As you said, the church is the people...
. . in those who seek it - they are the wrong ones to entrust it to.
I have to agree here, I think he has done something here that is akin to a hostile takeover of a company. The only thing in our favor is that he doesn't OWN the church building or the people in it.
He and his wife seek control of a "church", but they can not control it. "Here is the church and here is the steeple, open the doors and see all the people."
I concur, he seems to be losing more and more control of the core members as we speak. They are seeing what is happening and are taking a step back to think about it more.
Only one thing actually constitutes a church and that is the people. It is your tradition, surely you have not forgotten, as Christians to meet in houses or gardens and wherever you are a community. "Any that gather in my name . . . ".
Yep, and the original members that made up our church would be those people.
So if he wants the "church", let him have it - let him grasp an empty shell that crumbles in his hands. It isn't really something worth fighting over. If some stay with him in the shell it is because they do not understand, or do not wish to understand their own church and their own religion.
In some ways I agree with you here, since it seems to mirror one of the council member's comments, "If he wants it all, let him have it all, and we can all go on strike and do nothing. Then let's see how that goes over when they have to handle every duty on their own with none of the members lifting a finger." That would be more like giving them all the duties, since we certainly can't give them the people who are the "church"
I didn't exactly go on "strike" with my sabbatical, but I did leave them in the position of having to get information to the music department and the bulletin maker without going through me... and it's Thursday night and there are still no songs sent to the person who makes the bulletin OR given to the other persons who play the music besides the pastor's wife.
But in other ways I can't agree, in the sense of giving them the "building". I learned from one of the core members who explained to me that the elders hired this pastor and they have the power to fire him as well, if he is not meeting the needs of the congregation or doing things in the best interest of the congregation. And it was their church first, so if they have the power to remove him, rather than surrender their building to him, shouldn't they do that? I have no voice in this, well other than an opinion, because as a non-official member, I have no actual vote. So whatever they do, they will do, and I can only influence it by opinion.
I guess we wait and see if the sheep take back their "church" from the wolf. But my burning question still remains... should I have seen that he was a "wolf in sheep's clothing" sooner? Is it my fault I was possibly "used" to gain a foothold with the congregation's trust?
Had I not assisted him at the start, maybe he would have fallen flat on his face and all the inadaquacies and problems that are now evident might have come out sooner... but I was working towards the good of the church, and the good of the church meant having things run smoothly enough so that I and the rest of the music department were able to do our jobs.
Hard call, and I'm still not sure I made the right one.
Brenda
