May 18: Letter to the RRT, The Final Post

 Karel and I sent this to the RRT.

To all

First I want to acknowledge the team members that stepped up to volunteer for what seems to me like a mostly thankless and hopeless task.   Thank you.

Second, I agree with the decision to end any process relating to the conflict.  It is time to move on.

It has been clear for some time that the church leadership would never agree to discuss a new Former Pastor Policy.  The “rescinding” of the policy from last March was, as our current President would say, malarkey.   The policy of last March that was the cause of the conflict is essentially still in effect.  That policy proclaimed that Richard and Michael would not be allowed to ever attend a church event – even public ones like the Adult Forum, Ashley Lecture series, weddings, etc.  but would be allowed to resume social contacts.  Due to the actions of church leadership the new policy is that Richard and Michael are not welcomed for any church events AND now Richard cannot have any social contacts with current and former church members.  In effect the lack of a new policy is even harsher than the original policy. 

That was the intent of “rescinding” the policy - and it worked.

The RTT’s parameters have been based on a flawed consultant report from the Center for Congregational Health (CCH) which not merely limited your ability to bring reconciliation – it prevented it.  At the time it seemed like church leadership turned to the CCH consultant process to delay reconciliation – and it worked. 

Just to be clear, CCH did nothing wrong.  They were not engaged as mediators or as fact finders.  They proposed a set of “listening sessions” followed by a report.  The summary in the report had factual errors.  I notified Michael Cheuk of the factual errors in the report and asked whether he would change his summary recommendations knowing that the report contained errors.  He did not defend the summary and also declined any suggestion to change his recommendations.   This is what consultants do and he was right.  He was paid for a specific task – not for mediation or fact finding.  He completed his task.

Where the report erred was the notion that the “concerned group” had not been able to “let Richard Weidler go” and the issue started with Howard Carl’s passing.  This is completely wrong.  Karel and I were friends of Richard.  But many in the concerned group hardly knew him.  None of us ever discussed the interplay between Karla and Richard surrounding Howard Carl’s passing because we did not know about it when the “group” was formed.   Karel and I had “let go” of Richard as a pastor when Michael arrived as our very successful interim pastor.  We embraced Michael. We embraced Karla.

What the group had in common was our love for FCUCC, belief in our values of compassion and inclusion, and the premise that we were a Congregational church. Some were distressed and some were perplexed.  When we had our first Zoom call all were supportive of Karla and her ministry.  As time went by some wanted to call a Congregational meeting but many – even those most opposed to the policy – were hesitant.  No one wanted to cause harm.  So we patiently waited and hoped ultimately to no avail.

Now given that church leadership will never agree to openly discuss a new Policy, it is time to move on.  Someone early in the process quoted someone as saying that the Policy would never change.  It turns out that whoever said it wasn’t making a prediction they were making a commitment.    Seems like the plan all along was to obfuscate and delay – and it worked.

To conclude with our personal decision:

Originally I had intended to leave the church last March.  At that time I wrote to Karla saying that I was grateful for our past 12 years at FCUCC and at peace with a decision to leave.  What I left out what that we are heart-broken about the future.  Karel and I thought we had found our last church.  Someday there would be a memorial service for us at FCUCC where folks might tell stories about my eccentric personality and about Karel’s wonderful smile and hugs.  That vision has been shattered at the moment.  If this was a letter you would see water stains from our tears.  As I write this those tears are on my hands as I type.

So after 12+ years we are leaving our beloved FCUCC.   We no longer feel welcomed.  We hope we will be missed for all of our contributions including forum, the committee for wellness action, the sound system, the library and others. We know we will miss working and contributing to the church’s outreach.

We wish all of you – no exceptions – peace and joy.

Namaste, Karel and John

 

 

 

April 22: Message from the Reconciliation Team

 There was a lengthy email sent to the Congregation by the R&RT.  I included relevant parts:

It soon became apparent, however, that the circumstances which led to controversy about the Departed Clergy Policy in the beginning are still with us; some of our fellow members, even as this is written, continue to hold strongly and sincerely to the belief that the church has not done enough to deal with the precipitating issues. We also became aware that the obligations of departing clergy were, understandably, ones about which very few members were knowledgeable since change of clergy occurs relatively infrequently in the life of any faith community.

In reality, the focus must be that the congregation will be continuing under the guidance of a new settled pastor, and that the policy selected must nurture that future without any real or potential burden from the past. Looking at the issue from this perspective leads us to understand that what may appear to be somewhat Draconian rules are, upon further reflection, very much in the long-term best interests of both the congregation AND the departing pastor; each is freed and encouraged to move forward.

In any event, the revised First Congregational Church policy has been repealed and, in our view, need not play any further role as we strive to move forward.

Church leadership has acknowledged that the overall process of developing and instituting the new departing clergy policy, while technically correct, was arguably not carried out as smoothly as might have been desired.

In summary, then, we have come to the realization that whatever the merits or flaws in the First Congregational Church revised Departed Clergy policy, it is reasonable at this point to say that the matter has come to a conclusion.

Finally, we are aware that some feel that this issue has received more than enough exposure and discussion, and are eager to put it in the rear-view mirror. We hope that even those who felt most strongly about the matter can recognize that thoughtful and sincere people have dealt with the situation honorably and to the best of their abilities. The time has come to move on.

JB Note:  The email also included informed the congregation that Richard Weidler's status regarding resuming social contacts with current and former congregants was a matter for CoM to adjudicate.  I will also note that many of the concerned group read this (as I did) as a firm and final decision not to formulate a new Former Pastor Policy.  Many of them informed the church that they were leaving FCUCC.

Feb 23:Report From the Reconciliation and Renewal Team

 

Dear First Congregational Members and Friends,  At the annual meeting, Moderator Phil Taylor announced the formation of a team to work on bringing healing and reconciliation to our church regarding the concern and confusion over the Departed Clergy Policy. The Center for Congregational Health (CCH) consultant’s report recommended this action. As has been previously reported, a group of church members met and unanimously agreed that this team be lay-led, as opposed to having a consultant involved.  The team members are Ann Allen, Ed Argue, Dawn Kucera, Linda Laderach, Bob McLendon, Karla Miller, and Phil Taylor.  The purpose of this message is to report on what we have done so far and lay out some plans we have for the immediate future.  Team Principles The team will operate by consensus - there will not be a system of “Voting, and majority wins.”  Thus, anything that comes from the group will have been agreed to by everyone.  Some early decisions: ·     The permanent name of the group is The Reconciliation and Renewal Team.  ·     Bob will serve as chair, Dawn and Linda as co-Recorders. ·     We will have open, transparent, and frequent communications to the congregation. ·     We will be open and receptive of all comments and questions from the congregation. ·      Given the open accessibility and our consensus method of operation, we decided the number of people on the team was sufficient.   Laying the groundwork We first did an assessment of our knowledge of UCC policies related to the conflict situation and the situation itself.  We all had different levels of knowledge, and knew we needed to get to the same knowledge level. We did this with in-depth discussions and by reviewing all the pertinent documents. Several people informed us of the blog that the concerned group operates, and we all read through the entries. With this, we realized this situation is mirrored in the congregation: different knowledge levels on all aspects. We see education as one of our tasks - we feel this is crucial to moving forward. To that end, we’ve started developing some information papers - which we will issue soon, and we’re planning some communication events.  Upcoming Plans Communication - two-way communication - is crucial for the healing process. Many people have expressed the thought that our inability to talk things out at the onset (due to the pandemic-caused church closure) was the main contributing factor that led to heightened concern and confusion over The Departed Clergy Policy. To facilitate the needed two-way communications, we are planning the following actions. 1.   Set up a special dedicated email account. The account address is FCCRRTeam@gmail.com. The mail will be checked daily, and receipt acknowledged. At our weekly meetings we will go over all the mails that we’ve received and craft a team response to each one. We request that all questions and comments be sent to this email address, and not directly to team members. 2.  Conduct some open gatherings via Zoom. The first one will be a combination of a couple of things. In one part, we’ll be passing along some of the things we’ve learned about UCC policy and guidance that pertains to the current situation. Then, we want to listen to whoever has something to say. We expect to hold it in early March, and we’ll give plenty of pre-notice.  Our commitment Each of us takes our responsibility very seriously. We pledge to our fellow church members that we will proceed with open-minds, accountability, transparency, integrity, and prayer. Our goal is to promote reconciliation, renewal and forgiveness, by focusing on points of agreement and the things that unite us.  R&R Team

Jan 31:Annual Congregational Meeting

 The annual congregational meeting was held via Zoom on Jan 31.  Some members of the church voted on the matters before them by mail.   About 60+ members attended the Zoom meeting.

I did not attend the meeting.  I have been told that the meeting lasted 3 1/2 hours and much of that time teh conversation was about the Former Pastor Policy.  However no decisions were made and no actions/next steps were agreed.  When the minutes become available I will post them.

Jan 29:Update from Phil

 Church Conflict Update

January 2021

 

Dear Members and Friends of First Congregational,

 

This is a preview of the upcoming Moderator’s Report in the February Chronicle, but I wanted everyone to have this information as soon as possible.

 

In December, church Council approved the formation of the Reconciliation Leadership Team (RLT), a group whose objective will be to help First Congregational move forward in support of our shared goals for our church by promoting reconciliation, healing, and forgiveness.  This group will use the suggestions found in the Center for Congregational Health (CCH) report, as well as their own vision and creativity to devise a process to meet those goals.

 

In a January on-line vote, the Council approved the members of the team. They are: Ann Allen, Ed Argue, Dawn Kucera, Linda Laderach, Bob McLendon, Karla Miller, and Phil Taylor. The team will choose its own chairperson. In keeping with the decision that this be a lay-led team, neither Karla nor I will be the chair. The group will operate by consensus and communicate frequently with church Council and the congregation.

 

A potential first step in the process might be a “letting go” ceremony of some sort. This would be designed to focus on our future as a church and put the past controversy behind us. Its emphasis would be on “we” as the church, and not on groups or factions within the church.

The CCH report suggests some themes for discussion, based on what they heard in the listening groups. These themes are: the meaning of being a welcoming congregation; what we mean by being a loving congregation; and the ramifications of our rapid growth.  In addition, following the CCH report guidance, the group will consider the concepts of justice, compassion, taking responsibility for one’s actions, and the ability to self-define our beliefs and to discuss our disagreements and grievances.

 

These discussion groups will be open to everyone (via Zoom), and topic experts may be provided as appropriate.

 

I anticipate that this process will take about four months, but that may change depending on the team’s decisions and the interest level of the congregation. The RLT may also recommend “spin-off” groups to address other specific topics and recommend appropriate actions or decisions.

 

I encourage everyone to watch for more information and to participate in the process as much as possible. I believe there is more that unites us than divides us, and I sincerely hope and pray we can soon find our way to a place where we are united.

 

Phil Taylor, Moderator

Nov 13 : Update from Phil

 

Church Conflict Update November 2020     Dear Members and Friends of FCUCC:   I want to bring you up to date on recent developments regarding our church conflict over the departing pastor policy:  ·     October 14th - Church Council discussed the Center for Congregational Health (CCH) report, but did not take any action.   ·     October 21st - The Human Relations Ministry (HRM) unanimously voted to repeal the revised departing pastor policy (which had been suspended since June).  ·     October 22nd - Church Council unanimously voted to repeal the revised departing pastor policy as recommended by the HRM. Acknowledgement was made that the process was problematic.  ·     November 4th - the Moderator convened a small group of volunteers to review the three possible processes described in the CCH report on page 20, and recommend the best one for our church. This group was comprised of Ed Argue, Steve Hogenboom, Dawn Kucera, Linda Laderach, Stephanie Lowder, Karla Miller, Diane Rhoades, and Phil Taylor.                  The processes they considered were:              (1) A “lay-led” process              (2) A “consultant and leadership team-led” process              (3) A “consultant-led” process  The group agreed on the following recommendations for Church Council consideration:   ·     Select the “lay-led” process as the best one for our church. This process requires member involvement and also respects our church autonomy. Please note that our autonomy is subject to our covenant with the WNC Association, the Southern Conference, and the national UCC. ·     Follow the CCH report recommendation to create a committee of trusted people as the leadership team. We have not established how this team will be created. ·     Use the consultant’s report as the basis for useful information on areas of disagreement and/or misunderstanding among our members that will need to be addressed in this process. ·      Develop a process for members of the congregation to release their hurt feelings and forgive each other for past actions.  This will allow us to focus on the future and get a fresh start on working together.  ·     Inform the congregation on a regular basis of all steps being taken. If any new policies are developed, the congregation will be consulted and vote on them. ·     The group noted that the pandemic currently makes it impossible to hold an in-person congregational meeting. We’ll need to explore other options.  On November 11th, Church Council voted to accept all the recommendations.  The next step is for church leadership to create the team for the lay-led process and recommend goals and topics to address as we work to create our fresh start. Church Council will approve team members, goals and topics before any work in the process begins.  I will keep the congregation informed of our progress; you will have the opportunity to comment on our plans before they are implemented. Please watch for future Constant Contact messages as we move forward in our conflict resolution process.  Phil Taylor Moderator

Nov 10: Status Updates/ Former Pastor Policy rescinded!

This entry differs from the others in that it is not a copy of written communication or documentation.  This entry includes updates since the final report from the consultant group.

Oct 14:  There was a Zoom council meeting to discuss the report and next steps.  A number of folks from our group were allowed to speak at the beginning of the meeting.   The most important update was from Gary Cyphers who announced that the HRM would meet the following week and very likely would vote to rescind the Former Pastor Policy announced on March 11.  Phil Taylor announced we would form an sub-committee of 8 to decide which one of the processes included in the consultant report should be used.

Week of Oct 19:  HRM did vote unanimously to set aside the Former Pastor Policy and the council had an online vote and also unanimously to accept the recommendation.   This represents a major milestone in the 8 month process.

Nov 4:  The sub-committee of 8 met and decided to work "in house" without outside facilitation.   This recommendation will be brought to the council later this week. 

Nov 6:  The following email was sent by Bob Miles to the concerned group 

Dear friends,

Since the last email to this group, Diane Rhoades and Stephanie Lowder agreed to serve on the church committee and the committee has met.  We can remind ourselves that the former pastor policy has been rescinded and we are now having the conversation with church leadership that we asked for back in April. Following are summaries of the meeting and a note from Bob.

From Diane

Diane Rhoades and Stephanie Lowder met on Wed., Nov. 4th for a Zoom meeting with the newly formed committee of 8, which included 2 people from our group (Stephanie and Diane), 2 from the congregation who have not participated in our group (Ed Argue and Steve Hogenbloom), 2 from church council (Dawn Kucera and Linda Laderach) with moderator Phil Taylor and Pastor Karla.  

The intention of the group is to move forward to better assess where we are with a Former Pastor Policy and to foster healing. The committee evaluated the three options that Michael Cheuk from the Listening Project had suggested; to work within our church or with a facilitator and our lay leadership or to have a facilitator do the work. 

Ed Argue made the case that church leadership abandoned the core of our church, that it was too much of an abdication of our congregational input to have left the fellowship out of the last policy.  Steve Hogenboom said the new former pastor policy was a mistake and that it was a mistake to wait so long to respond.  

Karla was in agreement about the policy being a mistake. Dawn and Linda were concerned that we are not completely autonomous in making policy and that we have structure with UCC to follow.  Stephanie countered by reading the guidelines and affirming that we are free to make our own policy within UCC structure.

It was clear that most of the committee was in favor of working in house without outside facilitation. If the need to engage outside facilitation became apparent, we could go in that direction. 

"I feel a stirring that healing is possible.  Looks like our congregation may have the opportunity to weave ourselves back together.”  

From Stephanie

Committee of 8 met with one concise purpose: *To Recommend a PROCESS* to develop any new policy that the congregation might think needed or appropriate. 

After full and free discussion, the 8 Recommended that the PROCESS for moving forward be *Lay-led* and that any decisions about new policy be made by the full congregation. 

Phil will present this Recommendation to Council at their next meeting.

Details and particulars of who, what, when, where, and how remain to be decided.

I hope this helps 

A note from Bob

I want to clarify that I have not decided to leave the church.  I said earlier that I was inclined to resign because I felt a loss of the church community that is important to me and would decide after the election.  I am encouraged that the committee has had productive discussions, and will remain as a member as long as the church is making progress in healing our differences. 

I remain concerned, however, that important questions remain unresolved and will be looking for indications that the Church Council addresses these issues with a greater sense of urgency, believes it can “assemble a committee of trusted people in the congregation to form as a leadership team,” and will involve the congregation more meaningfully in church decisions-making.