A Response to the Executive Committee's Answers

As I reflected on yesterday's response from the executive committee, I was amazed to see how asking four straightforward questions could trigger a reaction that I'm being distrustful, accusatory and inappropriate. I have tried to seek honest answers to basic questions. We have been told from the pulpit that our leadership wants to answer all our questions. What happens when I do? I'm sent an e-mail that concludes with a response that I'm welcome to leave the church. Is it any surprise that others are reluctant to ask similar questions or voice identical concerns?

What amazed me the most about the response to my four questions was this: Not one of them received a direct answer. Let's take a look at each question and response.

1) Pastor Jeff said that he and Melodee have been living with deep hurt and stress for the last two years. As a member of the executive committee, in what specific ways have you personally helped them through this ordeal?

In Pastor Jeff's resignation announcement, he talked about "the deep hurt and stress that Melodee and I have lived with the past two years." These were his own words. Two of the roles of the executive committee, according to its own job description, are "providing consistent prayer support for the ... staff" and "providing encouragement ... for the pastoral ... staff." It is reasonable to ask the committee what they have been doing specifically for the last two years to help alleviate this pain.

They said that they "continue to pray for them," and I'm tremendously grateful for that. However, I must point out that nearly everyone at Western Oaks has been praying for Pastor Jeff and Melodee. Members of the executive committee, more than any other people at Western Oaks, were in a position to know more about Pastor Jeff's and Melodee's deep hurt and stress than the average person in the pew. They, therefore, bear the responsibility to put feet to their prayers. Instead, we are given a vague answer that they "have done things" for Pastor Jeff and Melodee. I am not claiming they haven't; I'd just like to know what they've done. It will help me understand the type of leadership that they have provided to this congregation.

Rather than elaborate on specific things they have done, the answer quickly shifts to finding fault with the question, calling it inappropriate. Contrary to their response, I have not implied that the committee has not done enough. They may have done many specific things. I will be delighted to learn if that's true. For now, I don't know what they've done for the last two years to help. Because this is part of the executive committee's responsibility, the people of Western Oaks deserve a direct answer. "And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required." (Luke 12:48)

2) What is your personal vision for Western Oaks, and in what ways does it differ from Pastor Jeff's?

When Pastor Jeff announced his resignation, he told the congregation that "it is clear to me that the direction Western Oaks is wanting to head is different than my vision." That is why I asked the committee this question. Do they, in fact, have a different vision for Western Oaks than Pastor Jeff? If they were in complete agreement with Pastor Jeff's vision and direction, to whom was Pastor Jeff referring? Because the executive committee has the responsibility to "provide spiritual oversight and guidance of church vision, strategy and core values," wouldn't the executive committee want to know who was advocating a vision for the church that was at odds from Pastor Jeff's and, presumably, theirs? These are crucial questions that deserve honest responses to the people of Western Oaks.

Instead, the executive committee referred me to the church Web site and did not directly answer whether any or all of them differed with Pastor Jeff about the vision and direction of Western Oaks. We are all left to wonder who disagreed with Pastor Jeff's vision and direction for Western Oaks, and what role that may have played in expediting his departure.

3) How was the discussion of a severance package initiated and by whom?

The answer from the executive committee was a long explanation of the steps that took place that led to a severance package, although the committee refuses in its answer to call it by that name. What's puzzling to me is that this process has already been explained to the church. They rehashed information that most of us knew while they missed or avoided the core of the question. I wasn't asking how the package was developed; I was asking how the package was initiated -- and by whom.

Did Pastor Jeff go to the committee first and say that it was time for him to move on but he needed some financial help from the church? Or did one or more members of the committee meet with Pastor Jeff and suggest that he needed to move on, and that they would secure financial assistance for him? If any committee member did this, then he needs to be honest with the people of Western Oaks and explain why. To not do so is to be less than honest with the church. All I want to hear from the committee is a clear answer about whether or not any one of them initiated the discussion of a severance package. Rather than give that answer, the committee's response said I either did not understand what happened, which I do, or that my character is distrustful and accusatory for asking the question.

4) Did you at any time suggest or tell Pastor Jeff that he should resign or step down? Were you present when another member of the executive committee did? If your answer is yes to either of these questions, please explain the reason why.

The committee's immediate response to this question is that it is an accusation. That is a completely false statement. If it were accusatory, it would have been worded like this: "Why did you suggest or tell Pastor Jeff that he should resign or step down?" My question was a straightforward request for information that required a yes-or-no response. If either question required a yes answer, then I asked for an explanation of that decision. For whatever reason, the committee could not be direct in its answer. I don't know why.

As I conclude this post, I also want to respond to the committee's comments about their meetings being completely closed to the members of Western Oaks. It was revealing that the committee's answer acknowledged that the church was not directly informed that this was the way the committee would run its meetings. Their answer said that "it was assumed that when the people voted on the function of this team it was understood that this was the way it needed to operate." However, even if that were the case, it does not fit the context of the following two incidents.

Less than a year ago, I had asked Pastor Jeff about attending a meeting of the executive committee. I honestly don't remember what triggered my interest, but I thought it would be a good idea. Pastor Jeff told me that the next meeting would not be ideal because he had one sensitive issue to discuss during part of the meeting. I was welcome to come another time, he said. He never mentioned that the meetings were closed to church members. As it turns out, I lost interest and never followed up for the next meeting.

Fast forward to last month. I called Bob Kaufmann a day or two after Pastor Jeff announced his resignation. I had already met with nearly 20 other members who had questions about how all this came about. The group decided that it would be less confrontational if one or two of us met with the executive committee. Bob told me that the executive committee was meeting that week, but I did not think I would have time to be prepared that soon. Knowing that the committee meets every other Wednesday, I asked Bob if it would be possible for the committee to have a special meeting the next week so I could address the members' concerns as soon as possible. Bob indicated that he would get back with me. At no time during that conversation did he say that the meetings were closed to church members. I reminded Bob of this conversation in a recent e-mail, but he did not respond.

If executive committee meetings were truly closed to the entire church, why did neither of these men mention it to me during these conversations. The answer is because they never were. Are there times when the committee needs to meet privately? I'm sure there are, and it would be appropriate to designate a time for a closed session near the end of a meeting. I believe that many church members would understand the need for that. If the executive committee truly desires to serve the people of Western Oaks, they could do so more effectively by opening their doors and allowing other members to be part of the process and to pray with them.

My greatest concern in their response to my questions is that it will have a chilling effect for anyone who wants to know how we came to a point where we could lose a senior pastor of 18 years. One person has already made a comment to me on three separate occasions that he wasn't sure what my motives were. The implication is that my real motives were ones that I hadn't revealed. I have told this person each time what my motives were, and my answer has always been the same. They are to seek answers about how this was allowed to happen and to ensure that we do not continue with the same culture that could cause the next senior pastor to be forced to move on.

If church members see that those who ask questions and express their concerns have their motives and integrity questioned, they will remain silent. If they see that those who ask questions and voice dissenting opinions are advised to go elsewhere, they will be reluctant to speak out. Perhaps that's the desired outcome.