i don't know how you heal with people who chose to go after leadership over things like "not wearing a robe while preaching"...

seems that's pretty petty and, in my experience, if that's what people spend energy on they aren't in a frame of mind to get along until they overpower you.

part of the work of healing has to include a clear eyed assessment of whether or not people are genuinely willing to reconcile.

congregants who stay after a power struggle should only do so if they are willing to move ahead with the direction that has been set and affirmed, but if they are just going to be oppositional and go to a more "guerilla warfare" style of perpetuating the conflict then they should leave.

it's sad, it's a failure all the way around, but it seems evangelicals don't want to really think through the reality that there are times when people need to be shown the door after a conflict like this one at Coral Ridge.

"i don't know how you heal with people who chose to go after leadership over things like "not wearing a robe while preaching"..."

You should have read further on as the issue seems to be of far more...um, well...relevance...

"So I would say that all of my sermons are culturally relevant, but I don't preach politics from the pulpit."

Apparently, he decided to keep politics and the pulpit separate which considering the climate of the Religious Right's domination of the microphone speaks volumes about Mr. Tchividjian's character as a man of G-d, and caretaker of G-d's word.

My advice to Mr. Tchividjian is "tis better to stand on one side of the fence than to be impaled on the fence."

After having read the CT interview, I find the issues rather petty and about non-essentials.

Also, I'd like to know what Mt. 18 has to do with this? I thought Mt. 18 was about dealing w/ sin, not likes and dislikes. We seem rather quick to jump to Mt. 18, rush to judgment. There was no proof of sin and dislike is not equal to sin. My thought is there needs to be open communication to determine if there is sin and then go to Mt. 18. To go to Mt. 18 before we know there is sin, is injudicious and uncharitable and often is nothing more than a powerplay.

How we handle our conflict in the church is our witness before the world, not that we don't have conflict. This is embarassing for everybody and those who may have some kind of power trip going should be taken out behind the woodshed and shown a little discipline; graciously of course.

Jim,
You pose a great question and good case study for examining conflict and reconciliation. I'm not sure how a church moves forward from a conflict such as this because it seems the the conflict is rooted in deep individualism and consumerism - as Bill phrases it above, "likes and dislikes."
So many Christians today cannot approach church in any way other than a perspective framed by personal preferences, and opinions. The fact that a church would allow opinions and preferences to divide demonstrates how much real soul work there is to be done for the flock.

Jim,

This is a thoughtful question and I appreciate it. For those of us in church leadership, though, these kinds of questions often come too late. Most of the church conflicts I have seen were preventable if a different set of questions had been asked at an earlier stage. Whether Coral Ridge suffered from poor communication, ineffective leadership or simply a divisive group of yahoos, somebody might have seen it coming (and prevented the public mess) by paying better attention as the conflict gathered momentum.

It might be effective for us as church leaders to develop diagnostics that can release some of the pressure in community conflicts before they hit the boiling point. None of that diminishes the value of helping a wounded congregation find authentic healing, but it might spare a future church from having to walk the same path.

Friends,

Thanks for the comments.

I agree that leaders need lay the groundwork so that conflict does not come to this point. In my experience, when things get this bad it is usually my fault as a leader. I have not taken the congregation and my leaders through the right steps of change or I have done a terrible job communicating what is happening. I have had to repent of both. And more often it is that I have not taken the time to listen.

Now going through all of these step does not mean conflict won't come--there will always be theological and philosophy of ministry differences. And so often these differences become personal. I get that. I have experienced that first hand as a leader and I am sure you have.

But now that the church is in this place, what can they do to bring reconciliation? What would you do as a leader? Be as specific as you can. How can these two groups with differing preferences and apparent philosophies of ministry live in community together? Dare I ask if there is a "third way" they need to work out? What has worked in your church in the past?

Shalom,
Jim

A few brief comments, first, many in our churches do not understand the difference between "good" and "evil" and matters of taste. Which do you prefer, Chocolate or vanilla? Which one is better? Second "power and control.

Good summary and question-raising, Jim. Probably none of us outside of CRPC knows a sufficient solution. I'm sure Tullian and the elders are discussing and praying these issues.

However, I do feel confident in saying that aside from a work of revival by the Holy Spirit, reconciliation will not come quickly or easily. I believe it is possible to gain back the trust and respect of a bulk of those 400 people, but it will not come before the end of 2009.

It also must be realized that sometimes we can do all the "right things" to reconcile with someone, but that may not be enough. Tullian may need to just go forward with his philosophy of ministry (so far I have enjoyed his preaching topics and content at CRPC) and trust that God will bring about reconciliation if He so desires.

As a seminarian, I am closely watching this story to see what I may learn for future ministry in the church.

This is an unfortunate situation where change was voted on (hiring of Tchividjian) but not readily accepted. Though not all the details of Tchividjian's change efforts, the article did mention his appearance and political/social change efforts.

As with any change process, knowing your context is critical. My suggestion to Tchividjian would be to see this is a formal rebuttal to his previous efforts and extend an olive branch once again to listen and learn first...then move forward with a slower heart of change.

I have been leading the transformation of a mainline church for the last eight years and in my experience reconciliation is a very long and slow road.

Even after solid pastoral encounters with people who were in pain, I have discovered that they more than likely will leave anyway. The very deep mechanisms within a person that makes them react to what are in the end just practices and then builds to taking action in a negative vote like this, are the same mechanisms that slow their healing to such an extent that they walk away from the fellowship. Usually in a manner which reflects their deeper triggers: softly or loudly.

We are buried with Christ in baptism, the tricky bit is which bits of us are to be affirmed and celebrated as our restored humanity and which bits are to be discouraged and left behind as not "in Christ". Discernment comes through our community in Christ. You are not really aware of the triggers that will set you off into actions that rend the fabric of community.

I think that if we take into account that people, by nature, regardless of station in life are going to be selfish, self-absorbed, and self-serving no matter how much you tend to the garden so that it looks like a reflection of Eden.
We, the people, will always be the snake in that effort.
It's our nature.
It is...our condemnation.
It is...our excuse.
You cannot please everyone.
Cannot be done.
Period.
End of discussion.
But go ahead, try to please everyone, I'll have a bottle of aspirin waiting for you.

The thing is that a church is a micro social enviroment with all the ego's to boot. Not everyone is going to be on board with change, and not everyone is going to play nice, nice no matter how much you beg them, plead with them, or cite passages to them.

Sure, we can say, "ooh, but a good follower of Christ would [fill-in-typical-christlike-behavior]" but really, when have any of us ever stood out like that?
Sure we can repent.
Sure we can forgive.
Sure we can be forgiven.
But seriously, people are people...not all of them are going to be happy with you, your decisions, your way of looking at things... no matter how much clown makeup you put on, or how often you fling your arms around in the air while you dance out the psalms.
You, me, everyone cannot make everyone happy...and so, accept the fact that people will find a reason to dislike you.
There is nothing you can do about it.
Let G-d take care of them because I guarantee you that if you try too, you'll just screw it up worse than it already is.

Let it go, and just keep doing what G-d has tasked you to do because...really, that is all you can do.

One thing I have gathered is that most of you agree how difficult change is on any level, whether it is done well or not by the leadership. As people, we don't deal with it well and it often leads to conflict and all kinds of hurt feelings and sometimes splits.

What always saddens me as a pastor is when people put second tier matters, whether in theology or philosophy of ministry as a top tier concern and are willing to break fellowship over them. So often no matter what you say they will not be on board and eventually leave. This breaks my heart. I often wonder about the membership vows we make in our church about being willing "to seek the purity and peace of the church" and being willing to submit to the godly leaders? Why are we willing to chuck this commitment once things get hard? It breaks my heart. It is one of the hardest things as a pastor to deal with.

But on the bright side, what we have discovered is that conflict so often provides a great opportunity to understand the gospel on a deeper level. Often philosophy of ministry differences or preferences only rise to the level of separation because of a personal slight or offense that was not forgiven and turned into bitterness.

I once confronted a person who said they were leaving the church over differences in theology. But when I dug deeper the problem was bitterness. Two years early he had gotten made at me because my wife wore jean overalls to a Christmas Eve service. He thought it was disrespectful and reflected badly on me. What he did not realize is that since my wife had just given birth to our third child the overall where the only cloths that fit! He held this petty grudge against me for two years and it became like a pair of glasses that tainted everything I did or the way he saw me. So from that point on he had a laundry list of small things I had done wrong. Then when we attempted a big change he exploded. Yet, the problem started years before the change in his inability to confront me/or bear with me as a sinner. This was a gospel moment for me to talk to him about what it means to bear with one another, forgiven each other, and confront in a proper way.

I am praying that both sides in the Coral Ridge conflict will admit mistakes and ask forgiveness. They may have already done this. I hope they have. Forgiveness may not solve the whole problem but it is a first step toward re-union.

I am hoping those 400 people don't just leave. I am praying that they figure out a way to stay together. What other ideas are there for this situation?

Jim

"There is not a church in the world which has not experienced conflict on this level or a million smaller levels."

If this is true, why are leaders and lay folks so unwilling to examine the institutionalized system of church with God's Word and root out the bogus assumptions? Excuses, such as "their just regular carnal people...the system is fine." If the church was really doing what God designed, after 20-30 years of church life the saints should be very mature. If Kennedy and the institutionalized pastorate were really following God's plan, the household of faith there would not be at this level of maturity. The problem is system wide across the country - the problem is primarily in the system. The system leads God's people into perpetual immaturity. The system has bogus standards for saying a church is "strong".

Some saints do a better job of "sucking up" to "their pastor" and calling it "loyalty" or "obeying your leaders" who are "over you". These texts are mis-translated to completely contradict Jesus plain instruction on leadership that "you are all brothers", and Paul's clear teaching that leadership is reproductive - not perpetual dependency.

Protestants who will not examine their institutionalized faith for error in spite of all the horrendous carnality and conflict are just like Catholics who will not question their systematized Papal system even though their history is full of huge corruption. For both it's systematized idolatry said to be "corban" or dedicated to God.

In the best wisdom of men offered so far, and as institutionalized experience teaches us - somebody has to leave for "unity" to be restored. What a shabby approach to obeying God - but men still cling to it.

Why assume that the church is the offender and that 20-30 years under God's Word through the teaching of Dr. Kennedy would yield immaturity? Why post an article that interviews the one man at the center of the controversy? In order to have a meaningful discussion of the solution, you must identify the problem.

As many on this website have posted, you do not know the situation at CRPC. You only know what you have read. And the only person giving interviews is Tullian. Perhaps that is the question that needs to be asked...why has he given so many interviews to the media? If you have a conflict in your own church, would one of the first things you would do be to contact the newpapers? Could it be because Tullian is garnering public opinion for his own purposes? The members of CRPC would not want to air their 'dirty laundry', they privately discussed it among their membership. Which is the more mature reaction?

I think the best solution to this conflict is for Tullian to graciously step down from this pulpit. It was a mistake to call him, there was a very poor fit with the church, and the merger of 2 churches was a terrible idea. Mostly, I believe many of the mistakes of the modern church are made because we try to implement business models to the church. The church is not a business, our bottom line is not money nor numbers. We are a family and we care for each other. The stronger for the weaker, we bear each others' burdens, we comfort the suffering. If we start evaluating our success of a church by the number of new members, the amount of fund-raising, etc. then we lose sight of the true goal of Christlikeness.

My 2 cents.

re: "My 2 cents" - you said "It was a mistake to call him, there was a very poor fit with the church, and the merger of 2 churches was a terrible idea."

So the HOLY SPIRIT didn't know what He was doing?! So "unity" is a "terrible idea"?! God in His sovereignty knew EXACTLY what He was doing in allowing Tullian to follow Jim Kennedy. The pulpit committee were PRAYERFULLY selected, and they PRAYERFULLY chose Tullian among 150 candidates! Sadly, those with personal preferences couldn't get with the vision of the man that He chose! Remember Moses?

An anecdote flashed across my memory after I read this post. To an ailing minister, an assistant broke this news: "Reverend, I have good news for you. Last night two-thirds majority of your congregation voted to pray for your healing."

"...Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church is not my church, and it wasn't Dr. Kennedy's church. It's God's church..." - Tullian Tchividjian

That is Truth.

"Dr. Kennedy was always there for all of you. He married every one of your kids. He buried your moms and dads. He did your brothers' funerals too. He was at your side during the most important moments of your lives. It's no wonder that Dr. Kennedy has such a special place in your hearts. He should always be your favorite. And let me tell you something. I'll never be offended if he is always number one. I give you my permission for him to always be your favorite pastor. And if you ever have any love left over, just throw a little bit my way."

That is Love.

If put in the same situation, Dr. John C. Maxwell could have said the above words adapted from his book "Winning with People." During the first 26 years of his career as a pastor, he confronted similar leadership crisis. When he arrived at Skyline Church in San Diego California, to become its senior pastor, he followed the founding pastor, Orval Butcher. When he learned that he was retiring and the position would soon be open, some people advised him not to consider taking it. Dr. Maxwell conceded that in the church world, it can be very tough following a pastor who had served for 27 years and had done a wonderful job.

Dr. Maxwell wrote: "I could have drawn a line in the sand and said, 'You follow me or else.'...It would have been foolish to think that I could replace Orval Butcher...And it would have been inappropriate to try. It would be like a new stepparent saying bad things about a child's biological parent and trying to steal the child's affection."

Someone said:

Love without Truth is hypocrisy.
Truth without Love is brutality.

the sad thing is that from what i can see, the change in preaching was pretty necessary. i watched the CR broadcast consistently for a season before Kennedy passed.

i'd be very hard pressed to point out a time when he actually preached from Bible. it was Steven Barton revisionist history lectures.

First, I want to say that everyone has only heard Tullian's side of the story. I don't say that he didn't "hear" that the conflict was about robes and preaching politics but from what I know from good friends, on both sides of the issue, it is MUCH more then that.

I think Tullian needs to stop giving interviews and getting media attention on this. To keep reading about only one side just keeps the wound fresh and arguing going. There will be no resolution or healing if we keep hearing only one side of the issue. The bad part is that the problems were ignored at Coral until they couldn't be ignored anymore. Now there is a crisis and the question is how to bring everyone in the church together? If Tullian doesn't, what kind of ministry can be expected from a church that is limping along?

One option it to simply get rid of all the folks that are causing a ripple. Then the church has only those on board that can fulfill the vision set forth by the Pastor. Not sure if is right but an option. A huge issue that has been mentioned is TRUST and how to restore it? How do marriage restore trust after a hurt? Tullian needs to show the members he can be trusted. The reasons for mistrust have to be looked at in a realistic light. This all will take a lot of maturity on all sides and hopefully they can do it. Let's all keep them in prayer.

PS-Forgive me for double dipping. I had a senior moment. The lesson I think that everyone needs to learn from this is stewardship. We need to make plans for churches, ministries,or Christian organizations to carry on after we all pass through this world. DR. Kennedy was asked repeatedly to mentor a second string in ALL his ministries so that when he went they could carry on in the fashion intended. He refused, now his ministries have a vacuum that needs to be filled after his death. So everyone scrambles to fill the void and sometimes, not saying this is the case, the one that fills the void is NOT God's choice. Christian leadership needs to realize that we are stewards of what God has entrusted to us. We need to ask God who is taking over after we leave and mentor that next person to build on God's foundation that is left behind. All this pain, anger and hurt could have been AVOIDED by God's people simply planning better! That is what is so annoying about this. The solution is simple. But we often miss the simple.

@kay.

that cuts both ways.

the members who were contentious and divisive in the way they went about things also need to show that they can be trusted too.

As a Coral Ridge member, I voted for Tullian the first time around. I have since experienced quite a different person from the one in print and in the pulpit. As for who is divisive, consider this: he and his people came in with massive dismissals of Coral Ridge people replaced with their people, erratic overspending, getting approval of the session after the fact, continual threats and insistance upon loyalty oaths.
I am among the 400, who for the first time since Tullian arrived, experienced joyful, free, God-honoring worship apart from the Coral Ridge Church building and Tullian last Sunday. As for "insignificant" issues, consider this: this pastor refused to display, both on the big screen and in the bulletin, the Word of God. He stated that we "need man's elucidation". Since the take-over, this church has neglected one fundamental truth--the pre-eminence of God's Word. God's Word is to be highly exalted. In Psalm 138:2 we read, "For You (God)have exalted above all things, Your name and Your Word."
I saw this church diminish and marginalize what God Himself holds high. The words of Paul Marshall, Tim Keller, John Piper, St. Augustine, the dictionary, Victor Hugo, or John Calvin are not what we should reflect on or highly exalt. Peter, in John 6:68 said, "Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life."
God's Word can be ignored, but cannot be silenced. God's Word can be pre-empted in our bulletins, brochures, and broadcasts, but it will not be emptied of power. The day we put God's Word on the shelf, in the back seat, or in second place to man's elucidation of it is the day God will not find us guiltless. As for those who remain, God help them.

wow...who knew that a teaching style and choices over what's on power point was now the litmus test for genuine commitment to the Scriptures?

honestly, if you're attitude is representative of the attitude toward your pastor in the rest of the 400, you've done him a big favor by leaving.

I would disagree that the roughly 400 should be called "dissenters". I believe that they are reactors to a crisis they see in the church that the other members are not seeing, for whatever reason. Does that mean they are bad,awful people or sinning?

There are much deeper problems that need to be discussed here. I understand that roughly 1300 voted, roughly 400 against and roughly 900 for Tullian. Keep in mind that Tullian brought with him about 500 City Church members and I think it is safe to assume they voted for Tullian. How are they going to reconcile with the 400 that are reactors? Will the City and Coral people that remain at Coral now be able to come together or is there resentment left over?

I understand that Coral had about 2000-2500 members which means a whole lot of people didn't vote. Since it is Ft. Lauderdale I think we can say that many are snowbirds. Usually they come to Florida about Thanksgiving time so how are they going to transition into Coral now or will they simply go to the breakaway church? Is another wave of problems on the horizen?
There are so many things going on here that go much beyond Tullian but he is the central figure that has to bring them together. What should he do?

Another question that comes to my mind is, is it a sin to disagree with your Pastor?? I would think that 99% of all of us disagree with our Pastor in one fashion or another. So does that mean we should all be labeled with an ugly term like "dissenters" and be kicked out of our churches? When is it sin and when is it not? Should a Pastor expect 100% agreement and loyalty from the church members? Is that realistic or even Biblical? Did the Bereans give Paul 100% loyalty or did he have to prove himself against the scriptures? How should the Pastor handle this in a Biblical manner and was this handled in a Biblical manner? If not how can it be corrected?

I see the role of the Pastor as the catalyst in reconciliation and the members will, again, react to it. I don't see the process coming from the pew up to the Pastor and leadership. Correct me if I am wrong.

Again, I return to the original lesson. If ONLY Dr. Kennedy had provided a plan to have in place leadership when he went on then none of this would be happening or at least not to extent it is happening. The lack of planning has created a leadership void in all the Coral Ridge Ministries that needed to be filled. While the church is reeling in grief over the death of their leader they were forced to choose new leadership to hurried carry on. Is that fair to them? All of it could have been avoided sad to say. Let us all learn this lesson well. Ministries are a stewardship not ownership. I certainly don't envy the position that Tullian is in. He is in a really tough spot and needs prayer, along with the rest of the people.

@kay

it's certainly not sin to simply disagree with a pastor.

but "how" you disagree can be sinful.

and, honestly, "what" you choose to elevate as an issue to create disagreement over can perpetuate sin.

if, as the other poster claimed, that T was demeaning the Word of God (which i highly doubt), well that's something to disagree about.

but, for those who wanted him gone over "not wearing a robe"... or those upset that T was not willing to perpetuate the sinful "preaching" of revisionist history lectures with nary a verse of the bible or the random single one to support a random point--as Kennedy would do--well...then that kind of disagreement is sinful, divisive and really doesn't deserve some kind of rapprochement that gives place to their complaint.

another thing...

by their own church polity the people who "disagreed" didn't win the day.

they lost the argument.

that means reconciliation, if they choose to stay, doesn't mean leadership caving to them or giving them place.

it means leadership gently moving ahead with the direction that was affirmed by a wide margin.

400 people is a lot compared to the average church size in america...but, again, they lost.

that's the polity they chose.
they have to live with it.

leadership isn't beholden to them.

too often people use the idea of "reconciliation" to backdoor what they couldn't force through the front.

p.s. it's weird that my captch for this post is "ouija"...as in "ouija board".

Nathan, I appreciate your remarks but I sense you are a tad bias. Maybe it would be a good idea to for you and I to let others post and we listen for awhile? We both might learn something.

I feel that many of your posts lack facts that I am very aware of. It might be misleading to others if you continue responding and I am more then willing to stop since I sense we both are on a verge of another disagreement. I don't want to have to keep "correcting" or telling the full story in response to your posts.

God bless you in the journey at Coral. I certainly am glad that I don't go to church there as dialog is stained and lacking facts. I am praying for all of you at Coral. Hopefully all parties will come out in the open honestly and sincerely rather then trying to control the damage.

Sorry, I just have to comment. Nathan, I find some of your phrases in describing the whole Coral Ridge issue disturbing.

Here are some of them.
(They) didn't win the day
they lost the argument
but, again, they lost.
they have to live with it

It sounds like you are describing a football game rather then a church. What exactly did they "lose"? What was won? Was this what the whole thing was about..losing or winning? It looks to me that all of Coral has lost and it will take a long time to get back on track. The whole way you describe it is so impersonal. The church is about people...a family. How would you feel if I said, "Nathan, you loose. I win. You are just going to have to live it. Just your tough luck. You don't like it then leave."??

And here you describe a Pastor, church leadership and the flock in this way.

doesn't mean leadership caving to them or giving them place.
leadership isn't beholden to them

Isn't the Pastor and church leadership suppose to love the flock and care for ALL of them that are entrusted to them? The Pastor is suppose to be like Jesus to the flock. Do you realize that words like "leadership isn't beholden to them" doesn't convey a love relationship? It is like the Pastor and leadership are over them like a master and when they decide to release blessing on then it is their decision alone. After all he won, right? They have the prize now, whatever that is. Does the Pastor and the church leadership realize that they will be held accountable for how they shepherd the flock that was given to them? The choice of words that you use are really like it is us against them. Not like I would expect a family member to describe someone they will spend eternity with.

I really hope that this whole Coral issue isn't boiled down to winning or losing. That would be very sad because I think everyone lost then.

OK, I really need to pass the floor on to someone else now. I have talked too much. Thanks for letting me share.

I'm describing it in the very terms their polity set up.

the polity of the church turned the ugly situation into a game of win/lose.

that's my point.

not endorsing it one way or the other...just stating how it works...and how people need to lie in the beds they make.

i don't disagree with your assessment of the previous leadership's failure to set this transition up for success.

i'm just saying the whining by the people who did not prevail isn't some tragedy...it's the end result of a system of church governance they all signed on for.

they can't have their cake and eat it too.

kay,

i hear your point about if a pastor told me to suck it up or leave...

it wouldn't be fun...it might hurt...

but there are times, i believe, that leadership has to say that.

titus. warn a divisive person twice and then give 'em the boot.

going after a pastor over a robe demonstrates a divisiveness that doesn't demand we "shepherd" a sinful attitude.

being a pastor, in a love relationship, doesn't mean allowing people to tear a church apart with impunity over petty issues.

that's not good leadership...and that's not really being loving.

just my 2 cents...

all that being said:

peace to you, sister. you have wise words, and I hear your concerns, know that they are shared. I just wish we christians could also talk about the times that require discipline, rebuke, etc.

Nathan, in all the communications from the 6-which includes Jennifer, CRCP FOR ALL blog, flier and charges that I have read against Pastor Tullian, there is nothing about wearing robes in it. He was asked this before he was hired and said no, yet he still was hired!

Dr. Kennedy never wore robes when he preached in the contemporary service. In fact, he joked about changing in a phone booth while going from the contemporary to traditional service.

After reading Tullians comments and hearing him on WRMB I can't believe he was in the same room with the reactors or reading the same list of complaints. It seems to me that there is a whole lot of mis-communication about what is going on and what was heard.

I know for a fact that several people tried very hard to reach Tullian to discuss their issues and he didn't return phone calls or emails. I think he thought it would go away but he finally had to face it, while cutting his vacation short, to address the people. If he had handled the manner before the crisis stage it would have been much better all around. I am not saying that Coral doesn't need changes. It does!

Please keep in mind that Coral lost a beloved Pastor and has been grieving. They were pressured into filling the void as fast as possible, since there was no succession plan, and deal with the loss at the same time. I am not saying that Dr.Kennedy wasn't a wonderful Christian man due to the oversight. But we all can't hold the church members accountable for another person's lack of planning. It certainly is not their fault. There are many lessons that need to be learned from this for the rest of us. Let's hope we all don't have short memories.

I agree that churches need discipline but have not been convinced it has been carried out properly in this case. The crime doesn't seem to fit the punishment if you ask me. The way things have been done don't seem to follow protocol. I also agree that in some ways the reactors didn't handle it properly when they couldn't get Tullian's attention. More lessons we all need to learn.

Maybe everyone needs to let the emotion subside before making decisions. Seems there is a whole lot of reacting going on rather then long term planning all around. I am praying, believe me I am!!

Apparently, the charge against Mr. Tchividjian is occultic practices or the impression of syncretic incorporation of occultic linguistics.
Apparently the phrase, "as above, so below", along with some uses of symbols in his preaching that has been identified by the dissenters as subtextual promotion of occultic usage.

If there is a perception of occultic practices or tolerance of occultic practices then it behooves the Pastor to dispel that perception. Failure to do so has consequences that will last a very long time.

@sheer

occultic practices?

where did you hear about that?

Is it important where sheer heard it, or that it is being used as we write? Personally, I think it is the latter. I also understand the new church motto "as above, so below" is an occult saying. You can google it if you want. I think it it FACT but no one knows the motive. Where one heard it is not the issue so let's not cloud it. If it was changed unknowingly then maybe leadership needs to revisit this issue. As a member I certainly would be concerned if that were the motto of my church now.

@kay

this is the first i'm hearing about this...

so i'd like sources so that i can check things out myself...

but i hear your point.

is it possible this is an unfortunate riff on the idea of "on earth as in heaven"?

Nathan, you know yourself this is the new motto. Go google it and find out what you see then make up your own mind. The new pastor changed it or someone on his staff. Why don't you go talk to them?? The fact remains it was changed from the one Dr. Kennedy had.

How could you not know about it?? Or are you denying it is the new motto at the end of every email and other communications?

Further proof that both sides in this Coral debate are not listening to each other. Hope Tullian has people on his team that are listening to what is going on rather then keeping score of who is winning or losing.

Dear Tullian,

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...you could have thought.

You watched Dr. Kennedy off and running the relay race with all he got. People in the stands were cheering. As he approached the end of his leg, you gazed at how he felt the adrenaline coursing through his veins. Coming around the last corner, and having no next runner in sight, he stumbled. You winced as he let go the baton. Lo and behold! It landed in your hand.

It was the best of times because it was like catching a home-run ball in the stands at a baseball game. It was the worst of times because you're not a member of the home-grown relay team.

But don't get rid of that baton. Look intently at it. You'd find fingerprints of those who received and passed it from time immemorial: fingerprints of Dr. Kennedy and the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church - and underneath them all - the fingerprints of the disciples and of Jesus Christ, himself.

What do the fingerprints of Dr. Kennedy and CRPC symbolize? A unique culture. Tullian, to carry the baton, you must understand CRPC's culture. Why? Here's a testimony of Christian leader and author, Jeff Jones:

"I made the common mistake of getting excited about a particular church's way of doing things and immediately trying to introduce it into my own church culture. Here's what I discovered: If the culture isn't ready, even the best ideas and strategies are doomed to failure. Before we try to import new ideas, improved systems, and high-quality tools...we first need to prepare the soil in our church. We need to do the hard work of embedding new values deep into our church culture." - Excerpted from the book "The Leadership Baton"

What is CRPC's culture? It consists of the values, beliefs, and norms that manifest themselves in the habitual ways CRPC's members accomplish their work, relate to one another, solve the problems that confront them, and interpret their social surroundings.

Tullian, you must understand the unique features of CRPC's culture before attempting to administer it. Lest you may try to implement inappropriate changes, or worse, undermine the values and norms that served it well in the past. The most effective and efficient method of coming to this understanding is the culture audit.(Novations Group, Inc.)

"Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:13-14

@kay.

i've suddenly realized that you're under the impression that i attend Coral Ridge.

i don't, and i've never made it a habit to frequent their website, precisely because of the content of Dr. Kennedy's "preaching".

after posting my last question to you, i took it upon myself to finally actually visit the website and all i saw was exactly what i was asking about (i.e. "on earth as it is in heaven".)

i think it's better to stick with the original, rather than trying to riff on it...precisely because you can "step in it" like they apparently did.

but even that is not any reason to call a vote on a guy.

maybe they made an honest mistake...actually, they obviously did...since they changed it.

beyond the "as above, so below" thing...

i hope it's not some kind of sin that the new senior pastor of a church is allowed to change the sacred motto of his predecessor.

just wondering...

hear me, "as above, so below" was not wise...but seeing now on the website what they're trying to say...cut 'em some slack.

Nathan,
I dug around the blogs, and found it.

There is a Catholic tradition from the Dark ages and Medieval ages of co-opting pagan sites, texts, songs, etc and "christianizing" them so that the practioners understood that the Christian G-d is the one true G-d.
It was not uncommon to cut down a sacred oak and use it's timbers to build the church on the same site as the oak, and same-same with stones and such.
HOWEVER
it takes a whole pile of common sense, along with a huge sack of wisdom to know when to do that and when to stick with tradition.

And to be honest, I didn't see a pile behind Mr. T, nor did he have sack sitting next to him...he probably should've stuck to tradition allowing minor changes to occur over time.

just my opinion.

@sheer

fair enough.

Great job here. I really enjoyed what you had to say. Keep going because you definitely bring a new voice to this subject. Not many people would say what you’ve said and still make it interesting. Well, at least I’m interested. Cant wait to see more of this from you.