More info

Duane & i were talking again yesterday about the church issue.  He had been tired Sunday PM & took a long nap, so he didn't sleep much Sunday night.  Monday AM very early (about 2.30) he got up & wrote another letter.  


While i was leaning toward a brief response to the letter, his was long & detailed.  But very good.  Also, i tend toward more formal language in a letter of that sort.  It was obvious to me that the second letter came from him & not me.  



But in talking this over, i said to Duane, "My gut reaction ever since the letter arrived is that you should call R (the elder who sent the letter) & speak to him directly."  Duane thought that a good idea & almost immediately picked up the phone.  I did slow him down & asked him, "What is our motivation for this?  What are we hoping to accomplish by this?"




Duane felt that largely his motivation is that this does not happen again.  We both agree that we are strong in our faith & able to handle this (yes, of course, with God's help), but that someone newer/weaker in faith might not.  He wants to be sure this isn't repeated.  


So Duane called, & was on the phone with R for more than an hour & a half.  




Much was said, probably more than i know, for Duane was outside (having trouble with reception on his phone).  I can't begin to hit all the things Duane has mentioned, but here are the highlights.  




The reason we were disrespectful "to the dignity of the Pastoral office"?  Because we did not address G as "Pastor." ! ! !  


Nothing we said gained much response.  It was leaving out the title.  I will admit, honestly, that i decided not to send the letter to "The Reverend G ____."  However, i've never thought of the word "pastor" as a proper title.  Evidently the elders went on & on about our disrespect in not using that title/word.  




Duane said that had we simply sent another letter trying even more to explain, nothing would have been done, for they were all caught up in our disrespect & not seeing anything more.




Duane also had to have such a long conversation because he kept having to diffuse the defensiveness toward their position.  But he is very good at this.  He kept - not being defensive - but "on the defensive" by working very hard at not fighting, not hitting back, not going on the offensive.  He said, over & over, about the respect/disrespect issue, "That was my mistake.  I prayed over the content of the letter & missed the address."  When Duane would say something like, "Well that's your job as an elder," R would respond, "Don't tell me my job!  I know what my job is!"  Duane would have to say, "You're right!  I don't know your job.  I was assuming."  


Eventually it worked.  R let lose of most of the defensiveness although it popped up from time to time, still.  R admitted that he was "voted down" - for what exactly we're not sure - but the idea came across that he wanted to have us in & discuss this to try to find out what was behind it.  Instead, he was instructed to send us the letter.




The reason the letter was so garbled?  R tried to keep notes at the meeting on the salient points he was told to cover & the resulting mess was simply typed directly from his notes.  That takes a bit of air out of our sails about the "disrespect" we felt was sent to us in that letter, because to say that in a general letter now will simply make him look, um, stupid. 


Anyway, Duane shared how that we were hurt that G simply told *me* in a phone call that he'd heard the gossip that we were attending other churches, was that true?  When i confirmed it, he said we could no longer take communion there.  Nothing was said about how to resolve this issues, therefore, it became permanent at that point.  Also, no one asked if we had taken communion elsewhere.  R said that that wasn't right & that they "didn't meant to hurt us."  


At some point R said that his daughter (who is in her late 30s?) had seen us at another church.



Duane asked him, "Has she been told that she can't take communion at SITP then?"



"Um, no."



"Well, if she saw us at another church, i assume she was at another church."




(Yeah, but that's different.)


What the up & down of this became was that we were considered "leadership" & therefore G decided to make an example of us.  The whole congregation was given that pamphlet i posted previously.  (And had we received it at an earlier time, we would have revoked our membership long ago.)   



Duane was blunt with R.  Told him that the church has not been practicing "close communion" even if they claim it.  He said that it is either one or another.  He called it "entrapment" if you practice "close communion" but invite anyone in the congregation to participate.  (R has a background in law enforcement & Duane frequently deliberately used terms he would relate to).  The intent of the pamphlet is that only members of LCMS or churches that they "recognize" are free to take communion.  All churches that are not "recognized" are considered in error & LCMS considers it extremely offensive if not outright sin to participate in communion with such folks.  Ok, my sister from the ECLA Lutheran church has taken communion - in direct contradiction to the LCMS standard.  Also my Catholic in-laws & my Baptist parents.  Probably a few others as well.  Because we never knew.  And, R told Duane that because we were "leadership" we were held to "a higher standard than the congregation.  And when you break a law, even if you didn't know about that law, you are still responsible for the consequences." 



But R recognized exactly what Duane was saying in that you can't invite anyone to communion & then still call it "close."  Not that it's going to make a difference for us.   


Duane also pointed out that "Pastor" frequently uses unsubstantiated urban myths in his sermons, but doesn't check them out.  We have at least 3 times now found that things he claims to have been true have no basis in fact (& often are outright fabrications - tho not created by G).  But he presents them as fact & often as if they are Biblical.



Duane got nowhere with the charges of "unscriptural teaching."  He was told, "You need to bring that up with Pastor.  That is a matter between you & him."  ! ! ! 



In other words, no one is going to hold him accountable for these things.  



It was clear to Duane in many ways that G is simply leading them by their noses & telling them what to think & how to respond.  


However, he was able to say all the things he felt important to be said.  He feels that something like this will not be handled in the same manner in the future.  And that maybe he planted a few seeds for listening to being headed in the wrong direction.  Maybe.  He also told R that we feel something is wrong with G, that we see clear signs of depression & fear.  (The beginning of the conversation between Duane & i before the call to R was "Do you think G has a brain tumor?  His behavior has been so erratic & bizarre.")  Duane had to spell out the ways we have seen/experienced G's depression, fear, & irrational responses.   


R had a tendency to say, "Yes, Pastor tends to get excited & say things that might not be exactly right.  He's human too."  And, the expected, "He is so educated & intelligent.  He must know what he's talking about, even if he gets a bit over-excited."



Anyway, we've said what needed to be said, planted what seeds we can, done as much as we can.  Maybe it will make a difference.  



From this point we will probably just send a simple letter apologizing for the "offense" of leaving out the title "pastor" & asking our names be removed from the membership list.  Not much else for us to do.  (I think that G is doing a "wag the dog" response in that their focus was on the lack of the title "Pastor" when our charges was that he has begun teaching things which are not unscriptural.  However, maybe i'm just lacking in charity there.)



I'm glad that Duane called.  It went a long way toward smoothing things over.  We feel as good as we can about this.  I definitely agree with Kathi's comment that it is sad how churches hurt people.  And i'm definitely questioning the wisdom about having/belonging to an "organized church."  I'll probably revisit that at a later time.




Several times during this conversation (i was not listening or even close by, but from time to time i would hear some of it as i was doing other things) i thanked God for my dear, Godly husband, head of our household, & willing to take this bull by the horns.  




Thank you all for listening & walking thru this with us, your comments & support.  We are not "hurting."  We are sad.  No more, i think.  This hasn't harmed us.  I can't speak for the other folks in that church.





32