The First Presbyterian Church
Mansfield, Ohio
419. 756.7066
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
To Our Sister Churches in Muskingum Valley Presbytery:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. On January 9, 2010, you will be asked to either accept or reject the recommendations of the Administrative Commission for the First Presbyterian Church of Mansfield. The report we received from them was given to us last June, we have been seeking to come to a constructive meeting of the minds ever since, and unable to come to an agreement it is our understanding that this report will be presented. They will recommend that the Presbytery act to dissolve the relationship with the Pastor of Mansfield First. We are asking that you prayerfully and thoughtfully consider our position before casting your vote.
Below are some critical concerns that we wish to bring to your attention. And in the pages that follow we further elaborate our views. We are asking that you take time to evaluate them carefully.
We would also encourage you to visit the church web site
www.mansfieldfirstpresbyterian.org
where you may listen to a sermon from December the 6th, summarizing for the congregation what has been and is occurring at this moment. We believe that every minister, every elder should be concerned about the following:
· The process bypassed important safeguards within the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.);
· The actions establishing the Administrative Commission and the course of action recommended by the Administrative Commission was and is based on erroneous information in part resulting from not following Constitutional process;
· Mansfield First continues to be a vital church in our community; worship services are healthy; a strong sense of friendship and kinship exists among the members; our finances are strong and the church is fiscally sound with strong tithing and strong sacrificial offerings;
· Mansfield First has begun the healing process and further disruption on the part of the Muskingum Valley Presbytery would be seriously detrimental.
We are asking you to decline the Administrative Commission’s request to dissolve the pastoral relationship, thank the Commission for its efforts and bringing forward helpful information for the session to evaluate, conclude the work of the Administrative Commission and the Presbytery’s involvement with Mansfield First over this issue and grant Mansfield First the season of peace it has long desired allowing the spirit of healing to complete what it’s already begun within our walls.
Again, grace and peace.
Sincerely,
The Session of First Presbyterian Church
The Session of The First Presbyterian Church
399 South Trimble Road
Mansfield, Ohio 44906
419.756.7066
WWW.MansfieldFirstPresbyterian.Com
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
To Our Sister Churches in Muskingum Valley Presbytery:
It is in the spirit of John 3:21, “whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God,” that we, the Session of Mansfield First, have decided to bring to your attention matters of great importance to Mansfield First, and which, in principle, stand to effect all of the churches in our presbytery.
Last December, the Muskingum Valley Presbytery voted to establish an Administrative Commission to look into allegations brought against Mansfield First, its staff, session, and pastor. The Administrative Commission has shared with Mansfield First its draft report of its findings and its recommendations, and it is our understanding that this coming January 9th, 2010, you will hear that same report. Before any decisions are made regarding this report however, we would like you to hear why we believe the manner in which the Presbytery is acting is doing a grave injustice to our church, our system of government, and the future health of our congregation.
We fear that the problem was a process that bypassed important safeguards within the constitution of PCUSA that are founded solidly upon Biblical principle to assure that decisions are based upon the best, most complete information. We fear that the course of action followed by the AC was based upon erroneous information, manipulated by a few dissatisfied persons, and may have been undertaken with a predetermined outcome in mind, thus tainting the process. Most importantly, we fear that the proposed course of action will cause far more harm than good, that it does not reflect the will of the congregation, and that it is inherently illogical. We state these things mindful that our first obligation is to serve Jesus Christ, that it is His church of which we are stewards.
The draft report that we received from the Administrative Commission on the one hand clears the pastor, session and church of the specific allegations, yet on the other finds much to “dredge up” concerning the overall health of the church. The Administrative Commission’s recommendation involves removing pastor and staff even though the Administrative Commission was not charged with investigating to remove the pastor or staff, was not empowered to take such steps, did not follow the constitutional process to arrive at a decision to take such steps, and can point to no offense for which pastor or staff should be removed. The pastor’s call was approved unanimously at the last congregational meeting, which occurred since the Administrative Commission process began.
To be fair, we recognize that no church is without discord. Mansfield First has been no exception. Mansfield First has had more than its fair share of conflict over the years. Yet the past conflicts are not the present reality. The ministry at Mansfield First is currently strong. It is strong in part because of the strength we gained by overcoming the past. To foreshorten years of past conflict that were not caused by our current leadership and present them as an assessment of the current church health, and to blame the current leadership is to do injustice to the strength of the ministry which has emerged as a result of our history, and does injustice to the faithful effective efforts of pastor, staff and other church leaders, particularly a pastor that has been called to minister in troubled fields. For times such as these does God call people to respond, and our Session and Pastor have responded and continue to respond to the call.
We who regularly work and worship at Mansfield First see that our church is slowly but steadily on the mend. It is a challenge, and will be regardless of what course is taken. There is still much work left to be done. Certainly, those who have left, and maybe some who remain, harbor dissatisfaction. We who remain welcome with love and with God’s grace any and all to the work with us, and to resolve the lingering dissatisfaction. But it must be borne in mind that the very root of dissatisfaction is not the presence of the pastor or other church leadership, although as is common perhaps many of the dissatisfied see them as readily available targets.
Today we have at Mansfield First numerous strengths indicative of a healthy path. We have a tremendous Youth Ministry. Our Community Outreach is excellent, with other churches and organizations referring people in need to our doors. Worship services are healthy, and a strong sense of friendship and kinship exists among the congregation. Join us and see for yourselves. And while past challenges caused membership losses, the rolls have stabilized over the past two years and new people are beginning to show interest and join, reflecting the positive actions of the current church leadership. The important point is that this has been occurring since before the Administrative Commission began its work, and has continued to this day. And finally (though there is more we could say), our finances are strong, the church is fiscally sound, with strong tithing and offering despite all of the above and as well the bad economy at home and abroad.
We therefore believe that the recommendations of the report given to us by the Administrative Commission will not provide substantive change in the speed or degree of the healing still needed. We believe strongly that these actions will negate the progress we have made and will, in fact, create discord.
While we do not doubt that those involved directly or indirectly in proposing a change in leadership at Mansfield First mean well for our church, it appears as if the proposed solution “gives up” on the church and simply wants to start anew. And, we are concerned that in order to expedite certain preconceived ideas of our situation, they have chosen to bypass an established process that might, in fact, show that the proposed solution might not be best, and that it will only revive strife and divisions, lead to additional tension, and destroy the healing we all so greatly desire.
From our perspective it appears that the Committee On Ministry and the Administrative Commission, though well intentioned, have inadvertently allowed themselves to be swept up in a damaging cycle of gossip and innuendo. While diligently seeking to follow up on the reports of malcontent, they have in fact stirred up more.
We recognize that no church is perfect, no pastor is perfect, no staff and other leadership is perfect, and we recognize that ours is not without fault. Yet there are no findings that merit their removal. To contend that forcibly altering the church’s current leadership will lead to harmony within our church is to grievously misunderstand the people in our pews.
One particular point of contention between the Administrative Commission’s report and the opinions of the leadership of Mansfield First is the Administrative Commission’s assertion that removing the senior pastor and other staff is the only road to peace and unity. Our strong feeling is that regardless who fills the position senior pastor or staff, there will be a group either large or small having a very difficult time and harboring significant feelings of resentment. The only real difference to be obtained in proceeding down the path, from a flawed following of process, of removing pastor and staff is selecting a large group to be unhappy, and that is not “healing.”
We, the elected and ordained leaders of Mansfield First, have spent the past few years trying to work with any unhappy members in order to resolve conflicts. It has been a battle against rumor, gossip, and innuendo. We have been trying to find specific concerns and allegations behind destructive talk. However, very few of those spreading discontent have been willing to work with or speak to leaders of this church, something exacerbated by having in place an Administrative Commission, directly contradicting our constitution and Holy Scriptures (Matthew 18). When we have gone to those whom we know or suspect to harbor ill feelings, typically they tell us is that there are generic problems that must be resolved and can only be resolved if the pastor leaves, (a “my way only” approach). Our system of governance does not and should not afford a minority veto to override church leadership and congregational will.
Yes, we have specific, significant points of disagreement with virtually every reported finding of the Administrative Commission, or at least with the manner in which it is stated and the manner that lead to its conclusions. But, while we do not wish to mire this letter with a “he said/she said” kind of narrative or attack the members of the Administrative Commission, we have attached to this letter some of the more significant examples of where and how we feel the process has gone awry. We wish to convey strongly that we disagree with the conclusion of the Administrative Commission and vehemently disagree with its proposed course of action and the request the Administrative Commission has said it will bring to asking for the authority to remove pastor and perhaps any other staff.
Our feeling is that if we do not now voice to you our concerns, the momentum of the subverted process will sweep away our congregation and damage the reputation and careers of our pastor and staff, and more importantly the ministry Mansfield First Presbyterian will further suffer. While we pray diligently that your congregations never have to endure the challenges that Mansfield has, if we allow without a dispute the Administrative Commission and Committee On Ministry to bypass due process established by our constitution, we will have no credibility if we try to challenge any similarly flawed action toward any other congregation in this presbytery.
What we ask of you
We are asking that you prayerfully and thoughtfully consider what has happened at Mansfield First, and consider our position before taking further steps which might be harmful to our church, our witness in the community, and harmful to the faithful members who have worked so hard to preserve the positive aspects of our ministry. Please be mindful that we have much more to say, as we are the people on the front lines – we are the people who are to be most affected by your decisions. Please be mindful that merely granting an Administrative Commission or Committee On Ministry power to remove leadership is likely to do far more harm than good. We are asking you to decline the Administrative Commission’s request, and grant Mansfield First the season of peace it has long desired, allowing the spirit of healing time to complete its work within our walls.
Grace and peace to you all,
The Session of First Presbyterian Church of Mansfield
What follows is a listing of what we understand to be points of fact, and points of agreement and disagreement regarding Mansfield First and the report of the Administrative Commission given to Session with the understanding that it will be presented to Presbytery on January 9th:
1. For a period of several years the presbytery worked directly with and counseled, without the Senior Pastor’s knowledge and without the session’s knowledge, a discontented Associate Pastor who had begun to incite unrest among the congregation leading to rumor, gossip, and lack of fact.
2. The leadership of Mansfield First fully uncovered the activities of the Associate Pastor only when a ruling elder, having witnessed this activity, confronted the staff member advising him to seek help. The staff member threatened the ruling elder to the extent that her fear extended to her family members. She reported the incident to the Senior Pastor and to Session.
3. The Senior Pastor then tried unsuccessfully to work with the staff member; the General Presbyter was called to assist.
4. A constructive action was planned for the Associate Pastor’s benefit. A face-saving presentation was made to the congregation toward renewal and reconciliation.
5. The staff member was given sabbatical, to be supervised by presbytery
6. During sabbatical the staff member participated in a campaign of the slander of the Senior Pastor and others. He refused to return to his position at the church. He wrote a two-line letter to the congregation saying he was resigning and asked for severance.
7. A Congregational meeting was called, moderated by a member of COM. The moderator failed to conduct the meeting appropriately, allowing members to speak out of turn, allowing inactive members to speak, allowing discourteous, inappropriate outbursts that scared children and alienated members.
8. The General Presbyter had recommended to the session a Bridge Builder process. The facilitator for the process was later described by the General Presbyter to be incompetent. Furthermore, he was not a Presbyterian with understanding of Presbyterian process. His part with the church concluded quickly. With ineffective, inappropriate leadership, in spite of the conscientious efforts of some participants, the process did not build bridges, took an inordinately long time, and operated outside the bounds of the Presbyterian system of government.
9. Upon his departure the session was by the General Presbyter that the Chair of the Committee On Ministry would be acting as the adviser or consultant for the Bridge Builder process. The Bridge Builder process continued, however, to act as if it were a separate entity with a mandate, apparently, to operate as if the session of the First Presbyterian Church had no right to exercise oversight counsel, guidance, or be in constructive dialogue regarding its actions. This in the end accelerated division.
10. It is important to note that the Administrative Commission, in its report to session, stated that the Pastor did not read the final Bridgebuilder report. This is not true, the Pastor in fact read the Bridgebuilder report more than once, something that the Pastor, the Clerk Of Session, and others reported more than once to the Administrative Commission, but something, evidently, they refused to hear or did not hear.
11. The Committee On Ministry in its resolution stated to the Presbytery that it had been working with the session and pastors of the church for over two years. This is false. The session did and does not have any idea who the Committee On Ministry is. The Committee On Ministry did not work with the session over a period of two years. The Committee On Ministry did not work with the Senior Pastor.
12. During its only meeting with the non-ordained staff at Mansfield First, the Administrative Commission stated that its purpose at that meeting was to gather information. However, when a member of the Administrative Commission heard a response from a staff member about which the Administrative Commission member did not agree, the Administrative Commission member stood and lectured the staff member. Staff members were asked, sometimes directly, to enumerate the faults of the Senior Pastor. Staff members were openly criticized for not producing a list of faults of the Senior Pastor. Staff members experienced the process as being one of interrogation, being put on the defensive, sometimes cut off in their attempts to respond sincerely to the Administrative Commission’s questions.
13. The Administrative Commission’s report to session criticizes “some Church members and staff” for not bearing an attitude of concern that so many have left the church and what could be done to turn things around”. The session on its part has gone out of its way, and continues to go out of its way, to pursue disaffected members. Staff members have gone out of their way, and continue to go out of their way to pursue disaffected members. Upon receiving this, efforts were intensified. While we do not agree with the process by which the Administrative Commission was formed, we did not reject reasonable critique in such determinations. We have asked of all involved that they seek to follow Matthew 18 and thus in process the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church USA.
14. Prior to the resolution of December 2008 that created the Administrative Commission, a period of time that must have been significant, the Committee On Ministry had been holding discussions with a group of disaffected members and drawing conclusions from these discussions alone without comprehensive investigation involving the staff, the session, and the pastor of Mansfield First. The numerous unsubstantiated allegations raised in the resolution from these secret discussions were held tightly secret until the week prior to the vote to form the Administrative Commission.
15. The Committee On Ministry published, in a public forum, highly inflammatory allegations regarding Mansfield First without prior competent investigation.
16. The Administrative Commission was charged “to conduct … review of the actions of the Session, with special attention to matters of the rolls, personnel, finances, and the nominating process.” In addition, they were “to meet with members of the congregation with regard to the life of the church.” The Administrative Commission met with many who are not members of the church, allowing them to influence their decision. In fact, it is not clear who met with the Administrative Commission, who has complained or in other ways commented about what, the Commission while promising to be forthcoming with it sources of allegations and other contentions has not been forthcoming. With both the Commission and the Committee On Ministry things are shrouded in “anonymity.”
17. The report the Administrative Commission presented to session indicates that it found no merit in the specific allegations brought forth by Committee On Ministry regarding the membership rolls, church finances, or the nominating process. However, (1) the Administrative Commission never requested or conducted a review of the Membership Rolls nor discussed our process with the Session, or Clerk of Session regarding members removed since January, 2006; (2) the finances and manner of record keeping were never reviewed or discussed with the Treasurer or Associate Treasurer; and (3) no fault was found with the nominating process. The report, however, still casts suspicion on the Session in all of these areas.
18. The Administrative Commission draft report indicates that it has found no merit in the specific allegations of intimidation by the Senior Pastor, but still recommends his discharge, in spite of the fact that that the Administrative Commission was not charged with moving toward the dissolution of the pastoral relationship.
19. The Administrative Commission has not followed directives from the Book of Order, section G-9.0505b which states: “When an administrative commission has been appointed to settle difference within a church, a governing body, or an organization of the church, it shall, before making its final decision, afford to all persons to be affected by the decision fair notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter at issue… Fair notice shall consist of a short and plain statement of the matters at issue as identified by the commission and of the time and place for a hearing upon the matters at issue.” This did not occur.
