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.