Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    It’s Getting Ugly at Coral Ridge.  D. James Kennedy Rolls Over in His Grave…

    Bookmark and Share
    It’s Getting Ugly at Coral Ridge.  D. James Kennedy Rolls Over in His Grave…

    According to the Miami Herald: Six members of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church -- including the daughter of founding pastor D. James Kennedy -- have been banned from the premises and all functions of the Fort Lauderdale church.

    The action, announced in a letter mailed to Coral Ridge members over the weekend, is the latest round in a brewing dispute between recently appointed Pastor W. Tullian Tchividjian, who is a grandson of evangelist Billy Graham, and a group of members spearheading an effort to fire him...

    Besides Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy, Kennedy’s daughter, the people banned are Lorna Bryan, Kaye Carlson, Romeo DeMarco, and Jim and Jeanne Filosa. They have been ordered to stay off church property and out of church programs, and ``to stop writing accusatory letters to the congregation.’’

    The events have rocked the church, which under Kennedy was a nationally recognized stronghold of Christian conservative activism.

    In recent weeks, the dissidents have circulated two letters and a petition to call a congregational meeting with the goal of putting an end to Tchividjian’s fledgling pastorate.

    Tchividjian fired back in his letter to the congregation: ``No church government can tolerate such an insurrection from those who will not listen to admonition, refuse all counsel, and will stop at nothing until they have overthrown legitimate authority and replaced it with their own.’’

    More here...

    Seriously, people…

    Todd

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. Bernard Shuford on Tue, August 11, 2009

      You say “Seriously, people…”


      Which people are you referring to?

    2. Todd Rhoades on Tue, August 11, 2009

      Who am I referring to?


      Both sides, actually.

      First of all, you don’t write up petitions and send out letters to the church membership against the church leadership.


      Second of all, banning people from church premises would have to be a last straw.  Part of leadership is dealing with critics in a way that doesn’t make the Miami newspaper.


      I understand things escalate, and maybe there is no way around this from either side.  But it’s this kind of behavior that gives another blackeye to Christianity and the church.


      Sometimes, one side needs to just walk away and say… ‘for the cause of Christ, I’m outta here’.

       

      Todd

       

    3. Grady Bauer on Tue, August 11, 2009

      I haven’t been following this story…why do they want him fired?

    4. Bernard Shuford on Tue, August 11, 2009

      Thanks; I just wanted to be sure I understood your perspective. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif


      I am curious what a church “member” is to do in a large church where they believe that the church has made a bad decision.  In a staff led church, the member has no authority whatsoever, but in a congregational polity situation, the particulars of a “voting membership” means that, yes, the member probably DOES have the right to discuss the issue with other members, and that would seem to include petitions and letters.  To say “they just need to leave” precludes them the right to be involved in the church decisions at all.  They may have much conviction about the matter.  I’m not sure how I would procede if I were being forced out of my own church by leadership with an agenda.

    5. bishopdave on Tue, August 11, 2009

      Bellvue in Memphis went through this, probably still is. Megachurches with long time traditional pastors just aren’t able to transition. The Schullers at Crystal Cathedral, father-son have split.


      It even happened to me when I was called to my current church. A group of 7-8 didn’t want me, did the anonymous letter to everybody trick, other accusations by mass email.


      Coral Ridge had a perfect opportunity to see what Tullian’s ministry was like—they liked what they saw and not just called him, but MERGed with his church. It’s really sad that you can’t walk away and let God deal with Coral Ridge (or Bellvue or Calvary Chapel-Albaquerque, or wherever this has happened), and that He needs you to save it.

    6. h3 on Tue, August 11, 2009

      If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

    7. Faye on Tue, August 11, 2009

      I don’t know the particulars, don’t need to. I agree with Todd that it’s a black eye. These folks seem more concerned with man’s opinion that of God’s.


      I guess my question in all this is, where’s Matthew 18:15-17 fit in?

    8. CS on Tue, August 11, 2009

      Yes, it’s bad all around.  I sense the distinct lack of the principles from Matthew 18 being employed here. 

      Something else caught my attention from the article:


      “‘Changes are inevitable in mergers,’’ Filosa continued. ‘If [Tchividjian] had come in humbly, and done changes gradually, I think he would have been more accepted. Instead, it’s been an attitude more like, `Here I am—if you don’t like me, there’s the door.’ ‘’”

       

      Kind of reminds me of Rick Warren’s model of, “some people or going to have to die or leave.”



      CS

       

    9. Jerry on Tue, August 11, 2009

      It’s a shame people begin following the pastor of a church instead of Christ, the Head of the Church. When the church becomes a personality driven church instead of a God driven church trouble is just around the corner.

      I don’t in any way think that Dr. Kennedy set out to do this or would have condoned it - it just happens. He taught bibcally and God grew his church. However, it sounds like there could be too many in that church (in my humble and totally uninformed opinion) that have forgotten that the church belongs to God. As long as Tullian is faithfully preaching the gospel and he is a humble servant of God, I don’t understand what people are upset about.


      Leadership style? As long as Tullian is using biblical leadership principles, aren’t people who disagree with his style basing their disagreement on personal preference or being personally offended, and not a biblical standard? Of course they are. People make personal preference decisions all the time, especially when it concerns the music in the church.


      Tullian was called, and it doesn’t matter if it was by congregational vote, or if it was by board decision, he was still called. People either need to honor that calling or leave.


      Sorry to be so harsh, but a pastor who genuinely seeks to do the will of the Father and please him can’t be bowing to the whims of the people. I understand even the purest of intentions can get sidetracked and then biblical principles need to be used to correct errant behavior or beliefs, but a faithful pastor needs to stand firm for the good of God’s church.

       

      That’s why it is so important for senior pastors and church leadership have close, trusted, godly people they can go to for the truth. Friends who aren’t afraid to tell them if they are getting off track so corrections can be made quickly.


      And above all make peace with one another before going to court (the press).

       

    10. Bernard Shuford on Tue, August 11, 2009

      “Tullian was called, and it doesn’t matter if it was by congregational vote, or if it was by board decision, he was still called. People either need to honor that calling or leave.”


      I’m not sure I would agree with that across the board.  This statement presumes that there is not a problem. 

      There could be a real problem.  What if there is?  Does a church member not have a right to speak up?  This is implicit approval of dictatorship from the pulpit, and that’s crap, sorry. (I like what I know of Tullian, but that doesn’t mean anything at all.)

       

    11. Jerry on Tue, August 11, 2009

      In the context of the rest of my post about him IF he is leading biblically, IF is he is a humble servant of God, IF he is not being sidetracked, then yes, his calling should be honored. That includes handling real problems biblically, not dictatorially.

    12. Bernard Shuford on Tue, August 11, 2009

      If he’s being dictatorial - and I cannot see “banning” someone from church or church events as anything else at this point - then I have a problem with his humility and with his “handling real problems biblically”.  Basically, the apparent response to this insubordination indicates to me that his leadership may not be Biblical.  Thus, by a bit of circular reasoning, I have to say to myself, perhaps these folks have a point. 

      All that said, I’m normally a supporter of pastors who are attacked by church members.  Normally, the “main” of the church wants to go in one direction and a few want to go in another.  I suspect that is the basic problem here.  But the idea of banning people from church just galls me, I don’t care how modern or progressive someone claims to be.

       

    13. CindyK on Tue, August 11, 2009

      You can’t ban anyone from the Church, if the Church is the entire body of people that follow Christ.

      The church is just a building, and because of that I suppose that whomever owns it can certainly ban people from their property.  Whether or not it’s a good idea is another story altogether.


      I’d rather walk away from a church, for the good of the Church.  Any day.

       

    14. Peter Hamm on Tue, August 11, 2009

      I’d walk away myself.

    15. Jerry on Tue, August 11, 2009

      In reading all the responses to articles posted here, I sometimes forget the details of the original post. This time highlights that failure and I didn’t remember who initiated the ban. Looks like I’m the one who needs to put things in context.


      I agree that the way to handle things isn’t to ban people from coming on church property. It’s hard to discuss something for which we don’t have enough information and there is too much left to the imagination.  I remember a quote that says something like, “Rumors abound for lack of information.”


      The best policy is to try and settle the issue and bring in mediation if necessary, but you don’t kick out members of the flock just for disagreeing with something.

      Under what circumstances WOULD you ask a member to leave? (Which is, of course, something altogether different than banning someone.)

       

    16. Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors