Jawbone of a Pastor: Proposed Changes to our Constitution: Second Members Meeting

Monday, January 15, 2007

Proposed Changes to our Constitution: Second Members Meeting

We had our second meeting of our members last night to discuss some potential changes to our church constitution. We are a blessed congregation. I have heard horror stories of other church's meetings where chaos has ensued, bitter words have been exchanged and members have felt ostracized from each other. It doesn't seem to be that way in our church.

While it is certain that some feel very strongly about their convictions on varying aspects of this proposal, the discussion has been civil and all expressed a sincere interest for how these changes may affect our church positively or negatively.

I was pleased with the turnout at the second meeting. Quite a few who weren't able to make the first meeting attended, and many who had attended the first meeting came again. It is obvious that a significant part of our membership has understood the importance of this venture. We have one more meeting scheduled for January 28th.

Our Elders continue to listen and take notes. Sometimes it is not easy to discern the voice of God when sincere, godly men and women on both sides of an issue share their convictions. But that is our calling, discernment. Continue to pray as we continue to dialogue. It is extremely important that this process be saturated with prayer.

One gentle pastoral piece of advice. Be careful how you discuss this issue in the lobby and aisles of the church. We have visitors who may inadvertently be given the wrong impression that just because there is a difference of opinion it may be interpreted as division or dissension. Continue to season your words with grace. The enemy is constantly looking for an opportunity to negate our witness.

24 Comments:

I feel so blessed to be part of an awesome church family! You are SO RIGHT about chaos erupting at other churches. Rodney and I attended a church that unfortunately didn't have a solid foundation in which members felt weaved together with one another. Before, during, and after our church meetings, people of the congregation would be filled with bitterness, anxiety, and hostility toward staff; and other members of the church who might have had a different opinion than them on any given issue. It was awful and definitely didn't seem like we were in a church that was striving to accomplish our tasks biblically.

We are so happy to be members of CHC!!!

Pastor, I want to thank you so much for your ministry! You are so appreciated for your faithful obedience to God. THANK YOU!

- Tracie McDaniel

By Anonymous, at 2:02 PM
I have grown up in this church and remember my parents voting on important decisions. We all grew up having a feeling that this church was truly our own and were glad to have a say in important matters.

Thank you, Pastor, for not getting upset when most of the congregation present at this second meeting obviously seemed opposed to the changes you proposed to our constitution.

Those "slight" changes in words would take away the vote from the congregation for major decisions and leave it in the hands of a few select elders. These are the times that I can remember (with the help of some older folks) in the last 28 years that the congregation was called upon to vote -

1.) The congregation would vote every 3 years as to whether or not they wished the presiding pastor to continue for another 3 years. This was changed in 1990 when Pastor Arnes took this out of the constitution.

2.) Every year new deacons were needed to replace deacons who were coming off their term. The congregation then submitted names to the elders who they thought would make good deacons. The elders, then, would go through the lists and remove any names who they thought were either unworthy of being godly deacons or knew that they would not or could not serve. Their approved list was then given to the congregatiohn to vote on. This was done every year. In my estimation this was an excellent way of picking new deacons. Names cames directly from the congregation, they were approved or disapproved by the elders, and then a shortened list was given to the congregation (members) to vote on. What is wrong with that? We all felt a part of the church because of this practice.

3.) The congregation voted on Pastor Sherstaad, then the pastor-candidate Alfred Bachelor, and finally Pastor Rivera.

By removing the member's vote on important matters, we are eliminating FOREVER our voice. The elders are not diminished in any way by the times that the congregation voted.

Though I am relatively young, I see the concerns of our church family and sympathize with the older members who worked so hard over the last decades to have things the was they are now.

I am against the proposed changes and am praying every day that God's will be done. Thank you.
1/15/07

p.s. Why were't more of the elders present? It would be nice if all of them got up and spoke on the matter. Thank you.

By Anonymous, at 8:37 PM
Dear Pastor,
It seems that the elders are not speaking up at the meetings. At the first meeting they were asked some questions and didn't have the answers, and at this meeting there were only 2 present (other than you) and did not talk hardly at all. It would be helpful if they were more talkative and told us of their opinions and were willing to answer questions.
PTL!

By Anonymous, at 8:45 PM
For those who are wondering, all but one elder was there last night. Tom Flannigan was not able to make the meeting. He had to work. The job he is working on is a shut down situation which required him to be there all weekend.

I have similar concerns about the other elders not speaking up at our meetings. I expected them to come prepared with answers to our unanswered questions from our last meeting. I don’t quite understand this lackadaisical approach. If the other elders are not articulating their thoughts, how are we supposed to be convinced that there is unity between them on the individual issues?

td

By Anonymous, at 10:14 PM
For those who are wondering, all but one elder was there last night. Tom Flannigan was not able to make the meeting. He had to work. The job he is working on is a shut down situation which required him to be there all weekend.

I have similar concerns about the other elders not speaking up at our meetings. I expected them to come prepared with answers to our unanswered questions from our last meeting. I don’t quite understand this lackadaisical approach. If the other elders are not articulating their thoughts, how are we supposed to be convinced that there is unity between them on the individual issues?

td

By Anonymous, at 10:14 PM
Just a simple response from me. Our elders have committed themselves to listening during this series of meetings. Sometimes it has been hard for us to address your questions because others have chimed in with new questions or follow-up questions.

This process may end up taking longer than we anticipated. That's ok. We will let it flow until we are satisfied that the key issues have been addressed.

Thanks for your particpation on the blog and in the meetings.

By jawbone, at 10:50 AM
No matter how this issue is sugar coated and made to sound innocuous,the fact is that this attempt to take away the voice of the membership in major issues of the church is causing anxiety and division in the assembly. This effort to usurp and hold authority in the hands of less than a half dozen individuals is wrong. This matter should be promptly dropped.

1/16/07

By Anonymous, at 5:38 PM
It seems that to many in the congregation the question has never been "Do we trust our leaders to truly lead us?" and "Is there biblical precedent to the changes proposed to us?". Instead it seems the questions are "Do I personally as a congregant get to have power?" and "Why would I be willing to give up personal power and trust in the leaders God has put before me when they might not act the way I would?". It seems that we have given in to the worldly ideas of power and authority- where we are unable to give up one, or submit to the other.

By Anonymous, at 6:38 PM
Anonymous post #7, 4:38 PM

Your comments are an unfair characterization of the issues at hand. What is transpiring in our church is provided for in our present constitution. The proper protocol for presenting a change has and is being followed.

It is ok to state your case, but leave the accusations out of the equation. It stifles debate and discussion.

I am leaving the comment as an example of the kind of statements that we don't want being made.

Address the issue and let the process play itself out. Remember, it will be the will of the congregation that will ultimate accept or reject change.

Words like "sugar coated" or "usurp" should be backed up with facts. It's ok to disagree, but let's not be accusatory or disagreeable. If the discussion deteriorates to questioning motives and indirect or direct attacks, I will be forced to eliminate those comments.

Again, feel free to state your case, and even tip your hand as to how you will vote when given the opportunity, and tell us why you agree or disagree, but please leave the divisive language out of it.

Thank you

By jawbone, at 7:09 PM
Having power as a member is the least from my mind. It would be a stretch to say there is a rogue group out there on a power trip. There’s no agenda here. Most of us agree that changes need to be made to our constitution. We are simply stating that the current changes need some better checks and balances built into them. The assembly has to have some kind of recourse if future leaders (note: future leaders) were to lead in an unbiblical manner. We will continue to pray and ask God what the middle ground is and how we can get there. I've known all our present elders for years. I love all of them. They’re like family. They are all outstanding individuals with hearts that love God and want to please God. I thank them for serving this assembly faithfully for years.

td

By Anonymous, at 8:36 PM
The other night while I was saying something Rae Walsh started to talk and I responded in a way that I shouldn't have. I apologize again to Rae and to the entire congregation. I must say that I am embarrassed that I snapped at her and didn't respond in a manner that displays love towards my sister.

I also want everyone to know that Rae came running to me immediately following the meeting apologizing and we had a brief cry together, hugged and both said how sorry we were. I have had the privelege of working with the Walsh's for years and many years ago we were part of a great team ministering in many areas of the church. They continue to minister in a great many ways and are truly allowing the Lord to use them in areas of great needs.

Sorry you guys, I just don't know if I'm ready for a woman President. Just kidding! Love you guys. I hope to make some comments on these matters but for now Im going to bed. Remember, like someone said, we should saturate this matter in prayer.

God bless you all REAL GOOD!

Darrell Ortiz

By Anonymous, at 11:42 PM
All of us love our elders. We are so thankful to God that he has given us men who are willing to serve on the board sacrificing their own time for our good. Though we may disagree on certain issues, it does not make any one of us a "rogue". I personally appreciate every person who spoke up at the meetings because that means they are all concerned for the future of our church. Although some may not be as eloquent as others, their opinions are as important as those who have the scholarly "gift of gab". I also appreciate that Pastor Rivera has been so willing for these questions to be raised and for answering the questions both in the meetings and also in his blog. Hearing him say that if these changes are not initiated, then he will abide by that as well, is very reassuring.
c

By Anonymous, at 11:43 PM
I am excited to read posts in which we realize that good godly people on two sides of an issue can still be loving and gracious toward one another! In particular I want to say that I appreciate the manner in which "td" and "tracie" have posted. It has shown humility and concern about the situation and brings me confidence that even in disagreement we can still be the church.
Natalie

By Anonymous, at 9:59 AM
I am concerned that the disagreement of a few people is being seen as the feelings of the majority. Yes, there were several people at Sunday's meeting who were obviously concerned about the changes being presented, but I am not convinced that those few represented the views of the majority.

I, for one, agree with the majority of the changes being presented. For those who are concerned about "checks and balances," I believe that God will hold those in leadership accountable.

With regards to congregational votes - I don't see a Biblical precedent for that. In fact, in the two areas in the Bible where I see the "congregation" having a vote it is accompanied by a disastrous choice (Aaron and the Golden Calf, and Israel's choice for a king.)

I strongly believe that regardless of how this church has operated in the past our future should be dictated by God's Word (through scriptures and through the prayerful discernment of our leaders.)

Ultimately, however, I pray that our congregation will move forward, in unity, with what God has in store for the future of our church.

- ctf

By Anonymous, at 7:05 PM
There is talk of revisions. How can revisions be made to a constitution that the board took 8 to 12 months to write, pray, and seek the Lord on?

This needs to go to vote to see if the board’s hard work and heart will be confirmed. To hear from a few loud ones, like myself, at the meetings and decide to make revisions is unfair to the rest of the congregation. We need to, as a church, allow the vote to take place to see the true heart of the whole active membership. Anything else would be acting out of emotion and discrediting the hard work of our elder board.

The elders stated in the first and second meeting that they are following the current constitution. After my question regarding the current acts of the advisory board, Pastor restated that they are not following the constitution in that instance and many other areas. Are there any corrective actions taking place to fix this issue?

Tom Koz

By Anonymous, at 12:12 AM
It is apparent that our church, and by that I mean the people of God, are very precious to all of us-to the elders and layity. Also, having our church be lined up with God's Word is always, has always been, the priority. We all need to pray against confusion and discouragement, because that is of the enemy and not of God.
I know that the changes have been made in the spirit of having a more biblical model. I just don't know that the revised model has been explained thoroughly (scripturally)so that the body understands the "more biblical" part of the changes. Some of these changes are clarifying word usage, and others are potentially very altering, given different scenarios, to the future of the church.
The bottom line is that this is God's church. He has more invested in it than any one of us. This may sound obvious, but take it to heart, because He is true to His word.
"And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to this purpose." Romans 8:28.
God will bring good out of this difficult process if we are "called according to His purpose." Thank you, Lord!
Press in and pray!
ksl

By Anonymous, at 8:37 AM
It is apparent that our church, and by that I mean the people of God, are very precious to all of us-to the elders and layity. Also, having our church be lined up with God's Word is always, has always been, the priority. We all need to pray against confusion and discouragement, because that is of the enemy and not of God.
I know that the changes have been made in the spirit of having a more biblical model. I just don't know that the revised model has been explained thoroughly (scripturally)so that the body understands the "more biblical" part of the changes. Some of these changes are clarifying word usage, and others are potentially very altering, given different scenarios, to the future of the church.
The bottom line is that this is God's church. He has more invested in it than any one of us. This may sound obvious, but take it to heart, because He is true to His word.
"And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to this purpose." Romans 8:28.
God will bring good out of this difficult process if we are "called according to His purpose." Thank you, Lord!
Press in and pray!
ksl

By Anonymous, at 8:37 AM
"Pastor restated that they are not following the constitution in that instance and many other areas. Are there any corrective actions taking place to fix this issue?"

Tom Kos, you are mistaken in what you think I said. Read Article VI, paragraph 5, of our present constitution beginning with "For this reason."

Provision is made within our constitution to "not necessarily follow parliamentary procedure." The issue you are referring to was a decision made during a duly called meeting to make a "temporary exception" to one of our rules. The assembled congregation at a duly called meeting constitutes a quorum. Any business can be conducted at those meetings and be binding. Thus if a provision is made, and it is followed, it is "constitutional." That is why it is important for members to participate in all duly called meetings.

You also misheard about the "we are not following the constitution" Remove the "not" and that is what I said. In every instance, in every decision, in every action to date, our Board has followed the Constitution. We are bound by it, committed to it and will always strive to follow it.

I hope that clarifies that part of the meeting for you.

One final thing. No one has suggested that the work of the Elders will be perfect. When our constitution states that "major decisions shall be brought before the Assembly," it is to see where the Body stands and understands the issues. If during these discussions a change of course is necessary, it would be prudent for the leadership to make those changes.

It makes no sense to work on something in good faith for a year only to have the entire work rejected because one aspect of it may be flawed, needs clarification or revision.

I hope that helps.

By jawbone, at 9:25 AM
I think what "Tom Koz" was trying to say regarding "not following our constitution" is in the case of "transact v. discuss". Where our deacons, Advisory Board, have been eliminated from any decision making or voting in the Advisory Board meetings. This is one area that has not followed the consitution.

Dustin

By Anonymous, at 11:23 AM
Thanks Dustin:

That is one of the areas of "confusing" language we are trying to clarify. If deacons are allowed to make decisions, it contradicts the other part of our constitution where the elders are the decision making body.

The inclusion of the deacons on the "Advisory Board" communicates that when the Elders and Deacons come together it is in an advisory i.e. "discussion" environment as a clearing house for ideas, projects etc. It is a good idea to include Deacons in an advisory capacity because it gives the Elders another frame of reference when discussion issues, ideas and projects.

Similary, on "major issues" it would be prudent to include the members to gain feedback and input.

In other words, excluding Deacons from decision making may be a departure from tradition, but certainly within the realm of our present constitution.

By jawbone, at 12:17 PM
I don't fully discern what is going on but experience tells me that where there is all this smoke there must be fire.

RW

By Anonymous, at 12:47 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at 4:57 PM
Pastor,
Please do not eliminate comments that come through on your blog. You said that questioning motives would be one reason for an elimination. Some members are very passionate about the church they have supported for years. They may not have the confidence in their speaking ability to stand up and pose questions in the meetings. So why eliminate their voice in the blog? We can all handle a contrary opinion, don't you think?
Thank you

By Anonymous, at 5:37 PM
In the proposed constitutional changes, one reason given for eliminating the membership vote was that it wasn't necessary because members could go to their elders with their concerns and the elders would discuss and decide. It is the opinion of many who I have talked to that our elders are not receptive to hearing opinions that seriously differ with theirs. How then can the membership bring concerns to them? It would be helpful if we heard the opinions of each elder. I don't mean this in a critical way but one gets the feeling that the elders are just defending the ideas for changes that are strictly coming from Pastor.
ss

By Anonymous, at 6:07 PM

Monday, January 15, 2007

Proposed Changes to our Constitution: Second Members Meeting

24 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous