Open letter Archives of letters to the editor

Open letter on Hollywood Presbyterian crisis A warning to congregations that believe they are strong January 17, 2006 Hollywood Presbyterian is still worth talking about. Oh, clearly the battle for the heart and soul of the church is over and those who stood with the pastors were defeated. The epitaph was signed and delivered the day that Drs. Meenan and Manock tendered their resignations. And when time ran out for the pastors, power unquestionably passed into the hands of Presbytery of the Pacific – hands upon which there has been much blood. And although the battle of Hollywood is over, the events that transpired are worth discussing and continue to be instructive because of the methodology used and the function with which the church was toppled. Both sides of the spiritual divide are looking (or should be looking) at Hollywood as a paradigm for PCUSA battles to come. The takeover of Hollywood Presbyterian was not an amateurish plan hatched in the basement of the church or even concocted wholly in Southern California. There is much reason to believe that the plan, which was performed with clockwork precision, was worked out months in advance. (Rumors of a takeover filtered out to Hollywood as early as summer 2004.) There is also good reason to believe that the plan had at least some fingerprints extending all the way to Louisville – and possibly to the uppermost echelons of PCUSA. There are several reasons to believe this. The first is that Presbytery of the Pacific freely admitted it. Now it's true that they've never 'fessed up to the extent of complicity but presbytery was not shy about admitting the involvement of Louisville. On at least two occasions, the Committee on Ministry and Hollywood's Administrative Commission publicly admitted their consultation with the Office of Constitutional Services as justification for their behavior. The COM revealed the fact that Constitutional Services was material in advising their committee to intentionally bypass Hollywood's session prior to seeking the pastors' resignations – in violation of G-11.0502 (i),(j). Further it was also revealed that Constitutional Services took it upon themselves to specially train members of the Administrative Commission for the Hollywood assignment before a vote of presbytery had called a commission into existence. It may be fair then to attribute to Constitutional Services at least some of the behavior of its protegees. This same office, Constitutional Services, (upon which one of the current administrative commission members not only previously served but advised Clifton Kirkpatrick in matters pertaining to standards of ordination) has been party to some of the more controversial issues within PCUSA. This office has often been viewed as a conduit for Kirkpatrick to advance his vision. And while it is true that the adventure cannot be traced above the pay grade of Constitutional Services, it would appear difficult to believe that the downfall of Hollywood could take place if it was strenuously opposed by the clerk's office. As the matter unfolded, it was obvious that Hollywood promised to be a very messy operation that would cause major aftershocks throughout the denomination. It could have been stopped at multiple different junctures. The fact that it wasn't at least raises the question of intentionality from high places. The battle for the church was truly a postmodern conflict. And although there was much discourse, meaningful communication was a rare commodity. This was intentionally so. At the inception of the conflict, the Presbytery of the Pacific clearly implied that there was to be a meeting of the minds. They used words like "reconciliation" and "safety" and problem solving. They talked about healing and allowing the church to make its own decisions through the "empowerment" of its leadership. But as the record clearly demonstrates, the framing of the debate was immediately altered – "reconciliation" was reframed to mean accommodating to the behavior of the AC (suspending the pastors.) Healing meant stifling the "discourteous" words of dissent and empowerment redefined as bending to the will of the Administrative Commission. Initially, the use of such terminology seemed reassuring to much of the church, despite the disconnect of presbytery's behavior. Their words were often spiritual. As if to imply, "what would Jesus do," the AC often phrased the issues with spiritual symbolism – peace, sacrifice, fairness and justice. But they were words meant to disarm those that opposed the ouster of their pastors. They were words meant to demonstrate that dissenters to the presbytery's views stood opposed to harmony and were failing to be Christ-like. But more than anything, the words were intended to be confusing to the congregation while the AC manuvered into a position of influence. Though the words seemed plausible they were words without recognizable content and might just as well have been spoken in Sanskrit. Unfortunately, much of the church longed to hear Sanskrit. The behavior of presbytery was clearly postmodern as well. There was no evidence of constraint by any norms of behavior, let alone Christian behavior. Winning was everything and the means by which it was accomplished were irrelevant. The fact that three ministers of the gospel served on Hollywood's administrative commission was no deterrent to dishonesty. In fact, these pastors themselves participated in acts of deception and were caught on several occasions. This pattern of deception manifested itself in dealings in all three circles with which the commission interacted. The congregation heard falsehoods about presbytery's intent vis a vis the suspended pastors. The session heard falsehoods regarding maintaining their voice and independence. And HPC's pastors, during their interviews, were also the recipients of false witness as it pertained to whether they would be allowed to return. So untrustworthy were the words of the AC that senior pastor, Dr. Meenan was reluctant to appear before the commission without legal representation. While the unethical behavior of Presbytery of the Pacific is well documented, and extended from acts of misrepresentation to intimidation to egregious violations of the Book of Order to acts of theft (stealing private communications from the pastor's office and home computers) the most sinister aspect to their behavior lay in the passion with which presbytery took sides in the battle and perhaps the fact that they became involved at all. One of the most malevolent untruths communicated to the congregation and to the outside world was that Hollywood Pres was in chaos. It was not. When presbytery became involved in these matters there was no open combat at Hollywood. There was no clear dissatisfaction with the pastors that was visible to the majority of the congregation. There was no evidence brought before the session that there was a critical mass of people (or any group of people) who had complaints requiring attention. All of the discontent was intentionally maintained below the radar with the purpose of bringing the pastors down by stealth. The fact is that presbytery became the agent of disruption in the church. It was the presbytery that intentionally chose to insert itself as provocateur rather than peacemaker – making a spark into an inferno. Now to be sure there was a small group at Hollywood that was unhappy. There were 30 individuals who disliked their pastor and decided to plan his downfall by writing letters to the COM. This group chose to write to presbytery rather than divulge their unhappiness to the session, where they undoubtedly calculated that their desire to remove their pastor would not prevail. The COM started receiving these letters in 2002 and retained them, without action, throughout 2004. And whereas these letters should have been brought back to the church so that the matters could have been prayerfully addressed toward reconciliation, the COM intentionally withheld them for their own purposes. But use them they did. Armed with these letters and with the coincident financial shortfall in 2004 the COM decided to act to bring the pastors down. When the battle was joined, the church was outmatched from the beginning – outmatched because the rules of engagement were not clear. Hollywood had never before been engaged in mortal combat with presbytery or the denomination. The attitude at Hollywood for decades had been that even though it clearly stood for the things that mattered, i.e., the Word of God and Christ crucified, it also viewed denominational matters with a certain amount of ennui. Although Hollywood ultimately viewed what went on within PCUSA with disdain, the attitude was that Hollywood wouldn't bother PCUSA and PCUSA wouldn't bother Hollywood. And after all, the church was big enough and strong enough and righteous enough to parry any blows from outside. No one would dare touch Hollywood. But the church was wrong all three counts. With an undercurrent of unrest, albeit small, presbytery viewed Hollywood as a target of opportunity as well as a great prize if it could finally be brought to heel. Several years ago, Hollywood helped lead an effort within the Presbytery of the Pacific to maintain the status quo when challenged on ordination standards. In that contest, chastity prevailed by only one vote, 100-99 – a vote that was noted but not forgiven. And indeed the defeat of Hollywood was viewed as a prize by those practioners of the liberal agenda – not only because an offensive icon was brought down but because some have even hoped that with Hollywood's diminishing strength and changing demographics that its agenda could eventually be "turned." Interestingly and perhaps not coincidentally when the issue of Hollywood's pastors came before presbytery-at-large, the conservative churches universally lined up in favor of Hollywood while the liberal and Morelight churches steadfastly opposed Hollywood. Ultimately, there were two important factors which sounded the death knell for Hollywood's pastors. The first was that presbytery-at-large had approved an AC with original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction allowed that any action could be taken to manage the affairs of the church – up to and including the dissolution of session, (which was a recurrent threat throughout the process.) The initial action of the AC was to place the pastors on administrative leave, with their infamous midnight letters. But beyond the suspensions themselves, the accompanying action which was most draconian and ultimately the most injurious was the AC's prohibition against the pastors communicating with the church's membership. Sold to the congregation as a "time out," this tactic was a means to accomplish several things. First it tainted the pastors in the eyes of the congregation and raised suspicion that some terrible sin had indeed been committed. Secondly, it was a means by which only one side could be heard. All of the church's communication apparatus came firmly into the hands of the AC and was used to best advantage. This also allowed the pastors' enemies within the congregation to finally go public without the threat of retribution or discipline. Perhaps most importantly, it was a tactic of attrition causing those loyal to the pastors to become demoralized and feel abandoned. By five months, when these groups received no nurture from the pastoral staff, an air of defeat set in with both the congregation and the session, with the AC appearing indefatigable. All then seemed lost. The session retreated under fire, demoralized, attempting to salvage the church rather than the pastors. In retrospect, it was a devastating tactic which accomplished exactly what the AC had envisioned. With this tactic, a church that had previously demonstrated overwhelming support for its pastors by both its congregation and its session had been turned on its head. The second important factor which spelled the defeat of the pastors and their supporters was their scrupulous adherence to the rules as laid out by presbytery. This was undoubtedly what the AC calculated the response would be. After all, it was important at Hollywood to treat even intruders with some element of courtesy and grace. Despite the early behavior by the AC, the pastors and much of the church assumed that in the final analysis that the AC's treatment would be both fair and godly. It was not. It was deceptive and manipulative. And even to the end many hoped against hope that the AC's actions represented posturing and they would relent from their behavior. But they did not. Playing by the corrupt rules of the Presbytery of the Pacific was instrumental in bringing the church down. For multiple different reasons, Hollywood never had a chance. What are the lessons of presbytery's battle with Hollywood Pres? 1. Hollywood's downfall was a shot across the bow, an intentional message that any church can be brought down. 2. Churches that pride themselves on being too big and too strong to be attacked, do so at their own peril. Hollywood did. 3. Churches that believe that they are under the radar will not remain so. Churches that believe that they can remain untarnished and unaffected by the drift of PCUSA are wrong. Every pastor is potentially one concerted letter-writing campaign away from being attacked from above. 4. Presbyteries may exploit any small chink in the armor or small controversy to divide and conquer their enemies. Those that stand steadfastly for Christ crucified and the unquestioned authority of Scripture are their enemies. 5. Presbyteries may use any and all tactics to bring a church down. The Book of Order must no longer be considered protection. 6. Playing by presbytery's rules is the surest way to lose. Accepting original jurisdiction is a deathblow. To have a chance – the enemy must be expelled – both figuratively and literally. 7. Once attacked with original jurisdiction, the intentions are clear. Presbytery wishes complete dominance. There is no longer room for compromise. Fighting then becomes a choice whether to withdraw from the denomination and prepare for a scorched earth battle. If the property is to be contested, make efforts to secure claim and title through an experienced property and trust attorney. Have motions ready to file with the civil courts at short notice and be prepared with private security to guard the property 24/7. 8. Pastors simply must protect their flocks. They must educate their congregations and their sessions about the issues about which there will be no compromise. Educate about those who would do harm and that harm may be coming, especially in 2006. All must know the stakes, the tactics and the relentlessness of the adversary. Pastors must never allow themselves to be separated from their flocks. 9. When trouble comes, no matter how clear the issues, there are those in the congregation who will desire peace at any price. There are those who would rather be Presbyterians than followers of Jesus Christ. 10. This is war. When battling evil use all ethical means to stand up for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Fight for the truth furiously – from inside the church or from without. For many, 2006 will prove to be a year of great peril and great opportunity. When peril is near, may God grant those in danger the wisdom to recognize it and the strength to stand against it. Dr. Frankie Cotton Huntington Beach, Calif.

Recent letters Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links