June 26: Note to the group

On June 26th this email was sent to the group of 40+.   The email also included the email response to Phil that was sent on June 23rd.

Dear friends,

Keeping you up to date, attached is a response we have sent to Phil Taylor, asking him to share it with Gary Cyphers, with our response to Phil’s questions. In asking the questions, Phil said, “I need a better understanding of the purpose of such a meeting [with Council] before I can consider making the request, as I expect Council will want more information.”

Phil is aware of the urgency many feel about having the opportunity to talk with leadership. 

We hope to hear something from him before he leaves on vacation. 

 As we prepare for a possible meeting with Council, we ask you to write your own heart-felt letter to one of the church leaders.  Many of you have already done so.  If you are willing to share those letters with us, we will make these available to all of leadership, including Council and HRM members, who are making decisions about how to proceed. 

In loving cooperation,

Ben Coonrod, Bob Miles, Judith Nourse, Bonnie Rash, Diane Rhoades

June 23:Email response to Phil

Phil Taylor had asked a set of questions regarding the purpose and objectives of a meeting with church council.  The following email was sent to Phil on June 23rd..


Dear Phil,

We are grateful for your participation in our meeting and appreciate your request for more information. 

Our short answer to your questions would be that we wish to begin easing tension within the church by starting an open dialog with church leadership that includes discussion about a policy, or policy guidelines, that will satisfy the needs of the pastor, the former pastors, and the congregation. 

Our sincere desire is for an outcome that gives comfort and peace to all parties while upholding the core values of our church and its members.  We are committed to the health of our church and believe that to be true for all involved. 

With gratitude for all you do,


Ben Coonrod, Bob Miles, Judith Nourse, Bonnie Rash, Diane Rhoades


Answers to Your Questions

1.    What do you see as the purpose/hoped for outcomes of a meeting with Council?

Our objective is to remedy the conflict in an open dialog with church leadership, with the hope that a “mutually acceptable outcome” can be achieved. 

Hoped for outcomes would be a group of church members and leaders working together to write a policy and/or guidelines that represents [represent] the entire congregation of this progressive Christian church.  Our larger group of 40+ has asked us to be their voice to Council. On their behalf, we wish to participate in writing a policy that meets the needs of our current pastor, former pastors, and congregation. 

2.    Could you articulate what ‘not being heard’ means to your group?  Three representatives

of the group were heard at the last Council meeting.  Until last Saturday’s Zoom meeting, no Council members have ever been invited to attend your group’s meetings.  Individual members of your group have been heard and responded to by Karla, by the members of the HRM, and by me. 

Perhaps a better summary of our feelings than ‘not being heard’ is ‘not having the opportunity to have a two-way conversation with church leadership.’

Many members have sent letters and made attempts with several in church leadership to address and advocate for a change in the policy.  For three months, we were told to trust those who made the policy; that it was a final decision with no recourse for change.

If we were being heard, we believe an effort would have been made be made to invite us to have the conversation that might make better sense of this issue.  The shepherd went after one rogue sheep.  There are about 50 in this flock who are hurt and straying away.

(We didn’t think to invite church leadership since we were told that this was a done deal.  We came together in solidarity, grieving the change.  With time, we realized how contrary to Congregational thinking it is to have a policy that excludes former pastors without our congregational input.) 

3.  What is specifically being requested?  A conversation?  A formal meeting?  With the five representatives?  With the whole group?

We are asking for a conversation in which we, representing a subgroup of the congregation, make requests of Council, and we listen to responses from those of you who represent the entire congregation.  With the five, yes. Once this initial conversation has occurred, we hope that a process will emerge in which a mutually acceptable revision can be presented to the congregation. 

To your “formal” meeting question, we’re not sure if this is called a formal meeting, or an informal one?

4.  Is it your group’s expectation that this meeting with Council will be closed to others, or will it be open to any church member?  I am specifically thinking of those members not on the HRM who are supportive of the now suspended policy.

We envision a similar meeting to the one we had with COM, with notes of the meeting made available later.  If we are unable to achieve consensus with Council about working together for a revision, we envision the conversation broadening to the full congregation, with those who support the now suspended policy presenting their positions, as we would present ours. 

June 18: Email Update to the group

Dear friends,


Karla, Phil, Mark, and Gary are copied on this message.  We ask Phil to forward it to church council members and Gary to send it to other members of the HRM.

We had intended to use the Saturday zoom meeting to bring you up-to-date on recent events, but when Phil agreed to participate, the purpose of the meeting changed to providing him with the feedback that he needed.  Here is our update:


Council on Ministry (COM):  When we learned last week that Rev. Colleen Samson and COM apparently recommended to HRM that the church hire outside counsel such as the Mennonite group, we were disappointed that Rev. Marcia Cham, a member of COM whom we had requested as facilitator and who had said she would like to work with our church, was not offered to us.  Rev. Samson wrote:

 “I appreciate your recent request [to work with Rev. Marcia Cham], and will give it to the COM.   Once the COM gets involved in church conflict, we take the driver's seat. We might not move as quickly as you would like because we have many ministers and churches to work with. We ask for your patience, and to give the committee time to do their work.”

And so we decided again to go directly to church council with a request for a meeting.


Meeting with Church Leaders and Council:  When the Council “suspended/postponed” the new policy and HRM turned over responsibility to the Council, we renewed the request to Phil to schedule a meeting directly with church leadership, now defined as Karla, Mark, Phil and Council.  Phil required that he first hear directly from the 40+ before he made the decision whether or not to propose a meeting to Council. That occurred on Saturday, and we are now waiting to hear back from Phil.


Congregational Meeting:  As your representatives, we advise against calling a congregational meeting at this time, with the hope that the matter can be settled at the church leadership level, avoiding a potential split in our fellowship and increasing the potential for healing.  We believe there may be a place for a congregational meeting and/or vote, as many of you have said, if a meeting with Council is refused.


Options for a Different or Altered Policy:  Concurrently with our efforts to schedule a meeting with church Council and leaders, members of this group have begun working on recommendations for a new policy and/or guidelines for the previous policy.  Focus is on measures that meet the needs of the new pastor, the former pastors and the entire congregation.  We will report back to you as this work progresses.

We urge you to send us your feedback re. the actions we are taking on your behalf. 

In loving cooperation,


Ben Coonrod, Bob Miles, Judith Nourse, Bonnie Rash, and Diane Rhoades

June 13: Conference Call

On June 13 there was a conference call to inform the larger group about the Council Meeting earlier that week.   This meeting was information  sharing only.  No decisions were brought to the group so there were no need for formal minutes.  Unlike the other posts in this blog these comments are entirely mine.

Phil Taylor was an invited guest and answered a few of our questions.  He was primarily there to listen.  His presence was welcomed by all.

A few points of interest.

The group still seeks a meeting with church council leadership.  Phil indicated that HRM wanted a 'facilitator' and the lack of agreement on this has delayed the call.  It was in lieu of this call that representatives of the group were invited to listen in to the church council meeting.

Phil provided some background that was new to some of us.

HRM started to reconsider the pastor policy in Oct. 2019.  This was not brought to the attention to the congregation at the annual congregation meeting in Jan. 2020.

When HRM recommended the policy to the council in March apparently no consideration was given at that time to bring this to the attention of the congregation before the council voted to approve.  (JB Note:  Phil could not recall any discussion about bringing this to the congregation).

This week when HRM recommended to "suspend" the new policy again there was no discussion of bringing this to the congregation.

Now that the March policy change has been suspended  it is not clear if the prior policy is in effect.

Some members expressed hope that we could bring this matter to the congregation soon and have a Yes/No vote.

Some members expressed the need for an updated, more robust and clear policy that would be allow former pastors to rejoin the church.

June 11: Email from Phil

There was a council meeting on June 10th.  In lieu of the conference call with church leadership representatives of this group were permitted to listen in to the proceedings.  Following the church council meeting Phil sent the following email to Bonnie Rash.


Hi Bonnie,

The Council agenda had an item "Departing Clergy Policy Dispute Update" which I provided.  Bob asked if several of your group could attend to "observe", and I agreed.  Bob said they would not participate in the discussion unless asked a question.  And while they did participate without being asked a question, I think everyone was respectful, which I appreciate.


 I outlined that I have been in communication with your group through Bob and now through you.  We have been discussing how to have a conversation about this disagreement during a pandemic, but have not agreed on how that might work - including such questions as facilitated or not facilitated.  I noted that both your group and the HRM had met separately with the CoM of the WNCA regarding this situation.  I also explained that the CoM was the appropriate group to help resolve this situation.


Gary Cyphers (HRM chairperson and Council member) then made a motion that the HRM had decided to request of Council during a meeting the HRM had yesterday with some members of the CoM.  The motion is as follows:

*********************************************************************************************

The Human Relations Ministry (HRM) moves that the revised personnel policy for departing pastors, passed by church Council on March 11, 2020, be suspended (postponed) for an indefinite period of time in order to assess and ameliorate the causes of the dissension that has arisen around its passage. The HRM also requests that the church Council assume responsibility for engaging one or more professional consultants and trainers from a respected and objective organization knowledgeable in church conflict mediation, such as the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center, to guide the congregation through a process of assessment, dialogue, transformation, healing, and reconciliation.

*********************************************************************************************

After a very extensive discussion about this, the Council voted to approve this motion by a vote of 8 in favor, 2 opposed, and 3 abstaining.  This makes the Council responsible for the process of obtaining professional assistance as described in the motion to work with all of us on a process of transformation, healing, and reconciliation.  I will be communicating this information to the congregation in the near future.

Clearly, this will not be an easy road for any of us.  I remain hopeful, however, that this will lead all of us to my goal of a mutually acceptable solution that we can all embrace and allow us to move our church forward.


Thanks,

Phil

June 3: Email from Bob Miles to Phil

Good morning Phil,


Attached is a summary that the five of us have written to inform the congregation about the sequence of developments and questions concerning the former pastor policy, which we ask you to send to the congregation.  You indicated that you may want other church leaders to review it.


We appreciate that you expressed a strong interest almost a month ago in having a conversation with our group.  Since then, we had the Zoom meeting with Rev. Samson and members of the Committee on Ministry and follow-up exchanges with her.

Do you know yet if other church leaders want to arrange a Zoom meeting with the five of us?  We ask for such a conversation to take place soon, knowing that the church is facing many questions, and trust that church leaders feel the same urgency to begin seeking a way forward within the church on this issue.  


When you and I talked, I asked whether you and other church leaders are open to reviewing or reconsidering the policy.  When four of us talked yesterday, we agreed that we don't need to know this before we have a conversation with you.  Starting to talk is most important. 

We look forward to hearing from you soon.


Yours in peace,

Bob

JB Note: This email contained an attachment that was similar to he May 29:  Summary so far

June 1: Email from Bob Miles to the group

Dear church friends,

Several of you have asked about steps your spokespersons are taking after sending notes from the Zoom meeting with members of the UCC Western North Carolina Association (WNCA) on May 18. 

After careful consideration, we re-contacted Rev. Colleen Samson, Associate Director of the WNCA, to ask that a member of the Committee on Ministry who participated in the Zoom meeting facilitate a meeting between members of our group and church leaders.  We believed that a discussion with church leaders might be more productive with this facilitator. 

We are concerned, however, about Rev. Samson’s reply on Friday, in which she briefly explained the control they wish to exercise and the length of time before we could expect resolution of issues facing our church.  As a result, we again will contact Phil Taylor, church moderator, to ask for a Zoom meeting with church leaders.  Bob Miles will talk with Phil to suggest inviting a local person to facilitate the discussion and discuss how members of this group can participate.  

In addition, we are writing a summary that includes the sequence of dates since the policy was announced on March 11, questions we have raised, actions we have taken, and links to relevant documents.  It is intended to inform the entire congregation about our concerns before the issue comes to a congregational meeting, which most of us agree is necessary. The summary will be sent to all of you and Phil Taylor as soon as it is updated.  We understand that he may consult with other church leaders about sending it to the congregation.

We believe that we speak for this group of 40+ by insisting that the new policy is inconsistent with the church value of inclusion and that this important question must be decided by the entire congregation. 

We understand the need to bring healing to the church.  As before, we appreciate your feedback, concerns and questions.

In peace,

Bob Miles, Ben Coonrod, Diane Rhoades, Bonnie Rash and Judith Nourse

JB Note:  To clarify, the 5 folks who were chosen to represent the group at this meeting with CoM decided that we should NOT agree to involve CoM in the process and that this should be communicated back to Phil.