Phil's Confessio (Part 1)

There has been enough press, and blogging covering my story since October, and it is not finished yet. Coming out soon will be a story in the Christian Research Journal, and that will most likely draw a few readers, and interested parties not previously reached by the Wall Street Journal, numerous local papers, blog interviews, and articles I've written. In the next few days I will unleashing numerous press releases, and information about our rather fun, and edgy Conference entitled God for People Who Hate Church. This too may attract some attention. So, a bit of defense against the party line which has been spread, and the not so subtle lies which have pervaded certain ear waves is in order. If nothing is written in response to the press which has been coming our way, then this will at least suffice to answer rumors falsely charged to myself, and our church.

A defense of faith, and of one's ministry is not a new thing. Some of Christianity's more famous writings have held this same theme. Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, and sections of his letter to the Galatians carry this theme. One of the few writings we have from Saint Patrick addresses this same issue, as he defends his faith in his "Confession." In the spirit of desiring better for the Church of the Jesus Whom I love and serve, and in the love for those who follow us toward a simple, and free model of our Christian faith I offer this defense.

Much has already been written about our story, and we have been beneficently portrayed by Suzanne Sataline of the Wall Street, and Tom Dalton of the Salem News, John Smulo, and most recently Pam Hogeweide at Jim Henderson's Doable Evangelism.

This defense goes beyond the story of silly and superstitious accusations of being corrupted by the friendships we have developed with Witches and assorted Neo-Pagans, and looks at the corporate statements made by our former denomination about being rebellious, refusing to submit to correction, or causing trouble. The denomination will remain unnamed unless they should choose to make public statements in response to our growing press. The possibility of response from them is still out there. I have been told that a spokesman for their headquarters has said as much to reporters who have covered our story. If such should occur both the denomination will be named (which is not difficult to find anyway, since the press has already pursued this story), and individual leaders will be named as well.

Because we know that we have been, and will continue to be portrayed as unsubmissive rebels, I will rehearse the story which has to do with these particular false assertions, beyond the accusations of aberrance, and show that we were fully cooperative with all expectations by our leadership, and simply desired to see our good name cleared of false accusations, as well as hoping for relational integrity by our Christian leaders, and the restoration which comes with that integrity. What we got instead was stonewalling, deaf ears in our appeals up the denominational ladder, and evidence of a poorly run non-profit corporate structure which was as self-serving as any for-profit corporation.

So the defense begins here...and will be told in a number of posts.

THE WITCH HUNT HAS BEEN TOLD ALREADY

Our story of being falsely accused by a superstitious leadership has been told already, and can be found at the following locations: Next Wave, The Wall Street Journal Article, and The Salem News. It is a story of being suddenly, and without warning falsely accused of aberrant teachings and practices from leadership who only weeks earlier praised us for our creativity in outreach, and had never visited us, nor spoken to us about their accusations.

We defended our ministry, our doctrine, and our practices proving that there was no evidence of aberrance. From stories of kissing a ring, to accusations about our website we proved ourselves to have been above reproach, yet the leadership maintained that we deserved discipline and strict oversight. On October 18, 2005 we left a Diistrict Council meeting having been questioned, accused, and at times derided for 3 hours. We were given a few empty corrections, which were things we already had done, or regularly practiced. Our accusers made no attempt to correct the falsehoods which they freely spread around our denominational leadership, and we remained under this condition for three months.

THE UNTOUCHABLES

In early February 2006 Jeff Menasco and I were at a District Missions Conference presenting our outreach concepts in the exhibit hall. During the evening, we came face to face with the District Supervisor who had been our accuser. He greeted me, and asked how I was doing. I stated that we were not doing well. Not being a good liar, I do not present a false face easily as some men might, and so I simply tell how I really feel.

"What's going on?" he asked.

"Well, we are still hurting over that meeting a couple months ago, and the way we were treated." I responded.

"What meeting?" His wife asked with surprise.

At this point I was incredulous, and looked at her in wonder, "The meeting back in October." Pausing in disbelief I breathed a little deeper than usual and said, "We do not treat people like that in our church, and I can not ask my wife to come to gatherings such as this one after all we have been through."

At this point the District Supervisor told me that he had a phone, and e-mail, and was available any time. I thought to myself, "Yeah right, aren't you the same guy who said a couple months ago that the issue was not up for discussion?"

At this point Jeff entered the conversation. The District Supervisor, and his wife said that this was not the place for the discussion, and we fully agreed, yet they preceded to pontificate telling me that I was stuck in the past, that I was allowing this to define me, along with numerous other psuedo-psychological observations. I calmly asked a few questions, because their communication was unclear, and the District Supervisor became upset, "I think that I'm making perfect sense!"

After they continued for a few more minutes, Jeff said, "Can I ask a question?"

"Sure. Go ahead."

"You said that this was not the place to discuss this, and we certainly agree, but you have gone ahead, and mentioned a number of things to which we would like to respond. We can discuss this here if you like, but I don't think this is something either of us wants."

At this point the District Supervisor leaned very close to Jeff's face, "I did not invite you into this discussion!"

I responded quickly, having seen Jeff treated poorly during our previous inquisition, "Do not speak to him like that! He has been a part of this since the beginning."

The District Supervisor grew visibly upset, clenched his fists, and started pacing like a prize fighter. His wife held his arm to try and keep his anger down, he said, "There's something deeper going on here!" They stormed off with those last sickly threatening words.

Is it possible that the phrase "touch not the Lord's anointed" so often quoted in Pentecostal circles is really just an excuse for control freaks to get their way without question? We think so.

We also are convinced that a corporate model for denominational, and local church life is destructive to the kingdom of God if it refuses to bow first to the relational/familial patterns found in God's Kingdom. I believe that anytime a leader becomes untouchable he ought to be considered a cult leader, and unfit for serving Jesus.