May 23: Group representatives send a summary of the May 18 meeting

Dear friends,

Attached is a summary of the Zoom meeting that Bonnie Rash, Ben Coonrod, Diane Rhoades, and I had last Monday with Rev. Colleen Samson and three members of the UCC conference Committee on Ministry (COM).  We thank Judith Nourse for her careful notes of the meeting and Bonnie for leading us through the meeting and compiling the notes while she and Jim were moving.

Please note that this was a meeting for us to introduce our concerns to members of the committee and listen to their responses.  As the summary indicates, Bonnie will be talking soon with Rev. Samson about more specific ways the COM can provide guidance to FCUCC as we work through the issues.

Yours in peace,

Bob Miles

The following was attached as a Word document.

Summary and Notes

Meeting with Members of the UCC Southern Conference Committee on Ministry

Summary

Our four representatives (Bob Miles, Diane Rhoades, Ben Coonrod and Bonnie Rash), plus Judith Nourse as scribe, met in a Zoom with four members of the UCC Southern Conference Committee on Ministry (COM), United Church of Christ, on May 18 for two hours.  The four representatives of the COM are each retired or active ministers.  The group is led by Rev. Colleen Samson, Associate Conference Minister for the Western North Carolina Association.

Members of the Committee on Ministry (COM) heard and overwhelmingly empathized with our concern about the process in which the former pastor policy was changed at our church.  They validated that such an important decision be made by our full congregation. 

On our issue of excluding anyone from our open and affirming congregation, the COM members acknowledged how painful it is for pastor and congregation to break ties, how painful it has been for them personally to part with the congregations they have pastored, and how their experiences of having former pastors in their congregations have varied.  The COM members cited UCC tools available to help congregations and pastors in making this transition.

The COM members acknowledged that they have not fulfilled their responsibility to our congregation to assist through our transition.  The isolation required for safety from coronavirus has stalled in-person meetings.  They expressed a desire to get involved now to help us through our differences.  They emphasized that the decision belongs to the local congregation.

Rev. Samson asked for time to consider how they might move forward to help with these concerns in our church, and whether they can support our wish to bring this to the full congregation.  We reiterated our desire to be transparent. 

Details

I.                    Summary of Issues (Bonnie)

In our conversation, and in our silence, clarity has formed for us around two issues that concern the group we represent:

Our church’s inclusive identity.  Our congregation is a unique body of people immersed in love for all.  How can we be an open and affirming church, embracing all, but not our former pastors?

This policy was adopted without congregational voice.  This change in policy was made by a subset of our congregation.  We wish for a decision of this kind to be made by the full congregation.

II.                  Communicating for the Group

Our group of four representatives feel a great responsibility to represent the concerned members of our church.  Comments from each:

a.       Deep Concerns of Members (Bob Miles)

This group evolved through sharing our concerns about this policy with each other.  The notice of the new policy coincided with loss of direct communication because of the COVID social isolation.  I quoted from an email sent by a member of the HRM who said there is no realistic possibility of reconsideration and “stirring things up with other church members causes dissention and divisiveness.”  I started an email list – our main way of communicating with each other. Karla Miller’s letter to the congregation sent on  April 16^th said she fully supports this policy, which left us with no one to talk to at the church. Our group had a zoom meeting on April 18^th when we decided to write a letter together. I quoted church members’ comments: “I am heartsick.” “I have faced discrimination all my life. To me this is discrimination.” “There is no justice in this decision... the feeling of betrayal is devastating.”  “I cannot come to a church that excludes anyone.”

b.      Loving Through our Differences (Diane Rhoades)

I love our church.  I love Karla.  I love the people in the group who came up with this policy. And I disagree with this new policy.  I really appreciate that we are loving our way through our differences, staying heart connected.  I imagine the prayer traffic from our fellowship isn’t leaving anyone out.  I think it might as well read instead of love your enemies, love those who disagree with you. This policy has interrupted the almost seamless fit that our church has been for me.  That said, it is good work to find our way to common ground; lovingly.

c.       Fear of Rejection (Bonnie Rash)

My personal first reaction to the change in policy -- and I heard this from many people on our two Zoom calls -- was a fear of rejection by this church that I have joined BECAUSE it is open and affirming, welcoming all.  I now doubt whether I am safe to reveal my philosophies and vulnerabilities within this church.  For many of us, this exclusive policy brings up painful memories of excommunication from the Catholic Church, anti-Semitism, racism, rejection based on education level, level of professional achievement, alcoholism or drug addiction, suicide attempts, estrangement from family members, age or infirmity, social status, financial status.  Are we safe to reveal ourselves in this congregation that has banned former pastors?  We thought this church was different.

d.  Irrational Love (Ben Coonrod)

My first reaction was, “What would Jesus do?”  Jesus modeled and lived irrational love. He healed people on the Sabbath, even though it was against tradition and the law.  He forgave people – even those who crucified Him. 

My wife and I have been members of the congregation for 2-1/2 years.  We were married here.  One reason we joined this church is because it was open and affirming and with the understanding that any controversial issue would be talked about openly.  Having the former pastor policy made under a shroud of secrecy and a decision made by a small group of people does not feel like the church we joined. 

I believe that this situation is an opportunity – a gift from God – for us as a congregation to grow, to look at the health of the church.  If someone is sick, they can choose pain pills and mask the symptoms, amputate, or see it as an opportunity to look at what is happening in their life and make changes that will bring them back to health.

III.                 We asked the COM members to address the following questions:

Questions:

Q:  What is your role, Rev. Samson, in moving forward? 

Rev. Samson:  My role is to identify situations that either have a history of recurrence, or can’t come to resolution on your own.  This COM is seasoned.  Your situation is not unusual.  You are an autonomous congregation.  Inability to talk faced to face is a hindrance.  My role is to facilitate, to inform you of what is in place to help.  Primary tools are “Manual on Ministry” and “A Sure Foundation,” a resource for relationship between pastors and congregations.

Q:  Can you assure us that you and the committee will be impartial? 

Rev. Samson:  Other congregations and pastors feel the same pain.  Members of this committee have different opinions – we hash things out among ourselves. 

Q:  Is there bias toward the new policy and support of church leaders?

Rev. Samson:  We have chatted with them [church leaders] and the entire COM. It’s not our job to have a bias.

Rev. Samson called on other members of her committee to respond to our concerns.  Their comments are paraphrased here:

·         It is painful to leave a church.  Pastors take a covenant to leave appropriately.  I am very concerned that the process at your church was done behind closed doors.  This is not the way UCC churches should operate.  I’m with you there. I’d love to meet with your group.  I’m glad you are speaking up and speaking out and calling on your congregation to meet.   

Thank you for trusting the heart.  How do you trust when someone has agreed to be open and affirming and yet, not sure they are?  I hope you feel our passion and compassion.  It’s hard when a church you love throws you a left curve.

·         You couldn’t get back together as a group face-to-face to address your concerns [because of the isolation required].  The policy should have been communicated [to the full congregation] before being finalized.  I had two former pastors in my church, and they were fantastic.  I hear that you don’t feel heard.

·         I hear problems with process – it is hard to deal with [issues] when you can’t get together.  I sense in you the willingness to find the right path.  Tell us how we can be helpful. 

·         Conflict can be a time of growing.  [Times of conflict] may be when we grow the most.  We learn to trust and have faith.

·         Re. Bonnie’s list of fears: These are rich conversation for discussions.  I feel great concern for people who are feeling the threat of rejection described by Bonnie.

Rev. Samson

I feel God is at work in conflict.  Let’s see what God has to say.

Rev. Samson referenced a UCC document citing expectations for retiring clergy, published by the UCC:

“When a clergy retires, the UCC ministerial code will be adhered to, and the boundaries outlined are to be honored.  Retired minister refrains from providing pastoral care or seeking out continued relationship with those formerly in their care and transfers their church membership and standing if appropriate upon retirement.  These boundaries encourage the clergy person to build relationships in a new community and to acclimate to retirement.

“Even in instances and locations where retired pastors remain in the community they have served including at times retaining church membership in the former congregations due to a lack of local UCC churches, a retired minister should not participate in the life of a congregation from which they have retired for a period of 1-3 years – determined in conversation with the COM and incoming pastor.”

Boundaries include funerals, weddings, and baptisms for congregants and the wider community alike.  We [the COM] weren’t there to provide guidance, we weren’t called in.  We got cut short in our work with you by the pandemic.  The pandemic came; people tried to handle things on their own.  We take some of the responsibility for what is happening right now.

From the “Manual on Ministry:”  “Retired [Pastors] or Pastors Who are Leaving Covenant: Retired pastor not to perform pastoral services within a congregation or for a member of a congregation without invitation of current pastor … neither interfere with nor intrude upon the ministry of my successor upon my departure from a ministry setting and to deal honorably with the record of my predecessor or successor.”

Diane Rhoades

There is an ethical issue here.  Richard Weidler left anticipating the old policy. Without our former pastors being informed, the policy changed.  People are usually grandfathered in under these circumstances.  Our congregation wondered why church leadership changed the policy.  I couldn’t help but wonder if Rev. Weidler was being singled out.

Rev. Samson

What I am advocating for is a period of 1-3 years in conversation with the COM and the incoming pastor. 

Bob Miles

Richard retired two years ago, and we had a very successful interim.  Much of the congregation is new and doesn’t know what we are talking about.  I felt there was nearly a total breakdown in communication.   A number of us asked Karla Miller, after she had been with us for a year, whether Richard might return.  The March 11 email with the new policy was sent with no advance notice.  I don’t know if Karla and Richard Weidler have ever talked directly with each other.  It is essential for the departed pastor and new pastor to talk with each other.  Rev. Barbara Rathbun came back twice and backed away because she felt that she was still being seen as the pastor.  The third time, it seemed okay.  The Human Relations Ministry (HRM) originally was intended to be a support group for the new pastor.

Ben Coonrod

The HRM was blessed by our congregation.  My memory of the HRM charge was to help the pastor with employees with relationship issues.  Richard and Mike are no longer employees.  It seems they [HRM] have overstepped their charge.

Richard spoke from the pulpit – expressing that he was very conscious of the commitment to come back as a member, not as a pastor.  He was really ready to retire and come back when invited.  My sense is that he met his commitment.  He did not and continues to not be involved with members or with this group [we represent].  He’s been banned for life!

I am a chaplain in another group – I listen to people, challenge people.  I want to have frank conversations with Richard about anything – authentic and heart-to-heart conversations.  I want reassurance that we can have heart-to-heart conversations. 

Diane Rhoades

Richard is a friend.  When I invited him to our wedding in February, Rev. Weidler said he couldn’t attend unless Karla invited him.  He honored the covenant without complaint. Richard Weidler, as far as I am concerned, has kept the covenant intact.  At first, my objection was more personal, more about Richard.  Now, I recognize that the more important issue is how this policy challenges the forgiving, loving, and inclusive identity of my church.  Thank you for this conversation.

Rev. Samson

I wish I could talk about some things, but there are confidential things that I cannot talk about or that no member of the committee can talk about.  You can be in conversation with Richard as long as it isn’t about your church business.  That’s where the line is drawn.

There is a fine line between pastor as pastor, and pastor as friend.  As a pastor, you are not our best friends.  Those are some of the blurred lines.

Bob Miles

As a retired professional counselor, I can say that ministers are not the only profession that defines boundary issues.  Counselors and therapists have a responsibility to avoid dual relationships with their clients. 

COM member: A relationship with a retired pastor can’t be totally reciprocal. 

Bonnie Rash to COM members

I hear a couple of things forming:

·         Our group wants to put this conversation to the full congregation.  But how do we do that in isolation?

·         The COM is suggesting that we take advantage of the 1-3 years and not make this decision to challenge the policy yet, allowing you time to come in and work with us more.  Does that mean the new policy is frozen or reversed until further notice?  Is this accurate?

Rev. Samson

We are in covenant.  Churches have autonomy.  I can make my voice heard, but I can’t make demands.

Bonnie Rash

It may be time for us to go away and talk about what is the best way to move forward.  It would be difficult to slow this process down.  We need to communicate with our larger group.  Will we communicate that we are going to reverse this policy and follow a different process?

Rev. Samson

I need time to go back and talk about some things I’ve heard and see if that’s possible.  I don’t know if it is possible.  I’m willing to do that – it’s part of my job.

Ben Coonrod

Transparency has been an issue for us.  We propose that others from this group can listen to further conversation.  I’m sorry they couldn’t be listening today because they would have hope.  They have been praying for us.

Rev. Samson

I want you to know that others from the COM wanted to listen in also, and I put the brakes on for both sides.

Bob Miles

We’ve heard it’s us vs. them, and that’s not good.   I look to hear some openness from church leaders that they take some responsibility, as you folks have, that things could have happened differently and some openness to take another look at this policy.  Until we hear that, I’m not sure how we would proceed.

Next Immediate Steps

Bonnie will communicate soon with Rev. Samson about possible next steps that Rev. Samson and the COM can suggest. 
_____________________________________________________________________________________

To readers of these notes:  The “Next Steps” to be taken by our group of 40+ may be different from the Next Steps taken by or with the COM.  Your four representatives would like to hear back from the COM re. their decision whether to support contacting the entire congregation, or not, with a clear, concise description of our concerns, linked to the appropriate detailed documents.  It remains the intention of the group of 40+ to bring this conversation to the entire congregation.