Please Pray for Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church

This doesn’t look good at all. We need to be on our knees before our God, praying that truth and love would kiss each other at the church as they have at the cross of Christ. We also need to pray for other churches that might be experiencing unity problems. All who are involved need prayer. I am praying for the church, praying for Tullian, praying for the two factions that seem to have developed.

About these ads

61 Comments

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides said,

    September 3, 2009 at 10:19 am

    I’m curious as to what the charges and counter-charges are, as well as examining the evidence proffered in support of these charges and counter-charges.

  2. greenbaggins said,

    September 3, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    I don’t know, and I don’t think I want to know. All I know is that I see a very hurting church that needs healing from God.

  3. David said,

    September 3, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    There was something on Justin Taylor’s blog about a month ago concerning the six dissidents, you might start looking there for more info TUAD.

    This is and will be ugly…

  4. Tito said,

    September 3, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    I do not know what’s wrong with this? It is in the nature of churches to split over things like this and create new churches. That’s how we have ended up with the countless Protestant churches we have today. Unity is not a great principle, Jesus said that he has not come to bring peace, but a sword. If you want unity and peace become a Roman Catholic, but if you want Jesus then you will have to accept perpetual divisions in the churches. That is how true Christians are reformed.

  5. David Gray said,

    September 3, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    From what is being reported Tullian seems to be behaving in the manner of Jefferts-Schori when finding dissent.

  6. September 3, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    Banning communicant members from the church property without BCO due process seems extreme and improper. Unless those members’ behavior is publicly and morally scandalous, of which there’s no indication, I see no reason or PCA polity basis for such an action. In my reading of the BCO, there’s no basis for banning communicant members from the church without formal judicial proceedings. That’s the physical equivalent of excommunication without due process.

    From the outside, this looks like a classic dictatorial CEO model where dissidents are purged. In my understanding of our polity, the “dissidents” in this case have every right to petition for a congregational meeting. I think that a more appropriate response would be to take no action until the congregational meeting, then see where the chips fall. If the dissidents’ case has no Scriptural, polity, or other moral/legal basis, then it will fail and all can move on. In my view, to use a heavy hand by banning communicant members, effectively excommunicating them, without due process only serves to widen divides and harden positions – a classic error of the inexperienced.

    As it stands, the dissidents appear to have a strong case for appeal to the Presbytery for relief regardless of the merit of their underlying issues. As a former member of CRPC, I’m especially saddened by these events.

  7. ray said,

    September 4, 2009 at 7:07 am

    I thought Dr. W. Gage was pastoring at Coral Ridge … what happened to him?

  8. Stephen said,

    September 4, 2009 at 9:21 am

    Ray, Coral Ridge has been without a pastor since Dr. Kennedy’s death, so they just called one a few months ago. Warren Gage preaches in the evening service and was never pastoring Coral Ridge.

  9. Scott said,

    September 4, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    We do need to pray.

    I don’t have a basis to comment on the substance but am noticing the procedure.

    In accordance with the PCA BCO (below), it appears from the outside that 100 members have called the meeting, which must occur in 30 days or a complaint may be filed. It looks like 1/6 of the congregation must be present for a quorum and the Pastor would ordinarily moderate. If not session appoints someone who is a minister or any male member of the congregation.

    One can only be thankful for both the wisdom of our forefathers in the faith who anticipate dissent, differences and sin and have provided very specific process to peaceably address it.
    CHAPTER 25
    Congregational Meetings
    25-1. The congregation consists of all the communing members of a
    particular church, and they only are entitled to vote.
    25-2. Whenever it may seem for the best interests of the church that a
    congregational meeting should be held, the Session shall call such meeting
    and give public notice of at least one week. No business shall be transacted
    at such meeting except what is stated in the notice. The Session shall always
    call a congregational meeting when requested in writing to do so:
    a. by one-fourth (1/4) of the communing members of a church of
    not more than one hundred (100) such members,
    b. by one-fifth (1/5) of the communing members of a church of
    more than one hundred (100) and not more than three hundred
    (300) such members,
    c. by one-sixth (1/6) of the communing members of a church of
    more than three hundred (300) and not more than five hundred
    (500) such members,
    d. by one-seventh (1/7) of the communing members of a church of
    more than five hundred (500) members but not more than seven
    hundred (700) such members,
    e. by one hundred (100) of the communing members of a church of
    more than seven hundred (700) such members.
    Upon such a proper request, if the Session cannot act, fails to act or
    refuses to act, to call such a congregational meeting within thirty (30) days
    from the receipt of such a request, then any member or members in good
    standing may file a complaint in accordance with the provisions of BCO 43.
    25-3. The quorum of the congregational meeting shall consist of onefourth
    (1/4) of the resident communing members, if the church has not more
    than one hundred (100) such members, and of one-sixth (1/6) of the resident
    communing members if a church has more than one hundred (100) such
    members.
    88
    25-4 THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
    25-4. The pastor shall be the moderator of congregational meetings by
    virtue of his office. If it should be impracticable or inexpedient for him to
    preside, or if there is no pastor, the Session shall appoint one of their number
    to call the meeting to order and to preside until the congregation shall elect
    their presiding officer, who may be a minister of the Presbyterian Church in
    America, or any male member of that particular church.

  10. Tim Vaughan said,

    September 4, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Don’t know nothin’ but if due process was withheld, then those who ignored the BCO need to be beaten on their butts until they understand some basic Christianity.

    Hey. You just do it. You don’t need to take the BCO chapter by chapter and argue it. You just need to do it.

  11. Wayne said,

    September 4, 2009 at 11:58 pm

    “But rather than stressing “battleground” issues championed by Kennedy, such as abortion and homosexuality, Tchividjian urges listeners to set an example of the way believers should live.” http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fort-lauderdale/sfl-coral-ridge-081009,0,1694944.story

    In other words Tchividjian preaches Law and Gospel each week, what a novel concept.

  12. September 5, 2009 at 6:30 am

    Wayne,

    In other words Tchividjian preaches Law and Gospel each week, what a novel concept.

    Not novel at CRPC. Dr. Kennedy preached the gospel of grace mightily. He also started Evangelism Explosion, an outreach program that’s used by churches around the world to introduce non-believers to the gospel. This debate is not about who preaches the gospel and who doesn’t. Both men have a heart for the gospel.

  13. Zrim said,

    September 5, 2009 at 9:59 am

    reformedmusings,

    Since the self-imposed legacy of Kennedy is culture war, it would seem to me that whatever efforts at orthodoxy were eclipsed and hampered by a pretty thorough-going social gospel. At least, that’s the sense I get whenever his turn comes up on Christian TV. Prosperity gospel comes in lots of colors.

    And isn’t EE based upon every-member ministry? And I can’t help but get the sense that the reason any of this is being talked about owes to celebrity.

  14. September 5, 2009 at 10:25 am

    Zrim,

    Ever met Dr. Kennedy? Ever sit and chat with him informally? Doesn’t sound like it.

    There’s a huge difference between the “social gospel” as commonly defined and living out the gospel of Jesus Christ in all areas of one’s life. Dr. Kennedy stood for the latter, not the former. He believed in change “one heart at a time”, that is, through regeneration by the Holy Spirit who uses the preaching of the gospel as a means of grace. He dedicated his life to the gospel of Christ, living humbly when he could have lived like an emperor as so many others do and have done. For Dr. Kennedy, it was never about himself, but always about glorifying our Savior and our Lord.

    From your invocation of the “prosperity gospel”, I can only assume that either you don’t know what the really means (unlikely) or that you have never known Dr. Kennedy or heard him preach in context. Perhaps you confused him with John Hagee, Ken Copeland, or any number of other TBN offerings.

    And BTW, there is a culture war. It started in Genesis 3, carried through the OT and all the way through the NT, culminating in the last book. Jesus preached it, summarizing it nicely in John 8:42-47 and 14:15. Paul expounded on it at some length. I find no where in the Scriptures that commands or even suggests that we should check our faith at the door on our way out of the church building.

    CRPC is in the PCA. Anything that happens there that disrupt the peace or purity of the church is of interest to the denomination at large, just like any other church. Because of their size, CRPC’s travails are being played out in the local press, then magnified on blogs, mostly from folks outside the PCA as far as I can tell. Lane merely and correctly observed that we should pray for a non-divisive resolution to the situation. I find that perfectly appropriate – no celebrity necessary.

  15. greenbaggins said,

    September 5, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Bob is right, which is why I mentioned other churches also. Coral Ridge cannot be the only PCA church (or other Reformed denominations) experiencing unity problems. I am praying for a non-divisive resolution to the issues.

  16. Zrim said,

    September 5, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    reformedmusings,

    I am not sure what personally not/knowing someone has to do with anything. Aren’t we supposed to go by what is written and said instead of plumbing the depths of souls? One seems Presbyterian, the other Pentecostal. (I recall questioning a local Reformed pastor for openly and unashamedly employing the Willow Creek model to capture a certain demographic, etc., etc. Another pastor suggested my not “knowing him,” like he did, rendered anything I had to say quite moot.) I know some people very well who still say and do things that are questionable. Now what?

    By “prosperity” I mean that culture war Christianity is the social version of individual health and wealth. You know, you can have a better culture if you invoke certain principles. Despite common Reformed assumptions, prosperity isn’t only about the uncouth quest for bling. It can also be the pursuit of more enduring, yet, just as fading, things like culture.

    I find no where in the Scriptures that commands or even suggests that we should check our faith at the door on our way out of the church building.

    Quite agreed, which is why I’m making the points I’m making.

  17. September 5, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Zrim,

    I guess we’re not communicating in any meaningful way. Your overall argument seem to say that we should keep our faith to ourselves and let culture go in a hand basket. That would negate your last sentence, and empty Gen 1:28 and Mt 28:18-20 of their meaning. If the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, can we do that if we close our church doors, sing Psalms, and ignore the lostness of the world?

    I’m simply saying that the man you seem to want to describe isn’t the man that I knew. I’ve read quite a number of Dr. Kennedy’s books and listened to many, many of his sermons, yet didn’t find anything that remotely resembles your descriptions above. I’ve personally engaged in theological discussions with him and always came away having learned something significant for my walk with Christ. Dr. Kennedy had pastoral heart for the gospel and Christ’s flock, combined with a sharp mind with which to see and communicate clear implications of the gospel for our lives in the context of society. That has nothing to do with “prosperity” in any form.

    BTW, by your definition of “prosperity”, should a Reformed individual stop changing the oil in their car because we can have a better working car if we invoke certain principles? Was God preaching a “prosperity” gospel in Dt 8 because He said that Israel would have a better society if they invoked certain principles? I know that you don’t believe what I put forth in this paragraph, but that’s how your last comment reads.

    I don’t think that anything I write will affect your opinion of Dr. Kennedy, whatever that opinion may be. Like all of the elect, he was an imperfect servant of his/our Lord – and he’d be the first to say so. In any case, we should be praying for the unity of CRPC regardless of how we think that they came to the present situation.

  18. Scott said,

    September 5, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Yes, Dr. Kennedy was solidly reformed and evangelical.

    If this church is hurting, we are all hurting and must seek and pray for reconciliation, peace and purity.

    If I were to summarize the PCA to an outsider by it’s solid, biblical reformed doctrine, I would mention three men:

    1) Dr. RC Sproul
    2) Dr. D. James Kennedy
    3) Dr. James Montgomery Boice

    Three gifted, godly men- greatly used by God.

    Whatever this is, it is a test of God- we must pray it works to the peace and purity of His church.

  19. Donna Weyd said,

    September 18, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    Tullian wrote an open letter that was published in the Sun-Sentinel today (When Churches Have Disputes, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-opedonlinecoralridgechurch091809,0,6104431.story . A congregational meeting has been called for this Sunday, September 20.

    I posted the first comment to the story.

    Thank you, brothers and sisters, for your prayers. Jesus is Lord!

  20. Reed Here said,

    September 18, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    Donna: might not it be better to hold your comment until the day of the meeting? Would that not be a more Christlike demeanor?

    Even if you are right in your accusations, does Christ not call us to humble trust in His promise to work in/through His church?

    Please sister, no more public accusations. Follow the procedures you’ve agreed to abide by in your membership vows.

  21. donner14 said,

    September 19, 2009 at 10:35 am

    Reed,

    Thanks for your opinion. A couple points:

    Tullian chose not to keep his comments private, but rather posted an open letter in a public newspaper that invites public comments.

    Christ does indeed call us to trust Him. As far as Scripture goes, I do not see where Christ calls us not to stand up for the truth. In fact, Scripture gives us numerous examples of His people taking stands for Him. The most notable, and applicable, of these is found in Galatians 2, where Paul PUBLICLY confronts Peter about not being straightforward about the Gospel (Gal. 2:13-15).

    Also, the congregational meeting is not being held for the purpose of sharing comments. It is being held to hold a vote on dissolving the church’s relationship with Pastor Tullian. The time for comments is before the vote.

    Donna

  22. Edmund King said,

    September 19, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    According to Revelation 9:18, there will 1/3 of world population will die.
    That’s mean that there are 2/3 or 4,4 billion people need to be reached with the love and gospel of JC. Therefor my beloved bro.sis. Stop the fighting, let’s complete the Great Commission before it’s to late!!!!!

  23. Reed Here said,

    September 19, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    Donna (et.al.): a friend privately admonished me that my comment to you at least implies things that I do not intend.

    It is not my intention to appear to be taking sides. With you, and others on all the sides of these issues I’m sure, I am saddened that we can identify sides. Nevertheless, these things happen.

    No, rather my intention was to encourage you and others to put your confidence in God’s promises to work through your faith. You’ve given your vow in your membership to trust God’s use of the particular church government procedures applicable to these things.

    My desire was to encourage you to not let any sense of frrustration tempt you to give any reliance to the “weapons of the flesh.” This is especially true when you’re concerned that others might themselves not be relying on the Spirit as much as they should.

    Church strife, as you know, rarely ever is seen, even in hindsight, as an opportunity for God’s glory to shine through our humble reliance on Him in Christ. My desire is to encourage you to nevertheless trust him in this opportunity, and not give into any temptations to rely on your own wisdom here.

    Forgive me for not being clearer in this regard.

  24. September 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’m very disappointed in TE Tullian making a prominent public statement before the congregational meeting. To me, that action looks like a one-sided, public attempt to sway the vote without proper debate. After reading it, I wonder whose glory that article really serves.

  25. David Gray said,

    September 19, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    >I’m very disappointed in TE Tullian making a prominent public statement before the congregational meeting. To me, that action looks like a one-sided, public attempt to sway the vote without proper debate. After reading it, I wonder whose glory that article really serves.

    Spot on.

  26. eclugar said,

    September 19, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    this has been public since the letters that were sent thru the mail service criticizing tullian came to our doors. he had a town-hall meeting at crpc to
    answer the charges and the letter signers did not show up.
    he was voted in at our church convincingly. that should have settled it but
    some did not accept that and have been attacking him instead of supporting
    him. remember these letters were harsh ,spiteful and petty.
    you should talk to your leaders, deacons, elders and especially
    the man in question first before resorting to this kind of action.

  27. September 19, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    eclugar,

    I’m not saying that what the others did was right, other than calling for a congregational meeting as is their right. Yet, that doesn’t make it right for TE Tullian to take the same approach.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do.

  28. eclugar said,

    September 19, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    reformedmusings,
    true but this has been public for awhile,from when the first letter came out.
    the sun-sentinel has carried the story right off . evidently it’s a “news worthy”
    story because of the churches high profile, tullian’s relation to billy graham and the founders daughter being one of the letter signers.
    it’s a truly sad situation but as one member said to me he feels this is God cleaning house here at crpc. maybe!
    either way this goes the fact God is in control is a great comfort for all of us.

  29. Paige Britton said,

    September 20, 2009 at 6:59 am

    Donna wrote,
    “Tullian chose not to keep his comments private, but rather posted an open letter in a public newspaper that invites public comments…The time for comments is before the vote.”

    Regardless of what other people have done, if you are a member of the PCA, you have vowed to submit to your Session and not cause divisiveness in the church. This translates, in the PCA, to following the procedures in the BCO for expressing your dissatisfaction in appropriate ways. No, the BCO is not the Bible, nor does it speak with biblical authority; but if you are a member, you have vowed before God to take seriously the procedures of your particular denomination. To ignore these procedures — essentially to ignore your vow — means that you have chosen worldly means to accomplish your ends.

  30. Tim Vaughan said,

    September 20, 2009 at 7:34 am

    The problem is, that since the PCA doesn’t much care (until, hopefully recently) about the BCO. Trinity Presbytery San Luis says right on it’s website that deacons have the personal choice of being ordained or unordained, and no one has lifted a finger in protest even though the BCO says deacons have to be ordained. As long as the PCA is ignoring some well known members who are mooning the denomination, you can’t expect anyone to take the BCO seriously. Sure, on one level you can, since there was an oath as you rightly pointed out, but for 99 percent of people, that reasoning is way too complicated and abstract.

  31. David Gray said,

    September 20, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    >To ignore these procedures — essentially to ignore your vow — means that you have chosen worldly means to accomplish your ends.

    Presumably you have a problem with the pastor as well?

  32. Paige Britton said,

    September 20, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    DG — who is the “you” in this sentence?

    “Presumably you have a problem with the pastor as well?”

    I hope you weren’t referring to me — I have no opinion about what’s going down at Coral Ridge. But it’s wrong for someone to assume that they’re excused from their membership vows just because there has been media coverage of a church conflict.

    Tim, that’s a pretty bleak picture you paint. But if 99% of members have trouble understanding that they have promised something about how they will participate in a church, via as serious a commitment as a vow before God, then it’s doubly worth spelling out for them.

  33. David Gray said,

    September 20, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    >I hope you weren’t referring to me

    I was. The statement you address to Donna could as easily be addressed to the senior pastor. Indeed without his letter she would have had nothing to reply to…

  34. Tim Vaughan said,

    September 20, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    I totally agree with you, Paige, but who’s going to do the spelling? In the Northern California Presbytery only three churches have a copy of the BCO. When one elder said he had a problem with Trinity’s Purpose Statement, an elder of a neighboring PCA church went down and told the congregation that he was being “worked with” to make him quit criticising it. I myself was called demon possessed from the pulpit for (among other things) complaining that the Session was ordaining baptists and arminians.

    Seems to me that putting the genie of tolerance back in the bottle is going to take some time, and it will have to come from vigorous action from on high. People just aren’t aware of the BCO, and it almost never occurs to them to apply to it.

  35. September 21, 2009 at 4:35 am

    In strict accordance with the BCO, the congregation voted to keep TE Tullian as pastor by about 2/3 to 1/3 as reported here. Roy Taylor, the clerk of the PCA, and John White, the PCA GA parliamentarian, presided over the meeting. They are both good men who would have run the meeting by the book. Let’s all pray that this vote settles things down, promotes the peace of the church, and that the work of the gospel may proceed.

  36. Paige Britton said,

    September 21, 2009 at 5:11 am

    DG — “The statement you address to Donna could as easily be addressed to the senior pastor. Indeed without his letter she would have had nothing to reply to…”

    Well, for goodness sake. Am I in dialogue with Tullian here? Really. As I began by saying above, DESPITE what others have done, Donna has the obligation to honor her membership vow.

  37. Paige Britton said,

    September 21, 2009 at 5:22 am

    Tim — “People just aren’t aware of the BCO, and it almost never occurs to them to apply to it.”

    Yikes, to all of your anecdotes. That is a shame. (And how disillusioning for you!) I wonder how such things play out by region. Our senior pastor is Mr. Polity himself, so our presbytery & session are VERY aware of the BCO, and you don’t get past the membership class in our church without knowing at least the baby steps for airing grievances appropriately.

    If the contents of the BCO are not known or applied even at the elder level, what makes those NCP churches particularly “PCA”? Seems like “PCA” has much to do with the mutual agreement of elders as to how the polity of the church is structured, and how interactions & altercations regarding polity are to be handled.

  38. Reed Here said,

    September 21, 2009 at 6:07 am

    Tim: I’m sure you . do not mean it this way, but your comments appear to be a form of gossip. None here have first hand knowledge of what is going on in your presbytery. There are means you can use (as ordained or layman) in BCO to address this problem both with your presbytery and at the GA level.

    Again, I sense you’re very frustrated, and possibly looking for help, advice. Airing the linens here is not an effective manner of seeking that. Please contact a pastor in your presbytery that you trust. At the very least, look at BCO rules of discipline section.

  39. donner14 said,

    September 21, 2009 at 6:26 am

    Paige,

    I’m disappointed that you seem to take delight at castigating me for not “following my membership vows.” If you had all the facts on this situation, and if you understood the vows fully, it is possible that you would view things differently.

    My conscience is clear, and even if it is not, it is Christ who examines me.

    Thank you for continually upholding us in prayer.

  40. Reed Here said,

    September 21, 2009 at 7:34 am

    Tim: so you’re making more public a matter you’ve chosen not to pursue?

    I appreciate your concern for the PCA. I disagree with your manner of expressing that concern. Please do not post comments which give bad reports about others in such a manner again.

  41. Reed Here said,

    September 21, 2009 at 7:35 am

    Paige: your point to Donna is understood.

    Donna: you disagee that her point applies to you.

    Please sisters, leave it there.

  42. Paige Britton said,

    September 21, 2009 at 9:15 am

    “Please sisters, leave it there.”

    Reed, I am glad to.

  43. Reed Here said,

    September 21, 2009 at 9:40 am

    Thanks Paige.

  44. donner14 said,

    September 21, 2009 at 10:11 am

    I’m glad to, also, provided that my point is understood.

  45. donner14 said,

    September 21, 2009 at 10:19 am

    I rescind my previous comment.

    It doesn’t matter if my point is understood.

    Love,
    Donna

  46. Reed Here said,

    September 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Thanks Donna.

  47. Truth Unites... and Divides said,

    September 21, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    940 voted “Yes” to keeping Tullian and 422 voted “No” to keeping Tullian. In American politics, that would be considered a landslide and a mandate.

    But in a local church it may be a different matter.

    God’s will be done!

  48. Stephen said,

    September 22, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Some people find the 940 votes for Pastor Tullian and the 422 against him a great victory for the congregation, but I don’t see this as a huge victory. This vote indicates a divided congregation that is at war and hurting. Frankly neither side is without fault and positions have been taken. It does not matter who is right or wrong the fact still stands there is dissension within the body and this should cause great concern for all of us as believers in Christ.

  49. Scott said,

    September 23, 2009 at 4:30 am

    As this sinks in, 100% of the search committee voted to call this esteemed Pastor, 91% of the congregation voted to confirm the call. Six months later, 69% are voting to retain.

    The congregation meeting about retention had 10 speakers for, 10 speakers against retention.

  50. Stephen said,

    September 23, 2009 at 10:27 am

    Scott, 100% of the search committee did not vote for the minister. Members of a PCA congregation can call for at any time a congregational meeting to disolve the pastoral relationship. Of course the pastor has the right to appeal it to the Presbytery if he feels it was unjust. The reason it was called is because people did not like the direction of the new pastor but this is their right weather we agree with it or not.

  51. TurretinFan said,

    September 23, 2009 at 10:28 am

    The speakers issue is possibly misleading. Normal Presbyterian practice dictates that no great surplussage of folks from one side be permitted to speak. You alternate between sides, and when one side runs out of speakers, you generally discontinue speeches.

    That said, I understand that (as well) the minister’s former congregation was merged with his present congregation. I’m not sure how much effect that would have on the overall vote, but one would expect those folks to be more supportive of him, not less supportive of him.

    Finally, I have no idea what the turn-out for the meeting was. Aggrieved people tend to show up at a higher rate than people who are indifferent or perfectly happy with the status quo.

    Ten people speaking against might be large in some congregations, but I am led to believe that it is a tiny amount in this one.

    So, while we should pray for the peace of that and all God’s churches, the situation may not be as dire as the numbers suggest.

    -TurretinFan

  52. eclugar said,

    September 23, 2009 at 10:45 am

    stephen,
    there was alittle over 1300 members who were on hand to vote.
    we have around 2500 members total.
    the letters of protest with the petitions were sent to all the members on
    two seperate mailings.
    they turned in around 400 signed petitions and ended up after all the debating with about the same number.
    some of us here feel if the remaining members could have made it to vote
    he easily could have gotten another 90% again.
    dissension is bad but if God is cleaning house as some here have believed and predicted would happen, down the road it will have been all for the best. maybe thats why it happened so quick. God has a lot of work to be
    done and the night is coming fast.

  53. Stephen said,

    September 23, 2009 at 11:10 am

    I do not doubt for one moment that the Lord needs to clean house, but dissension is on both sides. Perhaps the house cleaning should be widespread and not just limited to the “rebels,” but Christ is Lord of His church and He will do what is best.

  54. eclugar said,

    September 23, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    well, the Lord does the cleaning and He will do it right.
    but tullian”s so called “right hand man” to whom alot of the attacks were also directed has resigned from his position.
    and as of now not all of the new city people have transfered their memberships. that was one of the grumblings as well.
    some of the members, i know from speaking to one of the members of the church that has taken new city’s place at monarch high school, have stayed on there to worship. it could be the strife or the distance. (it’s alot farther
    away to go to crpc ) also understand they had a wonderful, vibrant, growing church that was on it’s way to bigger and greater things. just before the merger they had a 35 new members class who joined their fellowship.
    it is a sacrifice all over.
    one telling remark though came from one of the petioners that kind of gives
    a bit of their mind set when he said that “new city was meeting in a cafeteria
    or high school and now they got this multi-million dollar facility….” then he goes on to state how tullian is to young and not mature enough for this etc.
    this is in our local papers down here.
    you have it right stephen when you state that Christ is Lord of His church
    and will do what is best. that is a great comfort to us here!

  55. eclugar said,

    September 23, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    the actual quote ,so nothing is misunderstood, was ” God bless the young
    people that he’s brought over, but you’ve got to understand the’ve been
    meeting in a cafeteria or high school,” ” they are now in a (multimillion-)
    dollar edifice, and they didn’t have to work for it,” “this man doesn’t have
    the experience or the maturity to lead.”

  56. Scott said,

    September 23, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Stephen,

    Here’s a source (Christian Post) saying this was initially unanimous:

    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090316/tullian-tchividjian-elected-senior-minister-of-coral-ridge-church/index.html

    “After nearly two months, Coral Ridge elders and New City elders got together last week and voted “unanimously and enthusiastically to support and approve the merger,” leading to Tchividjian’s acceptance of the PNC’s invitation.

    The unanimous vote this past Sunday was held after Tchividjian preached at Coral Ridge and now moves the decision to the South Florida Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), Coral Ridge’s denomination, which will examine the candidate for his views in all areas of ministry. ”

    Your post says,
    “Members of a PCA congregation can call for at any time a congregational meeting to disolve the pastoral relationship. Of course the pastor has the right to appeal it to the Presbytery if he feels it was unjust. The reason it was called is because people did not like the direction of the new pastor but this is their right weather we agree with it or not.”

    My post made no comment about whether a congregation has the right to call a meeting to dissolve a pastor’s call nor about the substance of this situation, only a few statements of fact, at least reported facts, for those trying to better understand and pray more effectively for this situation.

  57. donner14 said,

    September 23, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    The vote by the Pulpit Nominating Committee was NOT unanimous. It was originally reported to the congregation that it was, but on the day the congregation voted to call Tullian, this erroneous statement was corrected publicly.

  58. Scott said,

    September 23, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    donner14 said,
    “The vote by the Pulpit Nominating Committee was NOT unanimous. It was originally reported to the congregation that it was, but on the day the congregation voted to call Tullian, this erroneous statement was corrected publicly.”

    Can you link to a source on this?

  59. Reed Here said,

    September 23, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Just checking guys, how does all this speculation, conjecture, etc., help us pray for our brothers and sisters at CRPC?

    Not expecting a particular answer – rather hoping we all might demonstrate some more reflection and less dabbling.

  60. greenbaggins said,

    September 24, 2009 at 3:33 am

    I do not think that the conversation is all that profitable any more. I am shutting down comments on this thread. We still need to pray for CRPC. Over 400 people voting against Tullian means that prayer is needed, and I don’t care what “side” anyone is on, we need to pray for purity and peace.

  61. October 4, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    [...] Prebyterian Church Update We had some conversation about praying for this situation over at Greenbaggins. For those keeping track of this painful situation, here are some recent reports. First, TE Tullian [...]


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 338 other followers

%d bloggers like this: