John H Armstrong

Mix-and-Match Religion on the Rise

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the most reputable and the most often cited source for such research, informed us on Wednesday that Americans are increasingly taking a "build-your-own" approach to religion. I have found anecdotal evidence for this movement for some time so the actual results of real research did not shock me at all.

Large numbers of Americans attend services of traditions other than their own and they are now increasingly blending Christianity with Eastern and New Age beliefs. There has been, the survey reveals, a dramatic increase over the last three decades in the number of people who have had a religious or mystical experience. The U.S. is still considered an overwhelmingly Christian country, in terms of membership and preferences, but there are growing minorities who hold beliefs of the kind found at Buddhist temples or New Age bookstores. 24% of those surveyed believe in reincarnation. 22% of Christians believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation, in case you wondered, is an anti-Christian belief in the light of the most central doctrine of Christian faith: the resurrection.

Here is what I find, in and out of the church. People believe in heaven, the afterlife, reincarnation, etc. They really do believe life does not end with death. But they have no clue about the resurrection. Even in some of the best churches the emphasis is on going to heaven, not being raised with Christ in the final day of history as we know it now.

Significant numbers of Americans now visit numerous places of worship. And this is not just for weddings, funerals or on vacation. People are trying new ways, new religious ideas. 25% of those who go to church say they sometimes attend services at a place where the faith is quite different from their own tradition. Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at Pew Forum, says, "It is as much now the norm as it is the exception for Americans to blend multiple religious beliefs and practices."

Here are some significant numbers from this new research:

About 25% of Americans believe in Eastern or New Age ideas. These include belief in reincarnation, the practice of yoga as a spiritual discipline (not simply for physical and emotional exercise), the idea that spiritual energy is found in things like mountains, trees, crystals and astrology. 

About 16% of Americans believe in "the evil eye." This means they believe a person can cast a curse or spell on them. More than 10% of white evangelicals (who attend church weekly) believe this and more than 30% of African-American Protestants believe it.

Roughly 30% of Americans believe they have been in touch with someone who has died. This was 18% a little over a decade ago. This belief is most common about black Protestants and Roman Catholics. Nearly 20% of Americans believe they have been in the presence of a ghost.

Nearly 50% of Americans say they have had a religious or mystical experience, or a "moment of sudden religious insight or awakening." This number has doubled since Gallup first asked the same question in 1962. White evangelicals and black Protestants are most likely to have had such a religious experience but 30% of those with no religious affiliation show a strong spiritual bent.

So what should we learn from this data?

First, spiritual hunger is rising and will not simply go away under the fervor of the new atheism.

Second, people are deeply interested in finding faith, regardless of where they find it.

Third, doctrinally orthodox Christianity is in for a serious challenge in the coming decades. Major shifts will challenge important core doctrines such as the resurrection. If we do not get this right we are in for a long period of decline in vital Christian faith.

Americans remain a religious people. The only real question is: "What religion?" The answer seems to be the religion of "mix-and-match" that we make up as we go. Christian ministers, teachers and lay leaders ought to be asking a lot of hard questions but most are just too busy fighting for members and dollars to care, or so it seems to me.

Is It a Real Translation or Just Radical Ideology?

Most readers, at least those over thirty, have heard of Phyllis Schlafly. Mrs. Schlafly has been widely known in the culture wars for over fifty years. She is a strident, oft published, conservative activist. She became well known in the 1964 ill-fated Barry Goldwater presidential campaign. She became best known for her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Many believe she was the leading voice in helping to defeat the amendment when 30 of the needed 38 states had already voted to accept it. Personally, I have always found it quite ironic that when the U. S helped Japan write its constitution, following their defeat in World War II, we made sure they adopted an ERA. We wanted the idea of "equal rights" under the law built into their political DNA.

Until recently I did not know much about Mrs. Schlafly’s six children. I certainly knew nothing about her best-known son, Andy Schlafly. Andy is a staunch political conservative, just like his famous mother (who is now 85 years old). He advocates the principles held by his mother with as much fervor as she ever did. Like his famous mother Andy is also well-educated. He’s a graduate of Princeton University (with a major in electrical engineering), and Harvard Law School. (Phyllis was also a lawyer and feminists were right when they routinely said that she advocated for stay-at-home mothers while she had a major public career outside the home!) Andy is the founder of the website Conservapedia.com, which now boasts more than 100 million page views. The site offers a strongly conservative viewpoint on politics. What particularly interested me about this site is not the politics of the Andy Schlafly, which are to the far right of any reasonably modern conservative stance, but his entrance into religious issues. Phyllis Schlafly is a Roman Catholic and always expressed some connection between her faith and her political philosophy. She had a particular appeal to “Bible-believing conservatives.” Her son appears to be in the same place. Again this is not all that important since I gather the impact of the Schlafly family is relatively small these days. 

What should interest serious Christians, however, is the fact that Conservapedia.com is now sponsoring a new Bible translation project called the Conservative Bible Project. Anytime conservative groups talk about a new Bible translation they get my attention since I am much more interested in the Holy Scripture, and the integrity of how it is translated, that I am any political arguments under the sun.

The Conservapedia.com Bible translation project involves what has been termed open-source editing. New Testament scholar Dan Wallace writes that this project is an “open source of woe or comic relief, depending on your perspective.” Wallace, on his post at Parchment and Pen, writes:

The Tennesean.com reports that Gen 1.1 was changed by fans of Stephen Colbert as follows: “In the beginning, Stephen Colbert created the heavens and the earth”! The text was later fixed. Al Gore may have invented the Internet, but Colbert did not create the universe. Elsewhere, someone changed ‘Pharisee’ to ‘liberal’ to show that liberals were responsible for Jesus’ death. Schlafly changed it back to Pharisee but admitted to the Tennessean.com, “The possibility that Pharisees, which is a term that’s not familiar to most of us, could be better translated as liberal is intriguing. But we haven’t gone with that yet.”

Besides the fact that this translation is simply a really bad one the overriding problem here is found in the very project itself. How on earth can you translate the Bible according to a particular political agenda? My friend Douglas Moo, professor of theology at the Wheaton Graduate School, and chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation which oversees the NIV and TNIV, commented on the project to the Nashville Tennessean by saying: “Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it.” Schlafly responded to this reporting by saying that the TNIV was motivated by a liberal agenda, especially with regard to gender inclusiveness. Ah, here we go again, appeal to the "gender war" hot button and you throw more verbal bombs without having to deal with very real issues in the text of the Bible itself.

Wallace rightly notes about this gender inclusiveness charge: “This, frankly, is an uninformed argument. Moo wrote the first full-blown exegesis of 1 Tim 2.11–15, published originally in Trinity Journal, taking a conservative position on the role of women in the church. Moo also was for some time a member of the conservative Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.”

What is going on here is rather obvious. Schlafly is using the word “liberal” to describe both politics and theology, mixing the two shamelessly. He even has ten rules for a conservative Bible translation and anyone who reads the rules will readily discover what I mean. Here are three to give you an illustration of my point:

1. "Framework Against Liberal Bias"

Schlafly argues for a "thought-for-thought" translation framework without the possible corruption of liberal bias. This is an utterly amazing first point in approaching Bible translation itself.

2. "Not Dumbed Down"

Here Schlafly attacks the NIV for using seventh grade English. The reason for this level of English is that the translators wanted a Bible that could be read and understood by ordinary readers of modern English. This principle is in perfect keeping with the way the original Greek text was written and is a principle rooted in the mission of Christ.

3. "Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms"

For a Bible that wants to avoid bias it seems clear to me the bias they want to avoid is anything that might be seen as supportive of liberal political ideology. So much for being non-biased.

4. “Express Free-Market Parables”

While I respect and defend the free-market this principle in translating the Bible is so preposterous as to be beyond serious belief until I actually read it in Schlafly’s list.

A blog reader of Dan Wallace’s post comments on this subject in a way that sums up my response nicely: “The combining of ‘conservative’ and ‘translation’ creates an oxymoron because by definition any translation with an agenda, liberal, conservative, or other, is simply not a translation. Translations are supposed to represent the original text as closely as possible given the differences in language. Taking the Bible and translating the language to support your agenda rather than accurately translating the author’s intent is damnable idolatry (you are placing your beliefs in the conservative cause above God’s Word). I’m reminded of the quote that God created man in His image and man returned the favor.”

Andy Schlafly’s project looks and feels like the work of some kind of foolish person who knows absolutely nothing about how translation really works. The only problem with this conclusion is that it seems he understands enough to know better. If this is true then his problem is even worse than foolishness and ignorance. The good news is that almost no one will use this translation of the Bible. The bad news is that the kind of ideology that produces it in the first place is here to stay. Let serious, thoughtful and responsible Christians beware.

The NIV/TNIV: The Controversy That Keeps on Ticking

Yesterday, I looked at the announcement that a new NIV (2011) translation of the Bible will be published in two years. I looked at the background to this controversy and considered why this debate arose. Today we look more directly at the translation project itself.

Doug Moo (photo left), a frontline New Testament scholar and solid translator, is chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation that will work on the NIV (2011). Doug admits that the committee has not yet decided on how much of the gender-inclusive language will be included in the new NIV (2011). Since this is what primarily prompted the immense criticism of the TNIV in 2002 I wonder what this really means. He rightly admits that what the committee did then was right. He also says everything is back on the table. He even says, “[Members of the committee] feel much more comfortable about the TNIV” than the NIVi, which was its controversial British forerunner.

Those involved with the decision to redo the NIV, and thereby admit the TNIV was a mistake, talk about transparency and openness as important values in this new revision. I believe they are sincere. But does this admission mean World Magazine was right to call this version a “Stealth Bible” in its famous 1997 cover story?

I must remind Moe Girkins, and all of my good friends at Zondervan, that transparency in the midst of a fierce campaign against a new and important translation project was very difficult back in 2002. Some of us stood by Zondervan, even if they did not show the kind of transparency that they now say they failed to show. We did this precisely because we knew just how hard it was to get this job done and to get a really good translation on the market in an intensely political context.

So has the TNIV failed so desperately that we must do away with it and admit that it should never have been done in the first place? This is what troubles me about the whole story of this new revision and the removal of the TNIV from the market. Moe Girkins says the way the TNIV was brought to market was not “transparent.” I tend to agree based on what I know. The mistrust and acrimony of the time was terrible.

It is ironic to me that the TNIV is the number three selling version of the Bible on Kindle, behind the KJV and NIV. (I bought the TNIV for my iPhone and love it.) It is not among the top ten print Bibles but the revolution that is coming to print media, and the delivery of content to the next generation of readers via non-print means, is immensely important. I believe the TNIV’s popularity would have grown over time just as the readership of the Bible shifts to younger people.

So how will the more controversial issues in Bible translation actually be addressed in this new process?

Dr. Moo suggests that there are two issues at stake here. One is the translation philosophy. How closely will the translation adhere to the Greek and Hebrew text? Should the focus be on a word-for-word translation (“formal equivalence”) or a thought-for-thought translation (“dynamic equivalence”)? For those who do not understand the problems of translation this seems very simple. They want you to tell them what the words say and nothing else. If only it was that simple. Throw into this discussion the fears that some conservatives stir up about “tampering” with God’s words and you get the fuel for a huge fire. This has been going on since the release of the RSV back in the early 1950s. Bonfires for burning Bibles were all too common. We don’t burn them today but we print stories, with false accusations, and thus stir up strife in much the same way. 

A second issue at stake for the translation committee is how to deal with gender-inclusive language. When, for example, the Greek refers to brothers and sisters (but uses a male pronoun) should we translate this as “brothers and sisters” in English? Another example is in a familiar text like Romans 3:28 where the NIV says “a man is justified by faith.” Most modern versions have altered man to say “one” or “person.” The old NIV is very dated in this sense and Moo says he is unsure how the new revision will address this problem. If he does not know, and he chairs the committee on translation, what guarantees that the same old political battles will not break out all over again? In reading the comments of leaders from the CBMW on this issue I have no hope at all that the atmosphere has changed a single iota.

I must hand it to Zondervan and the committee on translation. Both say that their main object here is clarity and accuracy. Their goal is “the global English-speaking audience” says Moo. I agree with this 110%. The problem is that politics will very likely impact how much clarity and accuracy will finally be allowed. In the end I lose my TNIV, which frankly I came to love. (I sent my preaching copy to Mexico to get it bound in a beautiful leather binding!) More significantly, the evangelical world (whatever this is) is again embroiled in a major controversy. I simply do not like the feel of where this will go.

My response to all this is not firmly settled but I am very likely going back to the NRSV (and the NLT) and the “formally equivalent” NASB. In the first version I get a standard modern translation that uses dynamic equivalence quite responsibly. It also has the advantage of being a committee translation that comes out of a genuinely ecumenical context, not from an evangelical sub-culture publishing context where everything is measured by political debate and market. (This is not to say the NRSV doesn’t engage in some word choices that I strongly oppose.) In the NASB I get a solid and reliable word-for-word translation. The tragedy here, at least to my mind, is that more time and money will be spent on this new NIV (2011) and more controversy will likely be the end result of it all. People will pick sides, Bible sales will ebb and flow, and the church will be further divided. I see no other way this story can go unless, and this is a huge unless, we get back to the supremacy of Christ and stop centering our views on these issues that are simply not central to our real identity as God’s people.

The New NIV and the Bible Translation Debate

The gender-inclusive debate often alarms me. I have seen this debate from both sides. I believe the effort to fundamentally change the way we speak about God is fraught with some rather serious theological problems. Several great books addressed this problem fifteen or twenty years ago when it first broke on the scene in the mainline denominations rush to revision in God-language. I am not interested, in this post, in refuting these mistakes. A number of first-rate scholarly books and monographs have addressed these concerns, as I said. I believe there is sufficiently good reason for retaining the Bible’s language regarding God. (I freely grant that there are feminine images of God given to us in Scripture and these should not be easily overlooked!)

I am more concerned, at this moment, about the continued debate over the New International Version (NIV, 1984) and the subsequent TNIV (2002). For those who do not recall the details this debate came about because the International Bible Society began to revise the most widely used version of the Bible (NIV) in the late 1990s. After major criticism of this translation effort was launched by a number of widely known conservatives the attempt to revise the NIV got shelved. The result was the TNIV, a translation that was sold as an updated NIV. The TNIV came out in 2002 and was called, by World Magazine, “The Stealth Bible.”

When the TNIV was launched I was asked to read it and to write an endorsement. I was reticent to do this because I had enough controversy in my life at that time. This would become another battle, as I saw it at the time, and the Lord knows I didn’t need more battles. But a friend at Zondervan urged me to take a look at the finished product and when I did I gladly endorsed the new TNIV. I eventually began to use it for study and preaching. I love it. It is not a “radical” translation but is it fresh and readable modern English version. It is a much improved NIV, exactly what IBS and Zondervan promised they would give us. But here is where the problems began all over again.

World Magazine, the publication that had originally stoked the fires of this controversy, did a cover story on the TNIV. That story was, in my view, an inaccurate and, at times, inflammatory account. I wrote a fairly brief letter to the editor. They published only a part of that letter. The end result was that I was made to look worse for my written effort. The result of this was to generate more mail, a great deal of it angry and accusatory. 99% of those who wrote to me did not know me and were not friends of this ministry. Most made assumptions and many called me names and expressed their horror at my departure from the faith. It was not very edifying stuff I assure you. At the time I was not prepared for this emotionally. And it didn’t help to get this avalanche of this kind of response. For about a month this barrage was non-stop.

So when Zondervan recently announced that it was going to take the TNIV out of print I was chagrined. Seven years after I stuck my neck out it all comes to nothing. I still wonder why. This much I know—both the IBS and Zondervan announced a few weeks ago that a new NIV was going to come out in 2011 and the old NIV and TNIV would no longer be available. All of my personal investment in Bibles, and related study tools, are once again down the drain. Frankly, I am unhappy with this decision. I will explain why in just a moment.

Zondervan president Moe Girkins said, “Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community.” What? The TNIV did not divide the evangelical community, this controversy did. And this controversy played on fear and innuendo to stoke a huge conflagration. As a result the TNIV never sold as Zondervan expected. I am aware enough of Bible publishing to know that sales are so important that unless projections are reached a version will likely die. When translations are linked to profits then they can get lost in the ebb and flow of events. Moe Girkins added, “We are correcting the mistakes in the past. Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board in the last ten days.” The goal she added was to overhaul the NIV “in a way that unifies Christian evangelicalism.” My response is, no pun intended, “Good luck!” Evangelicalism is so divided that publishers and magazines will never unite it. That is a pipe dream. The only thing that might unite us is a common vision of the supremacy of Christ, a new commitment to core orthodoxy and a new loyalty to the missional mandate of Jesus Christ. This is not happening so we are inclined to think that a Bible translation will do what we have not done in being faithful to Christ.

Look, what has divided us is politics, secular and ecclesial. This is really all about politics. Can we agree that the role of men and women in church leadership is not a “core” doctrinal issue? Can we agree that referring to men and women in public speech, in a way that is careful and wise, is important? I can hold my own views about what is appropriate to women in the church but it seems the far left and far right cannot accept me, or people like me, since they are unwilling to pursue peace on the basis of Christ and core orthodoxy. So evangelical politics again rises to the surface and the debates rage on. The losers are Christians who will not listen and learn from other Christians.

What Can We Learn from the Conflict at the Crystal Cathedral?

While it is easy to cast stones at the Schuller family, especially when we are safely removed from the day-to-day decision making that goes into an international ministry like the Crystal Cathedral and the Hour of Power, there are some general lessons that are worth our consideration when we read a story like the one I told yesterday.

1. The governing structure of the Crystal Cathedral is not one that clearly resembles the standard polity of the Reformed Church. Instead of "shared" governance and real accountability to the classis, the Crystal Cathedral stands out as unique in so many ways. Some of this is understandable given the unusual nature, and remarkable size, of this church. But sharing the leadership with the elders and deacons, as well as with the classis and synod, would have gone a long way toward preventing the tragic division that took place in Garden Grove over the last ten months.

2. While it is sometimes possible for a son to succeed his father in a ministry it is not generally advisable. I know there are exceptions but that is my point---they are exceptions! Nepotism is a real problem here. Whether fathers like it or not if they pass along appointments, especially in the form of paid staff positions, this problem will arise. Everything may be up-and-up but the "appearance" of impropriety will always be there. Even in business, where a father-son combination often works well, a wise father will generally allow his son to work outside the family social context for a time so he can see what it is like to work in a different environment than that of the family. The thing that made the appointment of Robert A. Schuller so natural was that he had been involved in the ministry since his mid-20s and he is not a young man at age 54.

I can think of dozens of lesser known family breakdowns related to inheriting ministry from one's father. A number of these have been in the news in the last few years. Surely all of these should provide a warning to us all.

3. Great pressures will come to bear on ministries when financial stress arises. It is sometimes said that stress will reveal (stress) fractures that are already beneath the surface. In the case of the Schuller family tragedy I am guessing that this was true. There is really no fracture greater than that which family pressure brings when siblings attempt to share power and the legacy of their father and mother. Have you ever been involved in a family dispute over inheritance? I have been spared this trial personally but I have seen more than my share of it over my years in pastoral ministry. It is a terrible thing. Good siblings, who were sometimes the best of friends, turn on each other and the tragedy that follows reveals how deep pride, envy and jealousy can really be. I am not saying I know that all of this was behind the Schuller tragedy but everything points in this direction, all things being equal. I hope I am wrong here and that the real story is that there was a  simple disagreement over style. It sure seems otherwise given what the family reports of the crisis.

4. Finally, as a father whose son is in Christian ministry, I can tell you that the pressure one feels to include a son, or a daughter, in their ministry is great. I encouraged my own son to not work for me and to seek for a context in which he could use his gifts to the fullest without any pressure from me or my leadership. At first it seemed like he would be a natural fit for me. He knew me, he understood the ministry better than anyone else and he was very able. On top of that I completely trusted him. We didn't need to get acquainted. But my board strongly advised him and me that the kingdom would be best served if he developed his own gifts and calling without my direct involvement in that process. It was not easy for me to agree. Time has proven, now thirteen years later, that this choice was right. Now Matt and I meet once a month to talk about ministry, our relationship, the Lord's grace, etc. It is natural, sweet and effective for us both.

My daughter, on the other hand, wanted to work for me. Her role was not to be a public one but rather one of administration and serving. She was trained to do this and even earned a college degree in business management. Her skills were honed for the work she does and she had been with me form the beginning of ACT 3. Ours is not a large ministry, since the two of us are the only full-time staff. Stacy handles our day-to-day business and accounts to our treasurer on a regular basis. She is hired by, and accountable to, our board. She works out of her home. We do not have an office and she is most definitely not on the board of ACT 3, nor is my wife. This is the way I wanted it and the board has always agreed. I feel that it has worked well and that the potential problems have been adequately addressed. There is no possibility that Stacy would follow me in the public ministry and the family does not control this direction.

It is not fair for me to compare my very simple and easy context with the Schuller ministry, thus I assure you that I am not taking aim at this family. As I noted yesterday this story moves me to deep sadness. I continue to pray for the Schuller family and hope the day will soon come when this family will find unity in Christ among all five of these siblings. I can't think of a sadder way to come to the end of one's long public ministry than to have this kind of division among those you love the most in this world.

I urge you to pray for the Schuller family. Pray for the ministry of the Crystal Cathedral and the international broadcast of the Hour of Power. Pray for Robert A. and Robert H. Schuller, that they be one again before the Lord calls either of them home. By this I believe Christ would be honored in private and in public.

The Sad Conflict at the Crystal Cathedral

Dr. Robert H. Schuller is clearly one of the most visible ministers in the world, like him or not. Since Schuller began his drive-in church in Garden Grove, California, in the 1950s, his possibility-thinking has established not only a well known mega-church but a world-wide television ministry. Schuller, now 82, retired from day-to-day leadership in 2006. He was succeeded by his son, Robert A. Schuller. Now the entire Schuller ministry and legacy has undergone a profound upheaval. The story is very, very sad.

Robert Anthony Schuller, 54, succeeded his famous father in January 2006. The hope was that a younger audience would become loyal to the broadcast that has billed itself as “America’s Television Church.” But in July, 2008, the father reversed course and formed a three-person Office of the President which removed the younger Schuller from the leadership of The Hour of Power. Then in October of 2008 the father announced that the son would remain the senior pastor of the church but he would no longer be featured on The Hour of Power. What is now seen as a major family feud thus became public. A month later, in late 2008, the son resigned as the senior pastor of the church.

Financial problems are clearly a major part of these decisions. A growing debt forced the removal of a number of staff members and the sale of $65 million in property. But the real story is much deeper than a budgetary crisis. And it is a story that should move any one with first-hand experience of family crisis and breakdown.

Robert H. and Arvella Schuller have five children. All five of them have been deeply involved in the ministry of the church as well as The Hour of Power. One daughter, Shelia, is married to Jim Coleman. Jim is president of the Hour of Power and Sheila is the education director at the church. Sheila's presence is very obvious when you visit the Web site of the ministry. Daughter Gretchen is married to Jim Penner. Jim is the CEO for The Hour of Power and a member of the Office of the President. Gretchen is programming producer for television and schedules the music. She also interviews the guests. Daughter Jeanne, married to Paul Dunn, writes and directs the church’s annual shows: “The Glory of Christmas” and “The Glory of Easter.” And grandson Robert (Bobby) Vernon, 27-year-old son of Robert A. Schuller, pastored an emergent style congregation called the Gathering, that once met on the Crystal Cathedral campus but moved away in the spring of this year.

The Church Herald, the magazine of the Reformed Church in America (Crystal Cathedral is a member congregation of the RCA), stated in an exclusive April 2009 story, “Cathedral in Conflict,” that “the organizational structures of the megachurch and the TV program are complex, driven primarily by Schuller family members and paid staff, with two separate ministries (congregation and TV broadcast) and two governing entities (Office of the President, plus an International Board).” The International Board is the only structure that includes significant outside voice. The Church Herald added, “The organizational structure has become less transparent in the course of Robert Anthony’s demotion and resignation.”

Robert A. Schuller had brought in several major leaders to work with him in his new role in early 2006. These leaders had a background in the RCA in Michigan. They were all casualties of the staff cuts in January of this year. Those who left the church staff have refused to comment. Personally, I find this an admirable response given the way many staff will speak against a church that once employed them.

The Hour of Power telecasts have featured a number of well-known guests over the last ten months. Officials say that their ratings are rising again and attendance has increased. I have not researched these claims so I can make no comment pro or con about them.

Robert A. Schuller has refused to get into a public debate over this family dispute. He maintains that his removal was not about preaching style or his vision for the church’s future. He says it has “a lot to do with the style of administration.” He declined, for the Church Herald, to comment any further but added that his removal was connected to the Cathedral’s president, his own brother-in-law Jim Coleman, and to several board members (most of whom are his own family). The elder Schuller has said that it was “no secret that Robert and I have been struggling as we each have different ideas as to the direction and the vision for this ministry as we move into the future. For this lack of shared vision and the jeopardy in which this is placing this entire ministry, it has become necessary for Robert and me to part ways in the Hour of Power television ministry.”

Robert H. and Robert A. Schuller has shared ministry for almost thirty years. People who know Robert A., within my circle of friends, have little to say about him that is negative. I almost never see the Hour of Power but when I did, since Robert A. became the ministry at the Crystal Cathedral, I appreciated his fresh approach to biblical exposition. While the interim senior pastor says his role is to prepare the church for a pastor who is not in the Schuller family the daughters and sons-in-laws will remain active in leadership.

When Robert A. was installed as senior pastor in 2006 several outside consultants had recommended that the oversight of the church and the television ministry needed to move away from being dominated by members of one family. They also recommended that the separation of the two ministries needed to end. Jim Case, a Crystal Cathedral member who served on a special transition consistory, said board members resisted these changes even though “a dream team” was sitting right in front of them at the time. Adds Case: “There has been a sibling rivalry at work.” And the decision to remove Robert A. was handled in what he calls “a secretive manner.” And a January quote from Sheila Coleman in the Orange County Register acknowledged “strained family relationships.”

The interim pastor of the Crystal Cathedral has appealed for the congregation to “heal as a family.” I find this statement the saddest of all, at least of those that appeared in the Church Herald account of the tragedy in Garden Grove. An appeal to the church to “heal as a family” has been made but I see not hear of an appeal to the Schuller family to “heal.” I do not say this with any sense of disparagement intended. I am heart-broken by this story. While many have criticized Robert H. Schuller for many years these criticisms should be put aside for a moment. What should break our hearts here is the sad story of how this family has been divided. We do not know what happened in private, and we have no idea what happens within this family now, but we know they have suffered incredible schism. This does not glorify God nor does it commend the gospel to those who watch such a story unfold from the outside. I have honestly made the Schuller family a matter of personal prayer since I read the account in the Church Herald back in April.

Some Helpful Reflections and News Reports on Coral Ridge

Two helpful links to more news regarding Coral Ridge were sent to me today. One is an interview with Pastor Tchividjian that appeared today in Christianity Today online. The other link is from a blog written by Matthew Cochrane, a member of CRPC who was present in the Sunday congregational meeting. Matthew is admittedly a supporter of the pastor but his comments are most helpful in my estimation. The comments on Matthew's blog are also quite helpful to those who want to see one aspect of this discussion. 

Another blog, from a different perspective, also proved helpful to me. I think a great deal of wisdom can be gleaned from this perspective. Another blog offers still a different look at this crisis.

I will continue to pass along any news that is germane to this story but for now I think my commentary is adequate. I suggest that we all pray for Pastor Tchividjian, the elders, the church (all the congregation), the D. James Kennedy family and the surrounding community the church ministers to in south Florida and beyond. 

More News on Carol Ridge: Is Jesus Knocking on the Door of This Famous Church?

I mentioned in an earlier post today (see below) that I am not privy to all the news reports from Fort Lauderdale nor am I able to be on the ground forming solid opinions based on personal interviews. I am thus trying to hear both sides and to continue to offer constructive commentary, a goal of this blog site for over four years. My goal remains: insightful commentary that might used to encourage both sides to sue for peace. This goal is rooted in a lifetime of experience in seeking to resolve church conflict through Scripture and biblical wisdom.

To this end I want to add to my three-day commentary another account that appears in the Sun-Sentinel newspaper. Reading this account is actually painful but having read it this morning I still think that my commentary, at least in all the broad strokes I painted, is correct.

Reading this story further underscores my initial concern that the opponents of the pastor and elders have not generally expressed their opposition well. If I only had these news accounts to go on I would suggest to them that they have made their case very badly, assuming they have a case to make. (I think I indicated that it is wise to always attempt to hear both sides as much as humanly possible. When I consult churches this is always my first goal.) The actual statements of the opposition to Pastor Tchividjian (made in the context of a congregational business meeting as the story indicates) lack the kind of clarity that would make a case that might compel outsiders to hear the opposition's points. If the pastor and elders have created a "culture of intimidation," as I quoted one former member saying to me by email, then there is a far better way to express this concern than the way it was presented. I wonder how these folks formed their case. I wonder what process they followed. I wonder what counsel that got and how much they spent time in prayer and fasting before they acted. Their grievances, according to this news report (which again I have to assume is fairly accurate), lack the kind of solid content that would impress an outsider who tracks church tensions over the United States as I do. Granted, it would be hard to make a case for proving "a culture of intimidation" but the facts would have to be made central, not opinions and emotions.

Do churches and leaders actually build ministries where a "culture of intimidation" is a very real problem? You bet. I have seen this again and again. But the truth of the matter is something I think both sides will tend to miss in 99 out of a 100 times. Why do churches have such battles and schism? Answer: God is graciously sending judgment to wake up both sides to the sins that plague their church. Such sins are almost always ignored when a church is highly successful. The outward marks all seem sound but then a debate arises and people talk, and they talk and they talk. Accusations are made and a defense is formally offered. Debates rage some more and then meetings are held to try to solve the problem. Outsiders come to moderate the meeting but little is done to get on our knees before God an done another. These meetings almost never address the "real" issues since "our struggle is not with flesh and blood" (Ephesians 6:12). Could it be that Christ allows the enemy to actually stir up a specific church in order to get that church to see ingrained patterns of sin in people and leaders so they will repent and "open the door" to him (cf. Rev. 3:20, an oft misused text that I would suggest might be applied to CRPC and thousands of other conflicted local churches all over America). Could it be that people and leaders at Coral Ridge would hear the gentle "knock" of the Savior at the door of CRPC and someone might take a truly radical step and get up to intentionally open the door of this church to the Lord Jesus Christ? If Jesus came to CRPC there would be powerful healing. There would be incredible blessing. There would be real miracles that would astound both Christians and the Sun-Sentinel. But this can only begin when God's people humble themselves and pray.

Dr. Kennedy often made reference to 2 Chronicles 7:14 over the years of his ministry. I heard him speak of this text myself. My problem is underscores by how this text was, and still is, widely used. It does not refer to America or our "Christian" culture. It refers to Israel in the historical context and the church in the large biblical Christian context. The church needs to seek God. The church needs to be awakened. Could it be that what Dr. Kennedy believed, in his heart of hearts, was right and the church now needs to go back to this text and hear it again? Could it be that the pastor and elders need to go back to this text and really hear it? My guess is every side in this debate thinks that they've already done this in their hearts. If they think this and now do little or nothing about it then this only proves my point. I am watching and praying. I would love to hear of "mercy showers" falling in Fort Lauderdale.

A Further Reflection On the Coral Ridge Schism

My comments on the tragic controversy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (CRPC) , posted over the last two days, generated a good deal of response. Some of it can be read as posts on this site. Some of it was sent to me in private. Almost all of it was written in a spirit that entreated me as a brother and a friend, not as an enemy.

Several people informed me of concerns that I could not have known unless they wrote to me since I am far removed from the actual struggles within this large congregation. In the spirit of pursuing peace, and with the goal of preserving the unity of Christ in this church, I feel compelled to respond to the input that I have received over the past two days.

It is important to remind ourselves here of the wisdom of Proverbs 18:17: “In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.” In any contest over the truth where a dispute is involved this principle is very important. Both sides in the CRPC debate should heed this wisdom.

The purpose of my blog series is not to simply report facts without commentary. Charitable public commentary is not gossip. Newspapers are supposed to provide news stories, which they sometimes fail to do. Blogs are notoriously poor when it comes to reporting facts (news) since almost no blogger can be a real reporter of the news. In this case I followed news reports in forming my response and commentary, plus my own experience and instincts. I do obviously realize that reporters can distort the facts. I relied on the story that I had from news sources in Florida. Others have come forward to add to this story giving me a much fuller view, though still one that is limited since I write from afar. To suggest that I got every fact right was never my claim if my words are read carefully. My purpose was to use what facts I had, from various sources, and then to offer my commentary, not my judgment of people or their motives. Even my comments about Dr. Kennedy’s strengths and weaknesses were not an attack on his character, as one person suggested. I was, if you read my words carefully, attempting to explain how human personality does play a role in how churches process change in their leadership. The failure to understand this often causes great harm when major transitions in leadership take place. Dr. Kennedy was a very unique individual and a gifted man. But he was a man. We do not honor him by acting as if this is not true. Christians ought to know better but their love for "great men" often prohibits them from seeing this as they should.

My comment about politics playing a role in this conflict has also been challenged. I will not defend myself here but I must remind both friend and foe alike that Dr. Kennedy realized that he was deeply involved in politics. He never spent a lot of time defending himself on this point, at least from anything I have seen. Let me explain.

Like Dr. Kennedy I openly oppose abortion and homosexual practice. But we chose different ways to express our opposition. Here is the big difference—I taught my congregation how to think biblically about moral and ethical issues but I never engaged in direct political action as a part of my pastoral leadership. Our church financially supported crisis pregnancy work and I counseled members with homosexual struggles to help them live chaste and celibate lives. But Dr. Kennedy did much, much more than these normal pastoral functions. He publicly named political opponents and routinely engaged national political debates in a way that went far beyond simply teaching people how to think and live biblically. He believed he was called to speak to culture in a way that meant his ministry must engage many political issues in a directly partisan manner. Anyone who watched his television broadcast could see and hear these themes regularly. Further, Coral Ridge helped to create a number of ministries that sought to engage political issues very directly. One such venture was their establishing a ministry in Washington, D.C., for the purpose of changing the government through political action and lobbying.

But I am convinced (again from afar) that the situation at CRPC is much larger than all I have said above. Pastor Tchividjian brought a large number of people with him into this new ministry at CRPC, including all his pastoral staff so far as I have come to understand. He also removed a number of the CRPC staff, some who had been there a long, long time. It appears that this whole process was called a “merger” when actions were taken that do not sound like a merger as we normally use that term about two churches joining forces. What some critics eventually came to believe, many of whom assure me that they voted to call Tchividjian, is that events subsequent to the call did not follow the process they were led to expect. One person says this created “a culture of intimidation.” I do not know if this is true but it seems that a considerable number of people believe that it is true, thus they responded negatively to the direction taken by the new leadership after the pastoral call was accepted.

I phoned a good friend, who knows the charges that have been made against the pastor and the session quite well. He has enough firsthand experience to be quite helpful to my inquiry. He suggested to me that he also had real concerns about whether or not the leadership could/would listen to their critics. I hope he is wrong but this charge is clearly out there regardless of which side you are on. If the pastor and elders want to pursue the peace of the church (and loves demands that I believe they do), then I suggest that they will have to deal with this perception/charge even if it is not fair in their view. By humbling themselves in this way they could win many of those who presently think they have acted unwisely.

I have been assured that most of the 400+ people who voted against the pastor will not leave the church because the vote did not go their way. I personally hope they will not leave. I hope they will stay and graciously and carefully seek for biblical redress by pursuing peace and love, not more congregational meetings that inflame passions and make news in Florida and beyond. This may sound like a cop-out on my part but I assure you it is nothing of the kind. To lay down the weapons of church politics, and to spend real time listening to one another (perhaps in small groups), will not be easy now that a public meeting has transpired. In fact, only a gracious work of the Holy Spirit will allow this to happen in any meaningful way. I am praying that courageous and faithful men and women will not ask “How can our side win in this struggle?” I am praying that a growing number of members at CRPC will rather ask, “How can we seek the peace and the prosperity of Christ’s kingdom in the life of this congregation?” I pray the pastor will listen very wisely and if peace cannot be found by such deeply spiritual means he might consider a reasonable way to end this division without resorting to the methods of men. Should he resign? I have no idea. He stands or falls to his own Master. But I do know that a pastor's ministry is never greater than that of a whole church. If my leadership is a hindrance to the church’s well-being I am truly expendable.

Let me give you a story from my past that has some bearing on CRPC, at least as I see it. My parents were members of the famous Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee. They were there when my dad was in dental school and then later returned to the church when dad moved back to Memphis to teach at the dental school.

They were friends of the great preacher Robert G. Lee, the minister who built Bellevue into a great downtown church. When Dr. Lee retired he was followed as the pastor by a man who was a widely respected figure in his own right, Dr. Ramsey Pollard. Not long after Dr. Pollard became the pastor a division ensued. Some of Dr. Lee’s closet friends, and even some in his own family, became involved in this division. Before it was over a large group of people left Bellevue and began a new church. Dr. Lee never left Bellevue but it was widely known that his family gave some support to the opponents of Dr. Pollard. This always troubled my parents. Though I always thought Dr. Lee was a truly great man (he prayed for me as a young minister faithfully) I must say I was always disappointed in this response after he had retired. I learned, through this story and others I have witnessed firsthand, some vital lessons. One of them is that the former pastor’s family should stay out of the struggles in a church after their husband/father/brother has left.

Another lesson I have gained from a lifetime of experience also applies to CRPC. No church that has had only one pastor, who founded that church and gave his life to build a large church, ever escapes the problems that ensue when that minister dies or leaves. Most pastors do not seem to know how to transition away from such a ministry and thus they very often stay too long. When such pastors finally die the church is not prepared to deal with the leadership vacuum that ensues. I am not judging Dr. Kennedy in this matter but I sincerely believe he would have done the church a great service if he had retired many years ago and pursued a national ministry of teaching and writing without influencing the selection process of the next pastor. There was a time period between his death and the call of the new pastor but there was hardly any buffer that could have prepared this church for the trials it would necessarily face once Dr. Kennedy was gone.

Again, I am not attacking Dr. Kennedy when I say this but face it, most pastors have a hard time walking away from a church ministry when they have spent their whole life in one place. It is natural. But I would urge them to walk away regardless. Those churches where the pastor has done so will generally do much, much better in the transition. This is a simple observation based upon what I have observed time and time again. Dr. Kennedy had a multitude of gifts and could have done just about anything he desired so long as his health was good. I have no idea why he chose to stay until he was 76 years old (thus 48 years at CRPC) but it should surprise no one that his staying had a profound impact upon what followed.

In case someone still thinks I am attacking Dr. Kennedy’s good work please understand that I also think he did as much as any pastor in America between the late 1960s and the early 1990s to win people to faith in Christ through direct evangelism. He should be honored as one of the truly great evangelists of our time. I am not worthy of what I expect will be his reward at the throne of Christ. He was a marvelous servant of Christ. But this fact should still not stop us from asking the hard questions since the best of men are still men at best!

Pastor Tchividjian wrote a public letter that appeared in the Sun-Sentinel newspaper two days before the church meeting on September 20. Here is a part of what he had to say:

In recent months our country has been treated to some of the most heated debates we've seen in years. A presidential election promising change, healthcare reform and government bailouts has led to some pretty contentious, even out of control, public meetings. Common civility seems to have all but disappeared and while some seem to enjoy the fight, others are understandably sick and tired of it.

In March I was honored to be elected pastor of one of the great churches in South Florida--and indeed in America. Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church had been led by Dr. D. James Kennedy for nearly 48 years until he died in September 2007 at the age of 76. Even though I grew up in South Florida and attended Coral Ridge for a time with my family (I was just under two years old when my grandfather, Billy Graham, preached the dedication sermon for the sanctuary in 1974), I knew the challenges would be great. First and foremost was the fact that I would be only the second senior pastor in the 50 year history of Coral Ridge. And, if that wasn't going to be difficult enough, because of my unwavering commitment to remain as Pastor of New City Church (the church I started here in South Florida 5 1/2 years ago), both churches agreed to consider a merger. So, not only would I be following an evangelical icon, I would also be in the position of "fathering" a blended family. But, God made it unmistakably clear that a merger between the two churches was exactly what he wanted and on March 15, 2009, a stunning 91% of the members at Coral Ridge voted both to call me and merge our young but growing church with their historic church.

Change can be difficult in any context--a new president, a new spouse, a new coach, or a new pastor--and we have experienced some of that difficulty at Coral Ridge. On March 18th, three days after the vote, I wrote both churches and said that in order to make this transition smooth, the Gospel needs to be embraced and applied by all from both churches. All of us need to be willing to lay our lives down for one another because Christ laid his life down for us (1 John 3:16). That's what the Gospel-centered life is. And that's the life that God has called us to live. No one from either church is going to get everything they want (that's self-protection). But everyone from both churches will have everything we need to do God's work in God's way (that's self-sacrifice). We're all going to have to give. We're all going to have to stretch and be taken out of our comfort zone.

The vast majority of the congregation heeded this charge. But there is a small number who have not--and as a result, conflict has ensued.

You may have read, in this paper or elsewhere, six members of our church recently circulated unsolicited letters and a petition voicing their opposition to my leadership and requesting a congregational meeting to vote on whether to keep me as their pastor. Citing things like my desire not to wear a robe when I preach, not honoring the legacy and preferences of Dr. Kennedy to the degree that I should, making personnel changes (bringing in my staff from New City), and not preaching political sermons, these six members have been working to remove me as pastor.

The saddest thing about all of this is that, because of the visibility of both Coral Ridge and my family, this conflict has taken on a national interest. The reason this grieves me so deeply is because the Bible says God wants the church to be a visual model of the gospel. He wants us, in other words, to live our lives together in such a way that we demonstrate the good news of reconciliation before the watching world.

The late Francis Schaeffer once noted that bitter divisions among Christians give the world the justification they're looking for to disbelieve the gospel. But when reconciliation, peacemaking, and unity are on display inside the church, that becomes a powerful witness to this fractured world. "Just as I have loved you," Jesus commanded, "you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).

To get this matter behind us once and for all, the elders and I have called this congregational meeting and a vote will take place on Sunday. You will no doubt read about the result, but whatever it is, I want to say three things to the South Florida community that I love so much and have called home for 37 years.

First, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church is not my church, and it wasn't Dr. Kennedy's church. It's God's church and I want to honor Him and carry on the legacy of Jesus above anything or anyone else.

Second, I remain committed to serving our one new church and the community where we're located. We are surrounded by so much need for God's love and the hope that comes from knowing Him and I want this to be the focus of my life and ministry. I want Coral Ridge to be a church in Ft. Lauderdale, for Ft. Lauderdale. We want God to use us to make Ft. Lauderdale a better place to live for everyone, not just us.

Finally, whenever you see any of us who claim to be "Christ followers" behaving in a manner that is unlike Jesus, please forgive us. And please let that be a reflection on us, and not on Him. As imperfect people, we will continue to let you down and disappoint you, but Jesus will never let you down--he will never disappoint you. This conflict has "given the world the justification they're looking for to disbelieve the gospel", and I am sorry.


My counsel to the leaders at CRPC (once again from afar) is rather basic. Now that the vote has been taken, and the pastor was retained, why not begin a series of “listening sessions” where people can be heard? Why not schedule some regular prayer meetings at a number of times and locations? Call on the people, all of them, to seek God together. Do not let the actions of Sunday end this process as if a vote settled the issues.  Remember the counsel of Proverbs 18:19: “A brother wronged is more unyielding than a fortified city; disputes are like the barred gates of a citadel.” Nothing shuts people off from one another quite like a church dispute. And nothing impacts children and young Christians quite like a church split. Pastor Tchividjian alludes to these points in his public letter above.

Leaders of CRPC: Why not ask a small group of disinterested outside mediators to help the session truly evaluate what the real spiritual state of things is within this flock now that this public meeting is over? The political battle is finished, at least for now, but the real battle is for the soul of this church. Who will have the grace and courage to step out of your comfort zone to stand between the discouraged and the hurt people, who are turned in upon one another, and call this flock to repentance and fresh love for Christ? The reputation of people is not the issue here. What matters is not what Dr. Kennedy would do or what Pastor Tchividjian would/will do. What matters is what would Christ do?

Lessons From the Coral Ridge Controversy

Yesterday, I reported the news released on Sunday evening from the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, regarding a congregational meeting to vote on retaining or removing the new pastor of the church, Tullian Tchividjian. Tchividjian only became senior pastor in March so his critics gave him no time to adjust or lead in his new role. It seems that they were ready to respond from day one.

This well known mega-church, founded and pastored by the late D. James Kennedy for 50 years, went several years without a pastor while a search process was formed and carried out with considerable care. The leaders knew, in calling a new pastor, that they would face serious problems and it seems they anticipated the likelihood of what happened on Sunday.

Shortly after becoming the new pastor Tchividjian stopped the television ministry of Dr. Kennedy. He also merged Coral Ridge with his former congregation, a more youthful flock called New City Church in Margate. These decisions were not made without advance warning and the leaders of Coral Ridge supported them in their call of Tchividjian as pastor. So why did the leaders of the anti-Tchividjian group oppose him so strongly? Their answers reveal the sad state of things at Coral Ridge, which serves as a kind of paradigm for the changes now going on all across the American church scene.

One leading dissident said that he felt he had lost his influence among the community that he loved. Jim Fisola, speaking for the opposition, said, “God bless the young people that he’s brought over, but you’ve got to understand they’ve been meeting in a cafeteria or the high school. They are now in a multi-million dollar edifice, and they didn’t have to work for it . . . This man doesn’t have the experience or the maturity to lead.”

I do not know Jim Fisola personally but I know a lot of Christians who make statements just like this in and out of church meetings. I do not know Tullian Tchividjian either but I have a very good friend who served on his pastoral staff. My reflections are limited to what I read, and the things I do know through friends and my past experience of Coral Ridge.

1. It seems very apparent to me that the opposition to Tullian Tchividjian was rooted in raw power and control. The all-American view that you only get to share in what you’ve worked for, and thus paid for, comes through very clearly in Jim Fisola’s comment. I have heard this argument my entire life. You are an outsider because we paid for this and we own it. But I thought the building belonged to God, not to us. God will not be mocked by this kind of thinking. I do not know Jim Fisola, as I said above, but if this represents his real thinking he ought to take a careful look at what he is saying here.

2. When I read that the daughter of Dr. Kennedy was outside the church handing out fliers protesting the pastor's ministry (several weeks ago) I was not sure whether to be angry or to weep. The latter is more appropriate in the end. If Dr. Kennedy does indeed have a legacy this response clearly tarnished it, at least for me.

3. Dr. Kennedy built the early ministry of Coral Ridge on passionate evangelism. This emphasis was lost over time. I know, Dr. Kennedy still had all kinds of evangelistic programming going on but the heart and soul of the ministry was clearly traded for politics. I saw this first-hand when I spoke at Coral Ridge in the 1990s. I did a seminar on revival for a conference and an elder came to me in private to tell me how the church had lost its way and why I had spoken more plainly than I realized at the time. He was one of the first EE workers and trainers and expressed to me that he was heart-sick that the church had shifted its emphasis once it got into television and politics.

4. Dr. Kennedy made quite an impression on a very dear friend of mine when my friend was but a young boy. Dr. Kennedy could be a caring and loving man. But he was also a very private introvert if you ever spent time around him, which I did on a several occasions. I spoke for a graduation ceremony at Knox Seminary some years ago. I had all kinds of flight delays and finally arrived after the service was half over, just in time to preach. I sought to engage Dr. Kennedy afterward but to no avail. I had the same experience on another occasion when Dr. Kennedy ate at the same table with me and five or six other folks. I later found out this response was very common. This is not a character flaw but it is a pastoral liability when you are a shepherd. Sadly, the pastor of a large church is often caught in this very predicament since his primary role is leading and representing the institution, not caring for people as people in a warm and personal way.

5. Dr. Kennedy’s political perspective was one that I never found attractive. He replaced a deep fear of communism, seen in his early career, with a right-wing political perspective seen during the last twenty-five years of his career. All in all this choice was not one that helped prepare his congregation for Christ-centered mission. This can now be seen clearly in the conflicts that it generated in his absence.

As I said at the beginning, the larger, deeper issue here is judgment upon the church. I see these conflicts in almost every church I know. They can be about politics, legacy or music style. They can be about the pastor, the building or the program. They can be about theology (in a narrow and partisan sense) or methodology. It makes little or no difference. The church is in conflict and the conflict poisons the life of the Spirit. This is true in mainline churches, conservative churches and evangelical non-denominational churches. I wonder if anyone considered this at Coral Ridge. I hope that the church leadership will now turn away from this very public congregational meeting. The elders will tend to think that they won a sad battle, and rightly so it seems to me, but their real work is ahead of them. If these elders are shepherds of the flock, and not just managers of a big church, they have a painful process ahead of them. How do they go about healing this church and seeking God’s grace upon their witness to the world? I am praying for Tully Tchividian and will keep praying for him in the months ahead. I pray that intercessory prayer and spiritual renewal will become a major part of the future of this once great church. If the leaders humble themselves their future could still be better than the past. Let us all hope so.