thing.

Judge not, lest ye be judged

Are we to never judge? Some think that, but they're wrong. It is true, Biblically, that it is okay to "Judge". The "Judge not, lest ye be judged" applies to making a "final" judgment, as to whether the person in question is to be saved or not. It does not apply to day to day judgments.

Regular old judgments like "is the person who just ran off with my wallet a thief?" we are not only allowed to make, but are commanded to "judge in righteousness".

However, some kinds of judgment about a person's sinning status are not in righteousness. And, for full disclosure, I've sinned the sin of judging unrighteously before, and it's a sin I still work on to this very day.

1. If the thing you are judging them of is not a salvation issue. Such as if they are a poor dresser. Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are not, but it is not a salvation issue. It is not a "righteous" judgment, but just being judgmental.

2. If the thing you are judging them on might be a sin, but reasonable people could think that it was not. Such as the guy who doubles the price of the water and food he sells right after a hurricane. Does this reflect an honest assessment of greater costs, or is he trying to make a fast buck? Reasonable people could come to differing conclusions, only God knows for sure, therefore to judge would not be righteous, but only being judgmental.

3. If the thing you are judging them on is something you then trumpet about for they to be shamed in front of everyone. It is one thing to quietly judge that the little strumpet your son wants to date is, in actuality a strumpet. It would be quite another to post about her trampiness on social media, or to let the whole congregation know you think she is of loose virtue.

"Judging in righteousness" then, while allowed, and even commanded, should be done with great caution. In the case of the poor dresser, I'd not do it at all. In the case of the potential price gouger, I should phrase it as, "It appears such may be a possibility, but such is between he and his Maker." In the case of the strumpet, it need not be mentioned to anyone. Well, except to your son!

Oh, sure, one could go up to the poor dresser, the price gouger and/or the strumpet. If you really are concerned about saving their soul, sure, go discuss it with them. Other than that, though...may as well leave it alone.

Skipping the Sermon on the Mount

I wonder if way back in the day, when people were going to the Mount to hear Jesus give a sermon, if there were some who didn't go, saying:

...I'll go next week!

...I'm not going, Jebediah is going, and he sucks!

...I'm not religious, I'm spiritual!

...You know who else preaches outside? Pagans!

...I hear that there are a lot of sinners who are going!

...I hear some attending are hypocrites!

...I hear they're even letting Romans come!

...I can just read my scriptures at home!

...Did this guy even go to Divinity school?

Now me, I know people I love who have used some of these excuses. And I know people I should love and don't quite, who have used some of these excuses.

And that's all they really are. Excuses.

"My friend couldn't make it, some here haven't showered."

Could it be said by some that they are actually "good reasons"? Well, I've said before, "Satan never tempts you with bad reasons. He tempts you with good reasons - that's why it's tempting!"

In actuality, the only reason for not going to church is for being aged, infirm, ill, injured or some such like that. Something that literally makes it impossible for you to go, or more damaging to you to go then not.

It's not like I've never missed church for a migraine - I have. But I will never miss church for mean Mrs. Grundy being there, or my sure knowledge that Old Man Potter kicked his dog last week, or how they even "let" French people attend! (I hope there's no French people reading this, and please know some of my best friends are frogs - er, French!)

But honestly, if you think there is something or someone going on at church so terrible, you need to sit down and evaluate that church. Is the church honestly wrong in letting that situation or someone be present?

If so, then you are saying the church itself is wrong, and that it's time for another church.

Whoah, whoah, you exclaim, you're not saying the church is that bad? The church is still true, it's just some local bobble or if world wide, not truly so bad as to mean finding another church?

Well then? Well?

If the problem is not worth leaving the Church itself over, then the problem, however bad it is seeming to you cannot be enough to boycott church. Nor would God or His Son Jesus or the Holy Spirit counsel such.

Jesus did not forsake the Temple because Pharisees were in there! Nor did His Disciples!

Being Tested in Faith

If only God would tell us in advance that He was about to test us, what would we not be willing to endure?

Does He want us to wear a crown of thorns? Sure, we're up for that! Does He want us to carry a literal cross? You bet! Just tell us how far!

Yeah, it's kind of almost easy, isn't it? If He personally comes and tells you to do this or that. Yeah, you'd know it would be physically hard, but hey, even if you died, pretty much a guarantee of where you'll eventually wind up, huh?

But He doesn't.

Oh, wait, don't get me wrong. You do get tested. But they are tests pertaining to this life on Earth, this imperfect world, tests due to our own sinning natures and the sinning natures of others. God Himself is not throwing stumbling blocks at you, He is simply observing how you handle the ones that come about naturally.

Swim this stormy sea?  Or deal courteously with that
dork in the next cubicle who stole your candy?  Yeah,
sure, I'll hold your watch and wallet.

God watches how you deal with those tests. Is your faith in Him strong enough to deal with those? The co-worker who did you wrong, the church brother who did you wrong, the family member who did you wrong? And a million other petty things from that guy who bumped you to the loan officer who turned you down on a technicality?

Can you pass those tests? Because from my own personal experience, and seeing and hearing of the pain of others I know who've been through various of life's travails, those can be pretty hard tests.

Those tests can make cross carrying and crown of thorn wearing look pretty darn good.

But see, God really is about knowing our hearts and seeing how strong our faith is. It really is no test at all if we are told in advance that we'll endure a given amount of pain and then get a sure reward.

The real test of faith is - can you deal with life's routine crap, and still love Him and still love His son and still love His children, including the ones who annoyed you to no end?

Loving Him and His son no matter what, yeah, maybe we're all down with that. But loving our enemies - or just friends and family and acquaintances that annoy us - hmmm...that's the real test now, isn't it?

The Parable of the Unforgiving Wealthy

Compare Matthew 18:23-35, the Parable of the Unforgiving Debtor with how it works nowadays.  In the parable, the Unforgiving Debtor was failing to forgive one who owed him money.  Nowadays, he steals from the poor, gives to the rich, and tells the poor piously, "Welfare is socialism".

Matthew 18:23-35

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Modern version:  The bankers and brokers did take in an abundant amount of money from the poor and working folks who trusted them, and then did squander it away on vacations and second houses and mistresses.  Then they cried out to the government saying, "Bail us out, for we are to big to fail!" and the government did hear their cries, and yea, even did rob the very people who had already been robbed, and did give abundantly to the bankers and brokers.

Then did the poor and working folk cry out, "Please, let us have some measure of aid in healthcare, and some bit of food per month, that we who have had so much took might yet get by."  But the bankers and brokers and any who were better off did harden their hearts and say, "No, for that is socialism, and theft, for the taking of money from one man for the benefit of another is wrong."

And the Lord seeing all that - well, what do YOU think He'll do?

A Tale of Two Weddings

Liberal logic:  African American wedding planners have a right not to plan a wedding at a Plantation, because that has them participating in a glorification of slavery.  But Christians must be compelled to participate in making cakes to celebrate the "marriage" of two guys.

Here's a pic of an exchange posted on Cracked, a humor site, about an African American woman not wishing to do the Plantation marriage:

Now what if we did the same conversation, but it was a Christian baker and gay man?

Him:  "We love your bakery!"
Christian:  "Oh great!  Do you understand the concept of the brand?"
Him:  "Yes, and we love it.  We're both about faith!"
Christian: *pauses* "...ok, that's great.  So where are you in the process?"
Him:  "We only have the cake idea so far."
Christian:  "Great!  What's the idea?"
Him:  "To have two grooms on the top and it say, 'Tanner and Chad 4ever' in pink icing"!
Christian:  "I don't do those kind of wedding cakes."
Him:  "Is there a problem?"
Christian:  "I'm Christian."
Him:  "Oh, I know!"
Christian:  "So why would you think I'd do a cake celebrating the sin of sodomy?"
Him:  "Well, it's not you having sex, it's just you baking!"
Christian:  "But it helps celebrate the sinful sex you have, does it not?"
Him:  "Well...I mean...we already decided on it."
Christian: *petty rising* "So all you need is a good and decent Christian to make it for you?"
Him:  "Yeah.  And chop chop!"
Christian:  "Thanks for the interest, but I won't be able to help you.  I'll pray for you."
Him:  "We'll sue!  It's our right to have you violate your conscience and your faith for our way of life!"

Yeah, I had to change the last few lines, as homosexuals are apparently not as polite, decent and well-mannered as idiotic southern racists are.  Unlike the naive racism of some oblivious whites, the modern homosexual is strident in knowing that it's his world, and we just pray in it till Judgement Day.

PR is crucial

Drunkards need a PR guy. He can help us get a flag, like the LBGTQ one. Then we can get drunk in the chapel and yell, "We're here, we drink beer, get used to it!" and advocate for ministers to give sermons while drunk.

Because that's how it works, right? Churches are to "accept" and "tolerate" everything and everyone no matter what, right? Just because a church sees a sinner sinning doesn't mean they are to ever judge, huh?

A church is just there to say - well, not "now, now", that would be too harsh and judgmental, but rather, a church should just, well, shut up and let people go about as they please. If anything, they should give sermons on how the people are correct to do as they please, right?

I mean, isn't alcoholism a disease? Isn't it in my nature, as surely as it's Tanner's nature to hook up with Chad?

Yeah, I just heard about Australia. Another continent fallen to the idiocy that is the LBGTQ "cause". Where a minor and sinful fetish is now enshrined as a way of life to be revered and never questioned.

Dirty Laundry? Goodness!

Churches sometimes have dirty laundry.

Example:  Elder Kevin (not his real name) insults a guy's mother.  It was done in a way to try to make a new member couple stop being the guy's friend, and thus maybe not vote that guy's way at an upcoming Business Meeting on how to spend building funds.

That Elder who did that pretended to resign from everything till the "leadership" begged him to return.  Members who complained about that type of horse crap?  Counseled on how they complained at the wrong time and place, they were un-Christ-like, and needed to forgive.

Example:  Elder Kevin, (still not his real name), cost the church $30,000 and more on doing stuff he had been told not to do.  No consequences, of course.  At a Business Meeting he calmly proposed on another matter that a church member - who had done no wrong - be held accountable for a contractor costing the church money.  Why?  Because the member signed the contract that the Church Board - including this Elder - had said to sign.

Example:  Elder Kevin, yeah, he's the recurring theme here, had his wife help drive off a visitor and potential new member by deciding to mouth off at a Bible Study about how Ellen White was wrong and not inspired and not a Prophetess at all.  But that was okay, he was busy lying to other visitors, telling them that if they joined and voted the correct way, he could get them jobs on that building project he was pushing the church to do.

Consequences?  Please.  When the members complained, they were told to stop being un-Christ-like and to forgive.

Example:  A Board member wants to lie at a meeting and then silence a member who calls him on it.  The Head Elder backs him in this, so do some other Board members.  Another Board member lies about a guy's wife.  Another Board member insults another's child.  Several Board members insult each other, and this is a routine that has gone on for years before a new guy (me) joined and watched it continue on, with dozens of examples available to cite over the past six months.

Consequences?  Oh, when the Business Meeting was called, the Head Elder who lets Elder Kevin savage the flock as he pleases turned over the meeting to another "Leader" who then gave we lowly members a disgustingly condescending slide show about children in the sandbox and how those naughty children should not argue with each other.

Really.  Hard to believe, I know.  But 31 adults, including a non-member, got to watch "leadership" give a smarmy lecture on how we needed to behave.  I guess we should be grateful they "let" us have a Business Meeting at all, huh?

It was tempting to get up and say, "If the mommies and daddies neglecting those kids in the sandbox weren't fighting so loudly in front of them, then maybe those poor kids could learn by example."  Or better, to quote the old drug commercial, where the hypocritical father demands of his son, "Who taught you to do this?" and the kid says, "You, okay?!  I learned it from watching you!"

But then comes the hilarity of some of the members posting complaints on social media, not naming names, but describing their pain and frustration of having to deal with this nonsense.  And then it's said that this should not be done.

Why?

Because it might put the church in a bad light!

lol

Yeah, that's pretty darkly hilarious!  The entire leadership at each other's throats for four plus years, that's okay.  Driving off visitors, insulting new members and lying about them, insulting each other and lying about each other, all that's okay.  Let's all listen to the Chief Elder talk about forgiveness for the 18,393rd time!

But mentioning it?  Oh, me oh my and mercy me!  That's making the church look ugly!

Here's a news flash:  The leaders in the church being ugly and tolerating ugliness, it is THAT and ONLY THAT which makes the church look ugly.  No visitor drove off with leader lies, no new member harassed and being lied about needed to glance at social media to see - and FEEL - that ugliness.

Any leader out there then - and there are good ones - needs to reflect that sometimes being a good guy or good gal is not enough.  To be a good LEADER means you actually have to rein the bad leaders in.  That when you see something, you must say something, and do something.

Oh, I've heard the leadership whines.   The very ones who insultingly speak to us as if we are kiddies in a sandbox.  "Oh, we don't get paid!" and "Oh, we're just volunteers!" and "Oh, it was my best!".  As I've remarked elsewhere, when you're running an agency dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars of other people's money, that just doesn't cut it.

If not getting paid - other than in honor and pride and position and authority - is a problem, quit.  If serving Christ's church on a "volunteer" basis is not sufficient, quit.  And if this what is clearly able to be seen - and without logging on to facebook - is what is your "best", then heaven help us all, but please, again, quit.

Part of my own anger on this mess is that I run a charitable agency and have no salary.  It never would have crossed my mind to fail the men I serve as miserably as I have seen "leadership" do, and then try to fob them off with "Oh, I'm not paid!" or "Oh, it was my best!"

I remember once, to take but a single example, of when the refrigerator at a sober living home broke.  I knew I could get another, but it might take a week.  I took them a refrigerator at once - and my wife and I made do without one for that week.  Did they know?  No.

Because it was my job to DO, not to whine.  To get it done, not to foist off the consequences to them.

Here's a thought for our leaders who aren't getting paid - we members aren't either.  We are, in fact, the ones called to pay.  Here's a thought for our leaders who want us to behave - behave yourselves!  Here's a thought for leaders who know all about giving little lectures to those who need to apologize - apologize for your own sins, that would be sufficient, then later, in a state that more closely approximates anything resembling grace, you may then worry about counseling us!

And here's a thought for those who don't like reading of dirt in social media - go tell the dirt spewers to stop spewing dirt!  No dirt means no dirt to display, funny how that works, huh?

And a final thought for those concerned about the church looking ugly?  It is those who do the ugliness - and you who do nothing about it - that make the church look ugly.

Not the member victims who complain on their own social media, using no names!

Gambling Day!

Hey, kids, do you find church boring?  Do sometimes your parents find it boring, too?

Well, fret no more, because Sunday is Funday, this week!  It's Gambling Day!

Yes, it will be fun for the whole family, some of whom may have never gambled before, some how thinking it's a sin! 

But this gambling is Board approved!  Elder approved!  So it's AALLL good!

Since so many of you are unfamiliar with gambling, here's how it's going to work!

There are four boxes for you to choose from!  In three of the boxes, you can't see what you're going to get!  Maybe it'll be nice!  Maybe it'll be affordable!  Yay!

But watch out!  Because maybe it will bankrupt the church!  Box One says "A million dollars!"  Will it be a million?  Can it be?  Who knows, that's why it's "gambling"!  Box Two says - oh, wait, it's unmarked!  How much will it cost?  Can it be afforded? 

You won't know till you play!

Box Three?  Ahh, your leaders want you to be aided in this, so they've arranged for a contractor to bring you by an estimate on that - but, ha, ha!, that info won't come in till a week after you've already chose!

Peeved?  Aww, c'mon!  Don't be party poopers!  We've still got one box left you can pick!  While leaving the other boxes plain and poorly marked, this one the leaders have wrapped up all pretty!  With shiny wrapping paper and everything!  Even a bow!  And glitter!

Oh, and look, the price is plainly marked on the outside!  "Just" six figures!  About $150,000!  True, you don't have $150,000, and true there's a tiny "plus" sign just after that figure, because those estimates were for if everything went perfect and there was no mold in the big pointy roof that we all know has it, but hey, what's an extra hundred thousand or so in cost overruns among friends?

And if you aren't willing to pony up the big bucks, well, you're hardly a player then, are you?

Ahh, but silly me.  I've not told you all what you can all win come Gambling Day! 

Well, if you pick Box Number One, the prettily wrapped one that the leaders have made it super-duper obvious that they wish you to pick, you'll win...

You'll win...

A DOUBLING OF THE CHURCH OPERATING BUDGET!

That's right, besides our church already teetering on the brink of insolvency over our monthly costs, you'll be able to double those costs to make the mission of running this church even more impossible than it currently is! 

But that's not all! 

You'll also win 10 or so folks stubbornly sitting in the new building, and insisting on a video link for health reasons!  Yes, with a vote for Box Number One, you get all the expenses and bankruptcy you could dream of, and still get to divide the church membership!

But wait, that's still not all!

You'll also win future lawsuits, from workers, from neighbors, from members, none of whom are going to be so dumb as to buy what the daughter of the mold expert (who couldn't be bothered to show up) had to say.

Some churches have actual leadership so as to not let members make such irresponsible decisions, but when a big donor is breathing down their necks to push this to a vote - and a very particular vote! - then you WIN by getting to play fast and loose for these huge stakes!

Thanks, Leadership!

But I know some of you are saying, "Wait, what if we pick some of the other boxes?  Can we avoid the prize of lawsuits and bankruptcies then?"

Well, since you ask...and I sure don't want to take the fun out of it by giving away any spoilers, but...

...NOPE! 

Sure can't!

But golly, that's because Gambling Day at church is just like Gambling Day any where else!  Where you spend money you don't really have on stuff you can't really afford, and lose more than you can, to get less than was offered!

That's why they call it Gambling!  That's why fuddy duddies who read the Bible think it's sinful!

No, for each of the other three boxes that leadership pretends it's okay for you to vote on, they all have something in common with the first box.

Can you guess?  It's that it requires you to vote to spend money - any amount of money - that the church doesn't actually have!

"What!?", I hear it cried out.  "What of the $120,000 or so that I heard we had in the account!?  Can't we gamble with that!?"

Well, sure, golly gee, we sure as heck and hollerin' can gamble with that!  Because in doing so, we would be imitating every loser husband who takes the paycheck meant for utilities and the mortgage and places it on the "sure thing" of Lucky Lady Loo to "show" in the 2nd horse race!

Because you see, just like that sinning dad who owes utilities and a mortgage, our church owes money.  Quite a lot of it.  In fact, our church owes so much money that the entire $120,000 that we "have" would not pay that debt off.

But like any other irresponsible gambler, we're figuring that when you're down and out, and owe hundreds of thousands, that you don't get cold feet and stop gambling!  Oh, no!  That's when the real players "double down" and throw that good money after bad!  Mah lucks gonna change!  Ah ken feel it!  C'mon, sevens!  Papa needs a new renovation! 

Woo hoo!

I mean, seriously, what boring old fuddy duddy would want us to use $120,000 to pay of our debts in a responsible fashion so that from a position of financial strength we could slowly grow the church and fulfill the Great Commission?

BOOOORRRRRINGGG!!!!

Why would we ever do that, when we can have the fun of throwing integrity and honesty to the wind, and taking the money that we owe to others - others who foolishly trusted us - and toss it all on the bet of one of these shiny boxes, where no matter what we get, we'll surely get at least get something!

Yay!  Because that's what it's all about, right?  We ignoring our debts and "voting" ourselves the right to be bad, the right to be naughty, the right to get something new and shiny, be it a renovated old church or a spruced up new church!

New!  Shiny!  Fun! 

Not boring and responsible like paying debts!

Ahhh, how wonderful that all we kids here today have no leadership to keep us from voting ourselves the keys to the treasury!  How wonderful that our leaders have no desire at all to keep us from committing the church to a disastrous financial path - and have provided us with four financially disastrous paths to choose from!

Oh, sure, they did it to keep their buddy happy, the one who has a real jones for the old church being renovated,and has the donating power to force that.  But that they then foist this off on us, instead of taking responsibility for this, that's so darn nice!  Almost as if they want some plausible deniability after it all goes south - oh, but never mind, let's have fun!

Now the gamble that they had no desire to make, as they did not want to be blamed later, is here for us to have fun with!  Fun!!  Now we can roll our dice and take our chances!  Round and around she goes, and where she stops - pain and heartache and bankruptcy - we all already know!

Put your money down folks!  Step right up!

EHH-VREE one is a winner!

If bankruptcy counts as a win.

(This Gambling Day has been brought to you by Satan.  He's been glad to have you drive away members - and potential new members - for the last four years over this nonsense, and he's glad to see that since the Board abdicated their responsibilities, that this Gambling Day vote will help drive away even more folks soon.  That the remainder of the members will then be on a sinking ship, is just more gravy for him.  Enjoy Gambling Day - and remember, if you hear any voice of reason, ignore it!  Your leaders couldn't have mislead you, don't let facts get in the way of believing what lets you then have fun, Fun, FUN!!)

Top Ten Signs of No Real Leadership

Given a leadership that is apparently quite "complaint averse" it's a bit odd how many complaints FROM leadership I was able to hear at just one meeting.  But the good news to that otherwise terrible evening was that then I was inspired for an article that tellingly shows how one can know when there is a lack of leadership in a church.

Bear in mind, that in all ten of these cases, these were actual complaints that came from actual leaders. Most of them are general enough for any church, the last one is a bit specific, but could also apply to other churches who have boards abdicating their fiduciary duties.

In no cases are the leaders bad, that should be said.  I'm not a bad guy, either.  True, I'm a lousy mechanic, but I'm a good guy.  Likewise, plenty of good people can be "leaders", but still drop the ball "Leadership-wise" as surely as I'd be dropping a wrench "Mechanic-wise".

So, buckle up, here goes!

10.  "You shouldn't complain, you don't know what's being done behind the scenes!"

Uh huh.  But any guest or new member or old member can see a problem continuing, so whatever is claimed to be going on behind the scenes, it's clearly worthless.  A real leader's solutions to problems are readily apparent - by, oh yeah, the member not seeing the problem any more!

9.  "We're not paid for this!"

Uh huh.  But the members who you presume to lead aren't being paid either.  They are, in fact, the ones being asked to pay.  So if it's that hard on you to not be paid, quit.  But a real leader does not complain about not being paid - as an excuse for why he isn't working well!

8.  "We're doing our best!"

No, you're not.  A man's "best" either gets it done - or gets him calling up someone who can get it done.  A real leader does not to whine about how it's his "best" while then expecting to continue on with titles and honors.

7.  "You should forgive him!"

Of course we should forgive those who do us wrong.  But what real leaders should do is not have that be their end all be all solution for every time some wolf in leader's clothing attacks someone in the membership.  They could, for instance, not have a wolf in leader's clothing any more.

6.  "There are times and places for this kind of thing!  Not now!"

Oh, of course.  Never now.  And never in this time or this place.  And it's odd how any complaint is always regarded as being done wrong or inappropriately or in some kind of "un-Christ-like" fashion. Real leaders don't worry about "how" a member complains, they worry about what prompted that complaint.  And solving it.

5.  "I wasn't taking his side, I was just..."

When every time a member complains he is told to forgive...and every time a leader complains the member must ask forgiveness, then yes, a "side" is being took.  The side of "leaders" versus "members".  Real leaders hold themselves and their fellow leaders to as high a standard as the members - and in the good old days, it was supposed to be that they strove to be at an even higher standard.

4.  "We have to set some bounds on who and when and how we can have people speak."

And how fortunate that such rules won't impact leadership's ability to speak first, last and any time in between.  Real leaders know that this is a church, not a Fortune 500 business or military ship under sail. There is thus time to leisurely listen to any member who took the time to express a question or concern, even if it goes on longer than you think it should, or on topics you'd have preferred not to address.

(And if any are thinking, "But what of the poor contractors!" then please remember that those three contractors are in a 'no-bid' situation on an all but done deal contract in which they'll pocket six figures. They can spare five minutes.)

3.  "I'm not sensing the spirit here!" or "Oh, this is not Christ-like!" or "Oh, Satan is having a field day!" or "Oh, did you see that this made some cry?"

Indeed the spirit is gone, and it is not Christ-like, and Satan is having a field day, and people should cry every time a leader says that for the purposes of shutting up or shutting down a member.  It's a sick and sorry game, where a member asking to be heard is to be silent in the name of Christ, so that the leader can have any final say he or she cares to have - in the name of Christ!

Real leaders do not use Christ as a bludgeon to silence others.  Nor by speaking of Satan, subtly imply that a member's desire to be heard and answered appropriately and/or to be treated with minimal respect, some how equates to Satan enjoying himself.

Nor do they, when others cry at the contention, loudly proclaim their concern for those crying members, as if they had no part in it, and it was all on the member they opposed so vigorously and so improperly. People cry over any unexpected arguments, and it always takes two to argue.  If members should know this - real leaders should, too.

2.  "I think we need to pray on this, so we can get back the spirit!"

And I think that prayer is also something that should not be used as a bludgeon to silence concerned members.  A real leader either addresses the member's concerns, or admits that he or she cannot - but soon will. He or she does not try to dismiss the member out of hand by calling immediately for a prayer - so that the member will be forced to feel foolish for daring to bring up the unanswered concerns afterwards!

It's a tawdry trick - and most of all, just that it's so clearly a trick.  Prayer as a weapon to hurt. Prayer as a means of silencing dissent.  Prayer as a means of bolstering your "side" in a spat.  Shameful.

1.  "Well, this is up to the members, they get their say in the vote, too late to stop things now."

What a terrible ducking of any leadership responsibility.  Dad doesn't want to be the bad guy, so he's going to let the three kids vote on whether they can stay up late eating ice cream.  Then, when their tummies are upset and mom is frazzled, he can blithely say, "This wasn't on me, we voted!"

Real leaders do not let fake votes be took where a deliberately uninformed membership can vote on issues that no one has any real data for, thus committing the church to hundreds of thousands of dollars of unaffordable outlays that will lead to an easily foreseeable bankruptcy.  And all to avoid having any responsibility in that later disaster, whatsoever.

And real leaders aren't solely strong on shutting up members because of their claimed authority - but then just too darn weak and lacking in authority to halt a destructive vote that never should have been called.

"I have no responsibilities here whatsoever."

In the hit movie from the nineties, "A Few Good Men", there are a lot of good quotes, that people enjoy quoting even to this day.  Obviously the quote, "You want the truth?  You can't handle the truth!" is high on that list!

Lower down on that list though, is a quote from Lt. Weinberg, a man who was tasked with a job he did not wish.  And the only way he'd take it is if his boss agreed that he'd have no responsibilities in the matter whatsoever.

And sure enough, when he introduced himself to another later, he did so by saying, "I have no responsibilities here whatsoever."  Just to let the other know that she should not expect him to do anything - and more importantly, not to expect him to be accountable.

Now I'm in a church without a Pastor, ran by a Board, most of whom are good people individually, but collectively are wildly irresponsible.  In fairness to that church, that description just so happens to apply to every Board that ever was, so there's no reason they should have been different.  I mean, seriously, they're each - well, mostly - good people, and if you got any of them alone, they'd be totally responsible.

But collectively?  Not so much.

Lately, the Board having had responsibility to discuss, debate, investigate and resolve various issues pertaining to the church, has chose to foist the largest issue that church has faced for years on the members of the whole instead.

It will be remarked that this is only due to they not wishing to be authoritarian leaders, but rather "servant leaders" responsive to the people, that this is simply so that everyone can have their say fairly.

And if that is the case, you will not see any in "servant leadership" trying to determine who the chair will be at the upcoming "Business Meeting", or to curtail who can speak, or for how long, or on what subject.

For instance, if the members wish to have a pig roast and gambling night at church, with plenty of dancing, they can bring that up and vote on - oh, but wait, yeah, that's probably not something that would be appropriate for the membership to vote on!

And yet, why not?  Because those are sins?  Well, true enough, pig roasts and gambling and such would be rather sinful on the church grounds, but I guess the point is, are they more or less sinful than letting the members vote to put lives at risk?  Is it more sinful than abandoning all sense of fiduciary duties that the membership had entrusted the Board with?

Because the issue is that some are trying to renovate an old church building that was stuffed with 15 varieties of toxic mold 4 years ago, and has only got worse since.  The plan, that the Board cleverly - if cheesily - does not wish to vote on themselves, would have a mold abatement guy go in, abate most of the mold (or so it's hoped) and then check back with inspections for the first year to make sure it's safe and mold free.

And that would not be so bad, all by itself.  Where the ducking of responsibility for human health comes in is that they then desire that regular contractors do a bunch of work on that old structure BEFORE the year of inspections has gone by to make sure that it's safe.  Which since the planned inspections are proof that we know there is a risk, makes the church liable for being sued - oh, and puts those poor workers at risk for getting sick over a problem that we'll fail to warn them of in time.

How Christ-like that will be.  Maybe their names can be put on a prayer list afterwards.  That'll go over well with the jury.  "True, we let innocent workers work on a building we knew might still have mold, but it was only a 2% chance, and hey, look, we all prayed for his recovery right after he was hospitalized, so how is this on us?"  Uh huh.  I'll bet there'll not be a dry eye in the jury box.  They'll probably award us damages, right?

Really?

And what of the issue of having members meet in there before the year?

And what of the issue that the series of renovations contemplated by some could well bankrupt our church?  Is that just my opinion?  Sure is!  But that's all anyone has on that issue - the issue of the church going bankrupt and we all having to drive to Decatur.  Just opinions.  The Board hasn't seen fit to get any data or projections on that - but the membership is to vote on this all the same!

Leaving it to the members is then not so much the act of a magnanimous servant leadership wishing the members to have say in things, but a means of letting the church make a medically, legally and financially disastrous decision, without the Board being to blame.

Because after, during lawsuits and damages and court cases and bankruptcies, each member of the Board will be able to say, "Hey, I was personally against it, but this wasn't the decision of the Board or I, the whole church did this!  You were there, too, so this is on you as much as any!"

Kind of like Dad letting the three kids vote on "Ice cream for a late night snack" but then wishing to say at midnight, "Don't look at me, honey, we were outvoted, remember?"  Yeah, because mom is that dumb, right?  Like we members are now to be that dumb?

I'm thinking that it was on Dad to have stepped up and said, "No late night ice cream."  And I'm thinking that it was on the Board to say, "No votes on jeopardizing the health of others."

I'm also thinking that it's on Dad to say, "If we pay for ice cream and snacks and the amusement park, we won't be able to pay the mortgage."  Just like it's on the Board to say, "If we embark on a series of projects going out for years, especially before being sure the mold is gone, we could go bankrupt and be forced to sell all."

But I guess some Boards, like some Dads, prefer popularity to prudence.

Ahh, but these words are harsh, it's not really so bad, is it?  Surely the Board has not truly been so irresponsible?

Here's some questions, then:

Why has not the Board sought competent legal advice as to what the liability would be, that we might tailor our vote to only safe and responsible ventures?

Why has not the Board sought competent financial advice, as to what various ventures would be likely to lead to in the future, solvency-wise, given current and projected rates of tithing and expected donations/bequests?

Why has the Board not obtained three bids for each project contemplated, given that such is the standard of fiduciary care expected of all businesses in Illinois, profit or non-profit, company or church?

Why has the Board, when worried members have raised these very points, been quick to dismiss such concerns with not so much as a discussion, let alone a vote?

The Board then, having utterly failed to seek out and obtain information that would have cost less than a several thousand dollar over-priced Apocalypse presentation, and having failed to get three bids for each project, and having failed to curtail the voting to purely on things that cannot lead to harm to human life, or financial harm to the church, is now passing the buck to the membership that relied upon them.

They are saying in effect, "Here you go, no real information, one estimate of mold removal and vague estimates from a guy or three on a project or three, no promises.  Have we gave enough faux choices on four different options to razzle dazzle this enough to seem like freedom?  Now that you think you've reviewed some things, go vote for the entire future of our church for the next 20 years!  And whatever now happens - that's on you!"

It's a breathtaking failure of fiduciary care and duty.  I mean, I get it.  A lot of this is not so much wishing to evade responsibility, but a knee-jerk response to a wealthy member trying to force this issue to a head.  So some on the Board pushing this out before it's ready are doing so simply to keep him happy and tithing.

But that's a breathtaking failure of fiduciary care and duty, too!  And since that will be denied, strenuously, we're then right back to the ordinary breathtaking failure already mentioned, in which this is just about the Board not wanting to have any responsibilities here whatsoever.

It need not be this way.  Even now, there is a safe path out.  The Business Meeting could take place, people could vote upon what end result they want, but then the Board retain responsibility for seeing to the safe implementation of that.  It could be arranged that the members could only vote on what is safe and legal to be voted upon.  A bizarre proposal, I know, right?

Yet my heart tells me that "safe and legal" is the Christ-like way.

But what would that involve?  It would involve - after the vote - the Board going back and doing the research that already should have took place.  Seeking out legal counsel - paid for now, or from the Illinois Conference - to determine our liability given certain courses of action took.  Getting a forensic accountant to do some projections, to see if any could inadvertently lead to bankruptcy.  Seeking out - and actually obtaining - three bids for each project, as is normal in such matters.

And most of all, agreeing to the obvious, that when the mold is abated, that no one enters for one year so we can be sure the mold is really gone.  Putting lives over our convenience.

And then yes, sure, we could then go renovate any building the membership voted on.  Old building, new building, any building, let those members have that say.  With those safety features in place, there isn't anything that could go wrong, short of then ignoring any counsel we paid for.

The membership voting can be good.  But only in a responsible way.  Voting on Pizza Buffet or Steak 'n Shake can be appropriate.  But voting on Porky's Pork Palace or Sheila's Shellfish Shack?

Not so much.