What we think and do not say
I am posting and commenting from 2 emails. One from Jeff Cook, one from Jeremy Snyder. I hope this appropriate (clenched teeth), but I want our discussion to include these things in our past... so...here's hoping for understanding
Kel
I have been very concerned by how little has been communicated tothe folks at Trailhead about what has been going on the last ninemonths. Even in the last three weeks, we haven't given the detailsabout how we got where we are.
Now, I consistently talk with folks whoare bummed that we are involved in a 'church split' and don'tunderstand why. This is not good. I long for us to understand eachother, and possibly to understand what God is doing in all this. This is the skinny from my point of view. I hope to be as fair aspossible, but you should certainly discuss other perspectives on this(others might include Dan Hurley, Jeff Wiley, Scott Hellman, RobynRoggy, Mark and Mindy Keifer, and Tim Coons: all of whom wereprinciple players this year).
Trailhead's mission statement is "Inspiring Christ followers tolove and reach the lost." Many questions come from that, specifically:who are the lost, and how would we reach them. One of the solutionswhich the staff at Trailhead began discussing lastNovember—specifically as it related to lost people who were part ofour community—was the creation of a new ministry (that we have sincecalled Atlas) which could communicate Christianity to that populationwhich had the highest concentration of lost folks. This idea was given verbal approved in February by manyindividuals on the lead team and executive board including pastor Dan.Those involved set a date of May 12th to have the first service. Wecreated a website. We began getting council. Finances were put aside,and we drew up plans to do a church plant with 10-14 people. Atlas wasmeant to be another ministry of Trailhead. And we planned to continuesupporting the 70-80 folks at Trailhead (specifically with our musictalents) and continue serving (in small groups and in leadership). It was obvious that many folks were passionate about reachinglost people through Atlas, and that God had uniquely equipped andempowered some of us to that ministry. Some of those involved evenchanged their jobs and lifestyles in order to do Atlas well. The upfront commitment was very costly. However, at that same point Dan submitted his resignation fromTrailhead saying he wanted to step out of ministry. The Lead Teamrefused it, saying that wouldn't be a good idea. Why not take 40 daysoff to reconsider? When this happened, those of us who wanted to do Atlasimmediately put our plans on hold. We wanted to make sure thatTrailhead was stable until Dan came back, and when he returned wewould then recommit to starting Atlas. As you may know, after his 40 days Dan decided that he did notwant to lead Trailhead anymore. He came to a meeting of ad hoc decision makers and said he wanted to do some counseling and teaching,but no longer desired to lead. He asked for a severance package ifTrailhead could not afford to keep paying him to teach and council folks, and he left the decision to this committee.
The committee decided, given our financial situation, that wesimply could not afford to pay Dan any longer if he was not theprimary personality leading Trailhead. (His salary was much more thanthe total we were bringing in each month, aside from other expenseslike rent, office, insurance, and Tim's Salary.) I'm sure everyonehoped that he would remain in our community, and his leaving has beena huge loss. The question then became who will lead? A board was voted in to oversee Trailhead, and the Atlas folks(who at this point included the three primary teachers and ministersat Trailhead: Tim, Robyn, and I) invited the new board to catch thevision of Atlas. The discussion became, do we want to do what Atlas isgoing to do, or do we want to bring in a new senior pastor to tell uswhat we want to do instead. After many discussions, we decide the best move would be tocontinue the course we had initially set out, and that Trailhead wouldlaunch Atlas as we had proposed before. Again the real issue has beenhow do we achieve our mission: how do we inspire the most possiblepeople to love and reach the lost?
Unfortunately, because of the financial situation we were in(which Scott outlined) we have had to launch Atlas much sooner than wewould have liked, and it gives the illusion of an organization fallingapart, but this is the important point: We are not involved in a church split! What we are involved in is a very difficult situation. 3months ago our senior pastor quit, the two remaining executive boardmembers stepped down, we had no membership in place, we had ad hoccommittees making decisions, and we had run through almost the entiregrant we received from Bethel Baptist. The remaining leaders at Trailhead had been handed a massive task: How do we ensure that the most possible people will be cared forgoing forward, and how can we set the foundation for ministry in the future which will not just survive but THRIVE? We are launching what are essentially two new ministries inorder to see folks thrive and continue to reach the lost. GIVEN WHERE WE"VE BEEN: THIS IS SOMETHING TO BE ECSTATIC ABOUT. We are moving forward! We are creating atmospheres where themost possible people (in our community) will meet God and serve him best.
This is a good thing.
This is one reason God prefers there to be100 churches in Greeley and not just one. People meet God in differentways, under different leadership and teaching, and in differentatmospheres. But just because we are different organizations does notmean we are separate! We all share the same baptism, the same communion, the sameHoly Spirit, and our churches are each part of the Universal Churchled and guided by Jesus Christ. We at Atlas long to continue to support in our conversations andwith our prayers the folks at Trailhead. For those of you who know youare going to stay with Trailhead, we hold you in high regard. There isno divisiveness in my heart toward you, and we wish you God's best.The people of Atlas will always be grateful for what Trailhead hasgiven them, and the memories we share with you. Likewise, we long for your good will, and we long for you tospeak up for us when others talk badly about us. Why should weentertain slander, gossip, and the like? What does it benefit us? Weare all part of the same family. Though we may be on different journeys, we share the same mission. I do hope that we will pray for each other, and may God grant useach success as we make Jesus Lord of our lives.
Please feel free to e-mail me with your questions, anger, regret,frustration, brokenheartedness. I too am filled with questions, anger,regret, frustration, and brokenheartedness. I too long to blameothers, and I certainly could be blamed for where we are now. I longto know where God is in all this. Perhaps you can help me. Above all,we're part of the same family, and I want no walls between us. I longfor the opportunity to apologize.
May all good things be yours.
Jeff
posted by Kelly Cook @ 8:41 AM
2 Comments:
OK Sir Cook, I have held my tongue long enough, and fear that same thing may have led to the developments of the past 2 years at THCC. So here is my viewpoint, which I am sure some at THCC share, if not most.
Lets start with the separate bank account no longer tithing to Trailhead, but setting money aside for other endeavors while publicly endorsing Trailhead? Any info you would want to share there? FYI, this years info may be too recent. When, exactly, did you stop tithing and supporting THCC?
Ad hoc meeting? Being present, I feel you misrepresent what Dan offered, he was excited to return (with limited leadership capacity, given). Your own wife was one of the main voices leading to the meeting decision to terminate Dan. I certainly recall you yourself suggesting that we merge with Fellowship as our differences are superficial at best. I was totally in shock, as were many others, of the path taken. He offered to come back in limited capacity, to assist as needed THCC. Having been beaten down over the past two years, one might understand how he came to understand that his leadership skills left something to be desired. Let me put forth that even the strongest person, in the face of constant adversity and his most trusted counterparts telling him that no one enjoys his teaching and we invite no one to church based on this would leave even the strongest leader inept. The meeting seemed to have an alternative agenda right from the start from my vantage point. I
was not there to help assist with the decision, I was there merely to be swayed into agreeing that Dan depart from THCC and that Atlas might finally get their wish.
The decision made had nothing to do with finances, it seemed it was entirely in line with Atlass agenda. THCC has historically (as one of few who sees all the financial data) run tight, and seems to be on the verge of broke.
Might I also ask where your below financial data comes from?
How we got to where we are now? I spoke with Tim and offered to speak with Robyn several months ago, and am still waiting to hear back from Tim, Robyn has declined. It seems (from someone just on the line of outside leadership), that Atlas leadership has not been happy since we moved to the Fellowship building, as well as the new THCC mission statement. It seems you are unhappy with the future vision of THCC and seek to return to the days of yore when Trailhead was downtown, not seeking to assist new members of the body of Christ in suburbia. That having been said, I wish you all nothing but the best and pray that God return you to true doctrine.
This has been a church split from my vantage point, and one very overdue. In my opinion, the division is due to doctrine, and nothing else. It seems you arrive at doctrine from a group think atmosphere, whereas THCC arrives at doctrine from tried and true (though with much discernment) writings of our forefathers. I hope I am wrong in this estimation.
I celebrate the split, and as I said above, pray that you (as leaders of Atlas) will hold true to what you have been taught. Not sure what you are hoping to gain from the below email, but in the interest of facts coming to light, I hope I can assist. It seems those in Atlas were upset with Dan for the past 2-3 years, and given his turmoil early this year sought to seize the moment. When leadership again disagreed with the direction you sought for THCC, you were asked to leave. This is not some amicable split as you hoped, it is you going on your way, and might God bless you in your endeavors. It is my prayer that all those that have been alienated from THCC since Dans departure and Atlass new direction find solice in our return to where THCC is called, by God, to be. I hope the damage caused by the Atlas leadership is not irreparable.
WE ARE INVOLVED IN A CHURCH SPLIT!!!
Perhaps hard to swallow, but from my viewpoint, the leaders of Atlas have diverged sufficiently from THCC doctrine, done underhanded and subversive things (bank accounts and planning), baptism questioning, inerrancy of scripture, that THCC had no choice but to ask leaders of Atlas to agree with THCC or leave.
My prayer for all of Atlas is that you find yourself under sound teaching, doctrine, and may God shine upon you. jeremy
This is good. I long for us to all be candid about our wounds. Jeremy asked why I would even want to start such a letter: understanding and healing. It's time for us to get out in the air the ways we've been hurt, which is what I read in his letter. Most of us have been wounded deeply, probably unintentionally. I myself have been in a constant state of needing grace to give to others who I feel have wronged me in deep ways this year.
I would like to answer some of the contentions made by Jeremy in the post-script, simply so everyone can hear my perspective on the hard issues he raises….and should raise…if they want. But first I desire to apologize. Jeremy is a good man, a godly man who is worthy of my respect and I hate that he has been hurt through this. I deeply enjoy the Bible study we are in together. He and his wife are admirable, humble pair. And Jeremy is the lone person (well Wiley too) in my history at Trailhead who has earned the right to correct me on issues of doctrine. He has consistently engaged me and read things I asked him to read. He has done so in care for me, not in seeking to beat down an alleged heretic.
So this is my opportunity to say, "I'm sorry" for what I've done. Let me address the wounds I saw in your letter:
First, I'm sorry that my use of my own finances may have contributed to Trailhead not being all it could be. And I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear with the all the people of Trailhead in general with regard to the way Atlas began collecting funds in April.
Second, I'm sorry that Dan felt assaulted or threatened by any comments I've made about his teaching skills and style. I have certainly been direct and pointed and certainly could have brought a brother down. For how that has affected you, I'm sorry.
Third, I'm sorry that I have not been able to communicate well in regard to doctrine. In my mind there are little or irrelevant differences here, but I like picking fights on philosophic fronts and making things bigger than they are. I have done damage because of it. As such things have wounded you and Trailhead, I'm sorry.
Fourth, though I desperately wanted Dan to come back to lead Trailhead again, I may have hurt Trailhead by suggesting that unity with Fellowship church would be the best way to bring stability. I could have been more clear at our ad hoc meeting that bringing Dan back would be best for stability and moving us forward. I also could have ignored Mark Keifer's request not to talk to Dan, and simply made it a point to address Dan and his heart so that I could support and even defend my brother better. For how this has hurt you and others, I'm sorry.
These are the wounds I saw in your letter. Will you please forgive me? Will you please show me other places of concern?
Your brother and servant,
Jeff
Postscript -
Jer and I have presented two versions of the story of Trailhead '05, replete with motives and ambitions (which may not be wise). I'd like to share my heart on each specific: how they appear; how they have done damage; and hope that in them all you will see that I have always wished nothing but good things for our community (but, yes, sometimes at the expenses of a strong organization).
Starting in turn, Jer wrote, "Let's start with the separate bank account… no longer tithing to Trailhead, but setting money aside for other endeavors while publicly endorsing Trailhead? Any info you would want to share there? FYI, this year's info may be too recent. When, exactly, did you stop tithing and supporting THCC?
Two questions here:
1. The only people setting aside money (3 of us) to Atlas had not been tithing to Trailhead for some time. We took in money only in April. And, Remember, Atlas was essentially approved to begin a church plant, so there should be no reason to think putting aside funds for that project was a bad thing.
2. I stopped giving to Trailhead the organization in June '04 when the leadership approved a budget for the year in which we would overspend our tithes by 60,000$ dollars. We had the opportunity to move into any of three other buildings, which would have saved us 20,000$ a year in rent! Our senior pastor salary (including benefits) was set at 3 times what the average attendee at Trailhead made. Tim's salary could have been reduced or eliminated given his role and responsibilities. Our office expenses (broadband, yellow pages and the like) could have been deleted. Both Chris Barber (who over saw finances at the time) and I strongly dissented, and Barber quit shortly after. Furthermore, Trailhead did not tithe. We did not save. We did not have money being put into volunteer development or the building of infrastructure. At that point, I let it be known that I would not support Trailhead financially, and this was never an issue for leadership.
Second, Jeremy wrote, "Let me put forth that even the strongest person, in the face of constant adversity and his most trusted counterparts telling him that 'no one enjoys his teaching and we invite no one to church based on this' would leave even the strongest leader inept.
This is another issue that is tough, and gets to the heart of our history this year. Dan and I have had a working relationship for almost three years (but I was certainly not his most trusted counterpart). During that time, he consistently tried to get his lead team into a place where they could have candid conversations. Always. This was a show of our unity in fact.
Now, you are misquoting me in the above statement, and overstating the case. First, "constant adversity" is an overstated claim. Dan seldom allowed critique of his talks. I got in these brief comments only when asked directly for my opinion on such matters. Second, I have never said, "no one enjoys his teaching" because this is obviously false. I stated two facts: 1. There is a portion of Trailhead that comes for the music and the fellowship and that is all. 2. I said that I have invited some fifteen to twenty believers to come and be part of our community, none of them returned, all of them cited the Pastor as the reason they would not return. Dan needed to be aware of these facts, don't you think? Most important to note is these are not criticisms. This is me being forthright with real information that needs to be heard and adjusted to.
Which brings us to the heart of our debate this year. The question has been since December, "what do we do about the folks who Dan is not effective at communicating too in our community? What do we do about the significant portion of folks at Trailhead who are not "inspired to love and reach the lost" through Dan's style and content?"
THIS, NOT DOCTRINE, WAS THE REASON WE BEGAN DISCUSSING A NEW MINISTRY TO BE BIRTHED THROUGH TRAILHEAD. (Suggesting that doctrine is the reason for divergent ministries is a false and destructive statement, and you should reject this idea, Jer.)
So what are our other alternatives? What could we do besides start something else for such people? Please ask yourself that question. Can you think of any? You have some twenty percent of your congregation who do not meet God through the style, language, and topics the pastor chooses. What do you as a decision maker do?
When all was said and done, only Mark Keifer and Robyn Roggy believed we should not proceed in creating Atlas.
Furthermore, I have always made it a point to applaud loudly those areas where I thought Dan excelled: leadership development, small group ministry, counseling, and leadership.
With that said, I have gone to Dan to asked for his forgiveness on these matters. We both said things were hard and that lots of mistakes were made, but that we were on good terms and could move forward with no animosity toward each other. (I have e-mailed this to Dan and he can correct me if I'm wrong.) I assume he has not counted such past sins against me in his conversations with others since then. We have, for two months now, been in a position in which (I assume) we are friends, brothers in the Lord, and not at odds with each other: fully forgiving our pasts, speaking well of each other, and moving forward.
Thirdly Jer said, "Perhaps hard to swallow, but from my viewpoint, the leaders of Atlas have diverged sufficiently from THCC doctrine … baptism questioning, inerrancy of scripture, that THCC had no choice but to ask leaders of Atlas to agree with THCC or leave."
Again two points made here, and this unfortunately (or fortunately) is false in every detail.
1. All the Atlas leaders fully approve and endorse Trailhead's statement of faith on all issues: baptism and the inerrancy of scripture included. (This is also why the contention that Atlas is the result of a doctrinal difference is false. The issues have always been: how do we inspire those who attend, how do we communicate Christianity to the lost, and how can we be most effective in seeing the most people come to Jesus.)
2. No one at Trailhead has ever asked anyone else to leave (certainly not anyone associated with the Atlas plant), and no ultimatum has ever been given concerning beliefs. The elected board and the staff decided last June that birthing two churches out of Trailhead was the best step we could take.
Fourthly, Jer wrote, "It seems those in Atlas were upset with Dan for the past 2-3 years, and given his turmoil early this year sought to 'seize the moment'…The decision made [to remove Dan] had nothing to do with finances, it seemed it was entirely in line with Atlas's agenda. THCC has historically (as one of few who sees all the financial data) run tight, and seems to be on the verge of broke. Might I also ask where your below financial data comes from? …The meeting seemed to have an alternative agenda right from the start from my vantage point. I was not there to help assist with the decision, I was there merely to be swayed into agreeing that Dan depart from THCC and that Atlas might finally get their wish.
Three things here:
1. Dan deciding he would not lead Trailhead anymore was the worst thing that could have happened at that time for Atlas. The absolute worst!! Any conspiracy theories that say Atlas wanted to remove Dan to gain power are nonsensical. We longed to go start a new church plant! We didn't want to take over Trailhead for many reasons: primarily because we knew a large portion of folks would reject our approach (which was confirmed earlier this summer). For us, Dan deciding he would not lead has meant we have had to fill a leadership vacuum for six months. We have had to care for the people that he decided he could not care for. And this has been very difficult. Robyn and Tim should get a Hawaiian trip for their tears and sweat.
2. Your right in saying the decision was not made due to finances. It was made due to the fact that Dan said he would not lead. Nothing, absolutely, nothing else was added or detracted. Our conversation (as you well know) centered on Dan's introductory remarks. Dan could have walked in and said, "I'm back" and he would have been back. No worries. But he didn't want to be senior pastor anymore and what we needed is what Trailhead is now seeking: a senior pastor. I have the transcript of that conversation (if anyone wants it) and only Billy Roberts put forward an argument for paying Dan in the role he desired. Dan—and Dan alone—was the only one who made the case that day for why he shouldn't be senior pastor. Everything else was a response to that claim. The idea that he was fired from the senior pastor position is ludicrous. He wanted a new job at Trailhead, and no one stood up for him in that new role: Wiley didn't, Hellman didn't. And Jeremy Snyder didn't. (Saying you were there just to witness a forgone conclusion is irresponsible, Jer.) Nor did anyone else. At the time, it seemed like an amazingly unified opinion to not pay Dan anymore and give him a severance package: even Billy Roberts conceded at the end.
3. My understanding of the finances only comes from what I saw in our budget last Summer, and what Mindy has told us on lead team since. That is, we bring in about 5k a month. 5500$ went to Dan. 1850$ went to Tim. 1600$ went to rent. And about 1000$ or so went to everything else. That seems like we were living in the red. I certainly may have heard things wrong though. Please correct me, if appropriate.
Jeremy, I long to hear your perspective on these things more. I hope this process is healing for you. You are my brother, and I appreciate you and your wife greatly.
Jeff
Post-postscript –
In response to specific statements, these are questions just between you and I which I was confused by:
1.Who have I (or anyone at Atlas) personally alienated from THCC, and how?
2.What has Atlas's agenda been this year (and site evidence)?
3.What is Atlas's doctrine which has been arrived at through group think?
4.Why would you celebrate a church splitting?
5.What "sound teaching and doctrine" do we fail to embrace (I desire your accountability)?
Post a Comment
<< Home