It’s Getting Ugly at Coral Ridge. D. James Kennedy Rolls Over in His Grave…
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, August 11, 2009
- Viewed 316
- (37) comments so far
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.’’
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.
Bernard Shuford on Tue, August 11, 2009
The only reason I could think of for truly banning someone would be physical threats or confrontations or possibly attempting to take over the stage / platform by force and disrupting services. Obviously, sexual predators or those with a history of abuse would be unwelcome in some cases. But simply because they are opposed to the pastor??? That’s reactionary and largely inappropriate, I’m convinced.
Just my thoughts http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif I didn’t even sleep at Holiday Inn Express last night…
Bernard Shuford on Tue, August 11, 2009
Oh, and to add, under NO circumstances could a church claim even the SLIGHTEST authority to order someone to stop writing letters to other members. Membership can be revoked, etc., but the church has no right to control what someone does, period. That’s cultic. If a church were to order me to stop blogging or writing, that church would be VERY much out of line with both God’s word and the laws of our land. That’s extremely inappropriate.
Bernard Shuford on Tue, August 11, 2009
Jerry - I didn’t answer your question “Under what circumstances WOULD you ask a member to leave?” at all, my apologies.
There are Biblical reasons to separate from a member who refuses to repent of public sin, but I think those are VERY extreme cases, and I become very irritable with folks who want to separate over every doctrinal issue. I think that in some cases, a member could be advised that it would be best for them to worship elsewhere, because the church obviously isn’t what they are looking for, but to ASK someone to leave??? That’s extreme. Someone who was clearly spreading false doctrine, depending on the severity of the falsehood, might have to be advised strongly to worship elsewhere. There are legal protections which allow churches to refuse membership, but, again, they should only be employed in very extreme cases.
This, to me, doesn’t even approach extreme. This is a pastor who has run into some stubborn opposition, it appears, but is determined to crush it.
Very sad. I don’t really understand why the two churches merged, anyway.
Dave Z on Tue, August 11, 2009
To Bernard - the leadership of a church indeed has scriptural authority to tell someone to stop encouraging dissent. Hebrews 13:17 clearly establishes their authority. The church is NOT a democracy where everyone has an equal voice - it is a Theocracy where God himself has appointed leaders. If these members cannot submit to that leadership, they should leave. This is not an issue where different people can have different opinons - this is a scriptural imperative, regardless of tradition or denominational policy.
Are you really saying these people should be allowed to divide the church? That the entire ministry should implode just to satify their whims or personal preference? There are no really serious charges leveled in the article. No one seems to be accusing the pastor of sin.
You say the ban precludes their right to be involved in the church decisions at all. “They may have much conviction about the matter.”
Yes they may, but God, who established ALL authority, did not place them in charge. That means something. But you feel it is OK for them to backbite the leadership God has established?
This is no game, this is an attack by the enemy and should be treated as such.
The dissidents are absolutely in the wrong scripturally, will not submit to authority and scriptural church discipline is entirely in order.
Bernard Shuford on Wed, August 12, 2009
Dave Z - There’s a LOT to what you’ve said, my friend, and I don’t want to ignore it, but neither do I have the time and energy to engage in serious debate here. You have some valid points, but you are relying heavily on the mentality that says the American Revolutionary War was not Scriptural and that Rosa Parks was wrong for refusing to surrender her seat. (“Man should never resist any authority placed over him.”) That’s a huge issue, and I am not condoning that church members should publicly and openly fight church leadership. However, your statement that “The dissidents are absolutely in the wrong scripturally” is pretty bold and assumes a lot of knowledge that I personally don’t have. I can’t say who is right and who is wrong, because I, literally, don’t know squat about the situation.
I will say, however, that I do NOT agree that church members HAVE to leave a church or else “submit to authority”. You may claim I’m fighting Scripture, but you are interpreting Scripture to support your position rather than basing your position on Scripture, in my opinion, if you say that. A CHURCH LEADER WHO IS LEADING CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROTECTED BY THIS CLAUSE. Banning someone from church property STINKS of inappropriate leadership.
Yes, God does put all authority in place, but that gives us no right to agree with the policies of Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tsung, Hugo Chavez, or even Amadenijad. We should be humble, loving, “easily led” people, I do believe. But the issue here is big. For any pastor to go into a church, claiming to be the shepherd of the sheep, and then proclaim that the sheep either need to follow him no matter where he leads or else leave the fold does not speak of good Christian leadership. To defend bad leadership by accusing the dissidents of turning against Scripture is fundamentalism to the core and does not sit well with me at all.
Power hungry pastors aggravate me excessively. I believe that God puts LEADERS in place, not dictators. LEADERS don’t have a leash around their followers. They simply lead. Those who will follow, follow. These leaders are still MEN, not angels, and they are still imperfect. They make mistakes. To even presume that they have a direct line to God that no one else in the congregation has is problematic. To follow them without questioning is just as un-Scriptural as inappropriate dissent. (Yes, dissent can be inappropriate, but I don’t believe it to be un-Scriptural simply because it is dissent.)
Thanks for the discussion; I’ve said about all I feel is necessary. I definitely didn’t intend to start a big argument, and I’m definitely not here to twist Scripture or to defend someone who would destroy the church. I’ve simply seen some things happen in the church that prove to me that the pastor is not always right, even though he is the pastor, is ordained, is called, and is anointed. He can still be in the wrong, and the church should not blindly follow him “just because he’s the pastor”.
There is an appropriate way to handle these things, but we’re all human and perfection rarely happens.
Bernard Shuford on Wed, August 12, 2009
One more small note - NOWHERE did I even suggest that this was a game. Please don’t misunderstand.
Pastors screw up. Pastors also hide the truth. I KNOW, bro. I have experienced it first hand, and it has ripped my church to shreds more than once. I’ve been involved. I’ve been guilty of not always being open with the congregation in order to protect someone. And I’m not even a pastor.
We can’t always presume the pastor to be right just because he has God’s umbrella of authority. There’s a dangerous fine line.
Dave Z on Wed, August 12, 2009
Bernard, as I re-read what I posted late last night it was unnecessarily aggressive and strident. My apologies for that.
No, we cannot always trust a pastor. Sometimes they are wrong, and power-hungry and self-serving and all that, but the proper aproach is to step aside and let God deal with it. He will do so. After all, it is his church.
I have seen several effective ministries crippled for years, even a decade, by this very sort of dissent. Again I will point out that no one is accusing this pastor of sin or illegal activities. This is no less than an attempt to create factions in the church, by letter writing and gossip, which will eventually lead to a split. It cannot be allowed to continue.
After all, there were six people banned, in part for sending out 1600 letters. I don’t know what the attendance is but assuming one letter per household, an average of 2 people in each household, so 3200 people, the six who were banned represent, what, one quarter of one percent? They cannot be allowed to split the church.
Bernard Shuford on Wed, August 12, 2009
Dave,
No apology required, bro. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif All is fine. I can handle intense discussion, I just don’t want to be guilty of raising the emotional level too high on my own part.
You are basically very correct. I don’t like dissent. I’m just uncomfortable with a pastor - or elder board, or deacon board - who adopts the heavy handed method instead of “letting God deal with it.” Your thoughts SEEM to be that a pastor or leader can take things into his own hands and must be respected, but a member - who may ALSO hold some leadership positions - must not be allowed to express contrary opinions. I don’t mean to misread you, but that’s what seems to come through.
Yes, dividing the church is a critical issue, but it seems to ME that Tullian is virtually just as guilty of causing the division, so there’s plenty of accountability to go around.
Wisdom would say “leave and shut up”. I’ve personally done that too, but felt a good bit dishonest in doing so, because I wasn’t truthful about why I was leaving, all in the name of “not sowing discord.” Which is more important - honesty, or not dissenting?
Not always an easy question. We see it that way from the outside, but I’m not sure that everybody involved sees it so simply.
I’ve seen people leave as an act of dissent that was more damaging and powerful than it would ever have been for them simply to stay. I’m not sure that ANY act of dissent can have peaceful results.
The power of the Holy Spirit can work wonders in hearts, but God made people different for reasons, and calling people to unity is not an easy job. Even when there are only 30 or 40 of them http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Jan on Wed, August 12, 2009
My understanding is that they want to oust the pastor because they are unhappy with the worship style, the sale of some land etc.
To me these are awfully flimsy reasons to get rid of a pastor who obstensibly was called by God to be there in the first place.
They’ve written letters, called meetings to discuss it…
To me these are awfully good reasons to ask these people to not come back. If there was sexual immorality or heresy, then they may have a leg to stand on. But worship style???? evangelism strategies because the founder of the church created it?
I have to think that these individuals just won’t recognize the leadership and calling of this pastor. And that the leadership is finally putting their foot down. (Read the whole article by the way)
We had this happen to us with an individual who didn’t want us to come in the first place (her words). There was just no pleasing her and her couple. She did the same thing, wrote letters, held meetings, called the former pastor, trashed us in the community. The leadership eventually had to ask them to leave. Sometimes that is the only thing you can do for the sake of the ministry’s future.
George on Wed, August 12, 2009
<b>If you are already spinning articles, good for you. It’s a good start. If not, do it. Because the rewards are numerous. A lot of the other stuff I mentioned, while they look tedious, can all be automated.
This is what I call “leverage on steroids”!
Rev. K on Thu, August 13, 2009
this is the same story for all who come in and make changes…
It seems to me that descendents of such congregations have some sort of feeling of obligation… “my daddy or grandfather started this ministry therefore we’re to be honored and looked to for the decisions that needs to be made” is the attitude “
I feel sorry for any preacher that takes on such a calling to pastor such congregations… it doesn’t matter what the pastor does he’ll be scrutinized by the powers to be… (In this case, the ones who were let go)...with new pastors comes new changes…
it’s sort of arrogance on their part by saying, “if he had came and humbled himself (to them) then he would have had their blessings to make little changes…”
it’s also odd that nothing isn’t said about the style of preaching or pastoring until somebody is let go…
I’m of the mindset, if a pastor is called and the ministry stlye of that pastor is in conflict with my stlye… then as a member I must find another congregaton… not sit and fight and cause division…
let’s not forget… they merged with the congregation… and if they didn’t agree with the merger they had plenty of time to look for another congregation to worship God at…
let’s bring this situation closer to home… if there’s a problem with some individuals in your local congregation that’s causing division… would you allow those individuals to continue to operate and spread more division or would you seek to put a stop to it? (keep in mind the bitterness that arises in some individuals when they’re let go from a position)
Rev. K on Thu, August 13, 2009
why is it always the pastors fault? everytime a situation hits the fan, the pastors gets the blame…
having witnessed such behaviors in congregations… the pastors are in sort of an handicap… if he allow it to go on then the church spits and his leadership is questioned… and everybody that wants things to be their way would challenge his leadership and therefore cause more division… but if he put his foot down and handle the situation in a godly manner then he’s scrutinized for not being more sensitive… since when do we have to be sensitive with demonic behavior? writing letters, calling meetings, seeking to overthrow leadership is demonic not godly… (congregations are becoming more corrupt then our US government… if you want something done you have to bribe folks)
as was mentioned… this pastors lifestyle is not called into question… but the changes he made… (pastors/leaders, be careful how you judge that pastor…remember, you have congregations to lead and future decisions to make)
Bernard Shuford on Thu, August 13, 2009
Y’all please forgive my apparent argumentativeness (daggone, what a word…) and realize that I actually would be the first one to defend the pastor in this situation, if I were inside the church. However, for some stupid reason, when things like this make the news, I tend to put on a different mental hat and analyze things from a “civil law” perspective. It’s complicated; most of what I think about is…
Just for the final record, I despise it when folks fight a new pastor. I hope that nothing I’ve said makes me appear to be a staunch traditionalist who doesn’t like change.
I’m just not convinced that “banning” someone from church property is really the right path…
bishopdave on Thu, August 13, 2009
For those bothered by banning:
what does Matthew 18:17 mean? Why would that not include banned from the property?
In my experience, the only time we got to that step and they would not repent—well, they were banned. How else would you obey the words of Jesus? it certainly outweighs civil law.
According to the following likn, Matt 18 was in their minds.
http://blackandwhiteministries.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-pastors-daughter-raises-mutiny.html
the petition and response letters are posted. Get a feel for the tone of the dissent. Tullian states he’s had lunch with Cassidy and opened the door for her—maybe he did and maybe she didn’t, but I’ve had a letter written about me before that looked a lot like that petition.
Bernard Shuford on Thu, August 13, 2009
Ummm, no, I don’t see Matthew 18:17 saying anything of the sort. Just my reading, not being dogmatic.
I think Tullian is doing a lot of the right things, and I agree with him a lot. I’m not an EE fan, and I think Cassidy is being persnickety and that she and her mother should not have been on the PNC.
My point is that banning from the property doesn’t do anything but make the church look like the bad guys. It doesn’t solve the problem. Neither can they force anyone to stop writing letters. That’s a legal issue and the church can claim Biblical authority, but it’s peeing into a waterfall, because the church has no legal authority to enforce such a demand. Our civil government does not allow a church such authority. All that the church can do is expel the members. Yes, they can legally ban them from the property, because it’s private property. But for a church to tell someone that they cannot write a letter from their own home and use the US Postal Service to send it to another person is to exceed the legal authority that the church has.
All that the church can do is say “Either do this or be removed from our membership rolls.” That’s all. Beyond that, they have no legal authority.
Does the Bible give the church authority to go beyond the law of the land in this regard? Be careful there, my friend. We slide into Spanish Inquisition territory really easily.
No church has the right to FORCE me to do anything. God himself doesn’t even do that.
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment