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.

The Pastorless Church

An article was posted recently about a church where a new member couple had been abused by an Elder and Board member of that church.  And it was an Elder who had a long history of hurting others in that church, and of holding pro-LBGTQ opinions and preaching them, and in general being a devastatingly poor example to all.

The article mentioned no names, but a lady who knew which church it was sent a link to a Pastor in that church.

The response was immediate.  As in, this Pastor would not leave such an important matter to the next day, but had to text at once, at 9:26 at night, because this needed resolving!

You're probably wondering, was it so he could share his sorrow about what happened to that new member couple?  Or to call them and console them in Christian love?  Was it so he could review options as to how to prevent this kind of abuse of members from happening again?  Was it even as extreme as to call the offending and unrepentant Elder to let him know that while he was welcome to attend church, he was no longer to represent the church in a leadership position?

No.

The call was to me, as he knew I was involved in this facebook page, and it was first, to see if an admission as to who wrote it could be had.  Second, when I didn't play into that standard bit of nonsense, to chastise me anyway that such descriptions of such problems did not aid things.

Quite a bit saddened at how blatantly he had chose to miss the point, I texted him back the following:

"You need to focus on any in leadership who act ungodly, and when that's actually handled, you can then move on to dealing with the reactions of the members that such unrepentant leaders hurt. Meanwhile, if any leader is expressing hurt by a random net article, please counsel them at once on the need to forgive.  That's how it works, right?"

There was no answer back.  What had been important enough to contact me past the time when bill collectors are legally allowed to call was now no longer important enough to discuss.

Because you see, he was the same guy who always counseled "forgiveness" to any in the church who ever complained about this wolf in Elder's clothing.

And don't get me wrong, he - the guy who texted me - is a nice guy.  A good guy.  Heck, a great guy! But sadly, he's no shepherd.  The title of "Pastor", which derives from "Pasture" and pertains to shepherding, is misapplied to him.  Once he may have been, but he is a Pastor no more.

Nor is the other Pastor in that church a real Pastor.  They are both retired, but as the church has no official minister, they're kind of the "default" Pastors.  And while they try, it shows.  The wolf can do no wrong, they being long familiar with him, so they've re-purposed their "job" as "Pastors" to be "sheep quieting" as opposed to "sheep protecting".

They each value quiet among the flock.  They do not want to hear the bleating of frightened or hurt sheep.  Of course, as any shepherd knows, there are two ways to go about this.

One is the Christ-like way of actually protecting the flock from the wolf.  Of driving the wolf off when he tries to bite or savage or scare the sheep.  The other way - a good deal less dangerous - involves waiting till a sheep bleats in pain from a wolf bite, then hitting it on the head with your staff and telling it to be quiet and "forgive".

The two "Pastors" that church has prefer the second way.  Where the sheep are told to be quiet and forgive the wolf.  And the wolf is - at best - tsked, tsked and then allowed to retain his leadership titles so he can do the more damage later.

What the Pastor who texted me did not know is that I had had that article available for a couple of weeks, but had not run it.  There was, to my way of thinking, a distant hope that maybe the wolf would knock it off.  So it's not like I'm panning on those two former Pastors, I could be fooled into trying, too.

Just the difference is that I don't need to see a wolf bite for years to know it's a wolf.  The half dozen times I've seen it bite in the past six months is enough for me.

And sure enough, this past Sabbath, the wolf decided to start trouble with yet another member of the church, and when the young man's mother tried to stop him, became physically aggressive with her.

Understand, this wolf is in his seventies, so if he chose to invade a man's personal space, and do the nose to nose chest bump thing it would be laughed off.  But he's a healthy enough man all the same, and his victim was a woman, who really did not feel comfortable with him menacing her.

Which is, after all, an actual crime.  Yeah, really.

She bleated - er, complained.  The "shepherd", the "Pastor", came over at once and got her safely to another room where...

...he reprimanded her on her bleating!  On her anger at being accosted and bullied.  Understand that the this wolf of an Elder, who has harmed member after member over the years, had actually broke the law. You are not supposed to frighten women at church, that's not a thing.  It's remarkable to me that any could think it is.

But it's part and parcel of this long pattern.  Where the wolf bites, the sheep bleats, and the shepherd yells, "Quiet!".  Which accounts for why the wolf would feel so comfortable acting out so outrageously.

What's the lesson in all this?

Well, first and foremost, churches need real Pastors.  An actual minister, properly assigned and getting things done.  Stopping problems before they start and reining in any fellow "leaders" who might start to stray.  Stopping them while they are yet just bad sheep, and not waiting till they turn into real wolves from long neglect.

The second lesson is, "Be careful about appearances."  A cynic, for instance, might be forgiven for thinking that the supposed Pastors always let the wolf do as he pleases because the wolf is rich and donates a lot.  Now me, I don't believe that.  I think that it's just that they're so long familiar with the wolf being a wolf and the sheep being patient enough to put up with it that they've got a bit complacent.

But by appearances, it looks like they're selling indulgences.  Not a good message to send.  And really, as much as I love them, it really, REALLY looks a lot like that.  Which is not on the old or new members who notice it - it's on them for letting such appearances come to be.

The third lesson is, "That a guy is nice does not make him great at his job."  Both of these guys are nice.  I know and love them both.  More than they know.  But if the job is "protecting the flock", then yeah, they've failed. And rather massively.

I've watched a woman cry in frustration at how this wolf treats people - and the pastor then chastises her for complaining in the "wrong" fashion.  And accusing her and her friends of being a "lynch mob" for their high crime of seeking out the pastor and pleading for his help.

I've heard the pain in a man's voice relating the ungodly grief he was gave by that wolf, when the wolf seized the pulpit to spew venom upon that man and his family.  He gets counseled to forgive the wolf, so that the wolf may continue for yet more years in attacks upon he and his loved ones.

I've seen the pro-LBGTQ and pro-Sunday worshipping church posts on this Elder's facebook page. That are left up year after year, as there will be no repercussions or penalties for that craziness.

I've dealt with those who he lied to and promised jobs to, if they'd but join him in some kind of petty issue against other members.  These recovering alcoholics were men I aided in my own ministry, who then did not return to the church.  Perhaps for other reasons - but surely this wolf's crap was in the mix.

I've witnessed his sly malice in whispering gossip at church potlucks.  Gossip about the mom of a member.  Darkness and dirt to no point but to sow dissension.  And then he calmly lied about it, and the "shepherds" then counseled the injured party to - can you guess?  Yeah.  Forgive the wolf, while simultaneously not admitting the wolf did any wrong.

I've seen him pretend to resign all his titles when he thinks he's busted.  Then he waits for the "Pastors" to come and beg him not to leave, even though he clearly had no real intention of leaving.  Then, after the "shepherds" have persuaded the wolf to come back, he calmly sits back down in his Boardroom seat as if nothing happened.

I've been there when he wanted to poke at a good and decent young man, then play the victim. Shepherds?  They let the young man know to keep silent.

I've seen him then get in the face of the young man's mother, acting like he was wanting some kind of bar fight.  A bar fight!  Is this what will represent the church?  The "Pastors" certainly think it's okay. They had no trouble with his violence - but told off the woman who dared say that she might defend herself next time.

Did you count those up?  Because I've seen and heard of those JUST IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS!

It's terrible.  It has drove off those who might have joined.  It has drove off those who were already members.  It has crossed all bounds of reasons, but with each new bleating of the sheep, and each new sheep freshly bleating, the "shepherds" only re-double their efforts to have silence in the field!

The greatest of the three lessons then is truly -

Nice guys are great - but you need a shepherd who knows how to use his staff!  Against the wolf, not the sheep!  Remember in the Bible?  "Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me...", not "thy rod and thy staff keep my mouth shut while the wolves render apart my loved ones".

The wolf is not the real problem, you see.  And that is the lesson every one most needs to learn.  The wolf is not the real problem.  Internalize that.

The wolf is not the real problem.

Even if the wolf left, another wolf would take his place.  It's the lack of Pastors that is the problem.  The lack of any actual Shepherd.  It's being a pastorless church that is the problem.

That church needs a shepherd.  It needs an actual pastor who knows that there are sheep and there are wolves, and can figure out which needs protecting from which.  No nice guys who enjoy wolf petting need apply.

The Prodigal's Brother

An Elder and Board member of a church wronged two new members (a husband and wife) in some petty little power play between him and another couple over a church building issue.  We'll call him "Kevin" (not his real name).  Then when confronted, he pretended great repentance and a resignation of his titles, only to be playing and buying time.  He then did not resign his titles after all, but flipped the narrative around so that it was the new couple in the wrong, while he had - at most - mildly spoke out of turn in a fashion no doubt misunderstood.

Thus those two new members are the baddies who needed counseling on how to forgive and be Christ-like, and he and his non-believer wife are the ones who remain seated in their High Places, doing great imitations of Whited Sepulchres.

Now, as any who've said the Lord's prayer know, we are to forgive, and no matter what, even if those who wronged us are not saying they are sorry, or even if they are sorry at all.  This is a commandment, and we cannot have forgiveness of our Father in Heaven if we do not extend it to others ourselves.

This man, for instance, is not sorry to that new couple in the least, but he is willing to "express sorrow" to the other couple for any "misunderstandings", with clearly - and obviously - the new couple getting to star as the real culprits who "misunderstood".  Thus he's the hero of the narrative who was willing to resign, but "reluctantly" was persuaded to come back.  And two new members are the villains who by their stupidity created trouble where none was meant.

Viewed dispassionately, I can even admire it.  Like some kind of Jeopardy category of "'Machiavellian Machinations' for $500, Alex".  Where the answer is "Be like Elder Kevin" and the question is, "How can one be a lying, gossiping, dissension-sowing viper?"

Clearly this Elder doesn't update his status very often.
But what a last entry to have left in place for all to see.
How well that represents the church and Adventism.

But those two new members have been counseled to forgive the man who is not sorry, and to illustrate this principle of why they are to forgive anyway, we have the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

Most people in their lives have heard of the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  The son who asked for his inheritance early, then went and squandered it all in sinful living, then broke and starving, realized that even being the least servant in his father's household would be better than dying alone.

So he goes back, but "while he was yet far off", his father saw him and commanded that the fatted calf be slaughtered, and that everyone have a big party and make merry.  He had the best robes and jewels put on his returned son, and a good time was had by all.

Well, except for the brother.  The Prodigal Son's brother.  He complained to the father about how a fatted calf had never been killed for him, etc., etc..

But the father tried to soothe the son, and explain, saying, "Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours, but this your brother was lost and believed dead, but now is found, so it is fitting to celebrate."

Now, most Christians do understand the truth of that Parable.  Certainly the couple who were newly baptized into that church did.  They understood and agreed with it.  And even understood the underlying justice beyond the mercy. Wherein all really have sinned and fell short of the glory of God and so to be worried about the Prodigal Son being forgave would be a bit hypocritical as there are none of us perfect, no not one!

Yet sometimes this story gets abused, and even long term Christians can then wonder at it, and even make the mistake of thinking that there is either a theological flaw in the story - or a spiritual flaw in themselves for not accepting it.

When in reality, it sometimes is a flaw not in the story or the hearer, but in the teller misapplying the story, like if the story is told for the wrong reasons or a situation that is not the same.

Let's be clear about that Parable.  There are several aspects to it often overlooked when the Parable is being abused.  For instance, that the Prodigal Son is admitting that he has sinned, and that he is sorry he sinned, and that he wants to sin no more.  It is not the story of a kid who sinned, came home, lied about sinning and blamed the "misunderstanding" on his brother, and then expected to still be one of the Masters of the House.

Taking what happened to this abused new couple, the counsel as gave to them was - falsely applied - going like this:  That the man who harmed them is the Prodigal Son, the Church is the Father, and they are the brother of the Prodigal Son. The poor guy may have sinned, but he's sorry, and now he's back, so they must rejoice that he who was lost is now found.

And put like that, who could be upset or worried?  Certainly the new couple would not be.

Yet the reality falls a bit short.

The reality is that this "Prodigal Son" has donated much money to the church in the past, tithes now, and is expected to give even more upon his death.  And he's in his eighties.  He's not "returning" as he never truly left in the first place.  He is not sorry, for as far as he is concerned, he has not done anything to be sorry for.  He is needing his brother in the field to be counseled on how to stop misunderstanding him. And he needs to retain his titles of Mastery over the House he's harmed.

Never minding all the Biblical verses that speak of Elders and leaders needing to be "blameless" and beyond reproach.  Not given to gossip and murmuring and dissension sowing.  Not lying or verbally abusing.

The two new members are not the only "brothers" of this Prodigal Son involved.  The other brothers, similarly sinned against, also get the story told to them of forgiveness so that the man who never truly repents but only re-offends year after year, can continue to hold his titles, while everyone else can learn, re-learn, and learn again, the joys of forgiveness.

And worse, this wealthy Elder runs off potential new members - possible brothers - by this and his other unrepentant sinnings.  His pro-LBGTQ stances that he even takes into the pulpit itself.  His wife's persistent proclaiming of her disagreement with church doctrine and teachings.  Her slanders of Ellen White.  His lies and pretended offers of jobs and contracts if non-members will join and vote on a building issue as he wishes.

It would be difficult to compute how many potential members have been deterred from joining and how many actual members have fallen away due to his persistent "work" in driving others off.  Sadly, any calculations would not only have to take into account his direct sinning against others, but the failure of the leadership to in any way rein him in.

In giving him free rein, over and over again, it thus gives the appearance that the church "sells indulgences", so that if you are rich, you may do as you please and be rewarded with leadership positions, but if you are not rich, you must shut up and learn to forgive.

Learning to forgive is a good lesson, of course - but if the Great Commission is the goal, then this probably is not the best way of teaching that lesson.  At least, I never saw it advised by Paul in the Bible that church leaders like this "Kevin" were to sin against the members, so that the members might learn forgiveness!

The lesson to be learned from all this is that sometimes the Prodigal Brother is right to be upset.  Not because the Parable is wrong, but because not everyone called a "Prodigal Son" really deserves that title.  A "Prodigal Son" may be any number of things, but he at the least - to have the title - must be repentant and contrite.  And so an unrepentant leader gone bad who perpetually harms the very flock he should have cared for cannot - with respect for truth - be called a "Prodigal Son".

"Kevin" is worth forgiving, for the Lord's sake if not his.  But he is not worthy of any fatted calf in the form of titles, honors and glory.

And if we care for new members, then we should not be giving them the task of providing such fatted calves for the very leaders who abuse them.  Nor for that matter, should the long suffering long term members be called upon to do so.