Dunker Journal

It’s been reported that in a meeting in Western Pennsylvania District this week, Church of the Brethren General Secretary David Steele averred that an author of the 1979 Biblical Inspiration and Authority Annual Conference statement is now involved with Covenant Brethren Church.  That statement is untrue. Not one of the writers of that paper is associated with CBC.

Here is the full list of the five member committee that put the paper together.

Wanda W. Button, Convener
Dale W. Brown
Joan Deeter
Rick Gardner
Harold S. Martin

At least two are deceased. At least one is in a retirement facility. And the other two are firmly attached to the Church of the Brethren. Perhaps the General Secretary might be clearer as to whom he refers.

LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY DENIES that Jesus rose again from the grave. Islam denied that Jesus died on the Cross.

On 3 February 2021, the following note was sent to David Steele, the Church of the Brethren General Secretary, regarding his “Making Room” letter sent via email and postal mail to every congregation. To date, and sadly there is no answer. It appears that there is little substance.
——

Bro. David,

I read with interest your piece that was sent out this morning on the eBrethren e-mail.

I am intrigued, yet I wonder what you are meaning by it? Does this mean anything concrete in relation to the COB and the CBC?

I would welcome a “thawing” of the interaction of the Church of the Brethren and the Covenant Brethren Church.

Anticipating your reply.

In the Church of the Brethren, there is the congregational church (which most of us are familiar with), the official church (District Conferences and Annual Conference, which a good many have connection with from time to time. This would be the outward facing church that we all know and interact with, when District officers are elected/slated, and statements are made from which then the church ostensibly operates. The is the Church as it appears–the “de jure” church.

Then there is the “deep church.” This is the shadowy part of the Church of the Brethren that really tries to “run” the Church. This “deep church” decides whether the Church of the Brethren will actually follow what Annual Conference and District Conferences have decided, and to what extent. This is the Church as it is in fact–the “de facto” church.

The “deep church” then “interprets” Conference statements to suit its perspective, even when Conference has acted to interpret its own statements. It also re-interprets or ignores Conference statements so as to make them paper tigers, with no real effect. So, while the Church officially rules homosexual practice and same sex unions as out of order, the “deep church” quietly seeks to undermine those official positions, and props up those who violate them. The “deep church” also puts out statements then demonizing those who raise questions, propose alternatives, and generally try to have the Church reflect its New Testament basis and doctrines. “Can’t we all get along peacefully?” is their plea.

It is the “deep church” that has put together the Compelling Vision. Yes, there was the work to secure Conference input, yet those involved sought to bypass that input, to conjure up a Vision which essentially follows the outline that was offered even before the input of Annual Conference. Remember the “elephant in the room” that was named by delegates, yet never permitted to be named officially?

It is the “deep church” that has allowed (?) itself to be captured by an interest group that promotes an unBiblical lifestyle–both in several agencies and the workings of Standing Committee. These are the people selecting staff and promoting progressive candidates (to the near exclusion of evangelical and conservative voices) for Conference ballots.

As an Indiana pastor put it in 1945,

“We have a Brain trust in our Church that would like to dictate the whole program, and get every thing into their hands, and place men as they see fit. They have tried it in our District but our District Board has objected. This Brain trust is made up of the Elgin staff and College men, who would like to dictate the whole program.”

From two years ago. Is the Thriving in Ministry initiative still going? This was never addressed properly.

The Church of the Brethren has long taken its conservative portion for granted. Our repeated affirmations of fealty made the denominational leadership believe that, no matter how far doctrinally and morally astray the denomination might go, it would always have the long term financial and participatory support of conservatives and evangelicals. However, the recent departure of scores of congregations and thousands of members was not without warning. For all the talk of “schism,” whether by intent or neglect, the *denomination* made the evangelical-conservative position untenable. When evangelical and conservative commitment is not reciprocated, then it becomes void.

When the Leadership Team was asked to affirm publicly the statements of Annual Conference, the Leadership Team demurred. That says so much. Yet if conservatives and evangelicals are asked to affirm their “loyalty” to the institutional Church of the Brethren, don’t be surprised that they do not, as the institution rejects doctrinal loyalty.  And yes, that doctrinal loyalty includes, “is not acceptable.”

TIM CHALLIES ANSWERS the question Why Is There Only One Way To Heaven?

CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN DISCIPLESHIP MINISTRIES IS HOSTING a webinar titled “Do We Want to Get Well? Healing What Divides Us,” on January 21. CBC likely will not be addressed, as the Leadership Team of the COB has taken no initiative with CBC other than to demonize it, or Districts that wish to take a “2 x 4” to those involved with CBC (actual reference to a Southern Ohio District Board member who used that with a minister not ordained by nor a member of CBC).

If you are curious about the attitude progressives hold toward evangelical Brethren ministers in some quarters, behold the violence that is joked (?) about by District Board members when a minister offered to resign his ordination (under ultimatum) for assisting in a conservative ecumenical endeavor. The comments begin from a “District Mission Ambassador”:

Phew! Sleep well my friends! I’m glad I got this message when I did. I was just about to pull into his driveway with a 2×4!
———
Thankful to see this, [redacted]. I really am glad you didn’t have to use your 2×4, [redacted]!! That could’ve created some more interesting issues for us all!!!!
Merry Christmas!
——–
Good news! Have we heard from [another minister to whom the ultimatum has yet to be given]?

They’re hilarious, aren’t they?  This is what passes for some Districts’ leadership these days in the Church of the Brethren.

“Forbearance” is a Dead-Letter in the COB Now.  From the 2008 Annual Conference paper on Forbearance, which apparently has become a dead letter in the some areas of the Church of the Brethren, or in actuality is only one directional–that is, only progressives should be shown forbearance.
———–
“Forbearance does not require one to accept what another believes, but it does require one to listen and try to understand what another believes without demeaning, personal attacks, or acting to disenfranchise the other person…. Respect for freedom is seen in our traditional Brethren belief in ‘no force in religion’ and so we avoid patterns of enforcement which violate the freedom of individuals and local groups.”

———-

Progressives in the Church of the Brethren–apparently such as several District leaders in Southern Ohio and Virlina, have been “acting to disenfranchise” persons who are in disagreement with their perspective. Some Districts are even acting to establish “patterns of enforcement which violate the freedom of individuals.”  It should be noted that the Forbearance paper does not limit itself merely to position papers of the Annual Conference, but indeed, ALL actions of Annual Conference, even those dealing with polity.

UPDATE:  The Southern Ohio District Board chairman wonders how that District is acting to disenfranchise persons.  Revoking ordinations of Church of the Brethren men who aren’t members of or ordained by the CBC would be one way, n’est-ce pas?  Isn’t that enforcing a non-existent polity, or at best, enforcing ex post facto a recently “divined” polity with no discussion and approval by Annual Conference?  These are men who have done nothing other than work ecumenically, with the tacit approval of the Southern Ohio District Executive, and are still active in their local Churches of the Brethren and intend on continuing that involvement.

From an alert reader in leadership in the Mid-Atlantic District.  This was in the Mid-Atlantic District Conference booklet in October 2020. Note the highlighted text, as it is a baseless accusation. “Bearing false witness” seems to have made the Top Ten in God’s Book, yet not in Mid-Atlantic District. It’s interesting that while Mr. Hagenberger, the District Executive, is free to throw the “s” word around, he doesn’t do so with those promoting homosexuality and officiating same-sex weddings.

He states, “Church of the Brethren polity on sexuality issues has not changed,” yet how is it that Annual Conference [2002] says that homosexual persons are not recognized as licensed and ordained ministers, yet one is listed in the official Church of the Brethren Yearbook and one was put forth to be recognized by the Annual Conference by Elgin staffers? Are we now being asked to believe that the Church of the Brethren has one standard in theory [to which CBC is being held] and another in practice on the issue of homosexuality [which employed leadership in the COB is following]?  Also, there is no indication that the Atlantic Northeast minister who performed a recent same sex wedding has received any official discipline from that District. It should be noted as well that For All Who Minister is not a part of the official polity of the Church of the Brethren, as it does not receive the approval of Annual Conference.
————-

Covenant Brethren Church: While there’s no hierarchy of sins and a sin is a sin is a sin, one of my seminary professors impressed upon me that schism is as great a sin as any. It certainly disappoints our Lord who prayed at the end of his earthly life that believers “may all be one” (Jn 17:21), and damages the witness of his Church. In the second century Tertullian noted how pagans were drawn to Christ by the quality of Christians love for one another and their willingness to die for each other. Schism tells a different story. CBC leaders are proselytizing, trying to take not only Church of the Brethren members, but congregations away from the Church of the Brethren. That is unethical and a sin. Church of the Brethren polity on sexuality issues has not changed, and our denominational leadership team, including Annual Conference Moderator Paul Mundey, is working to address any breaches of covenant. Ordained ministers have made a vow of “devotion to the church of Jesus Christ, and specifically to the Church of the Brethren, and have promised to live in harmony with its principles, ordinances, and doctrines, being at all times subject to its discipline and governance” For All Who Minister, pg. 299. I expect ordained ministers to uphold their vows, and if they should decide they can no longer be devoted to the Church of the Brethren, and live in harmony with its principles, ordinances, and doctrines, and be subject to its discipline and governance that they would resign their ordination, and have the good grace not to encourage a congregation or anyone to leave with them. That is what I will encourage as long as I am Mid-Atlantic district executive minister.

IT WOULD SEEM that the Church of the Brethren is in the midst of a paradigm shift, and rather than embracing change, it is resisting it. The signs are there…congregations departing by the scores, members leaving by the thousands, giving drastically down, denominational layoffs, Brethren Press begging for money or “it could be the end.” The Leadership Team and some District Executives issue threats, then deny they are threats.  Some Districts sue congregations, and resist efforts at actual conversation and peacemaking. And rather than seek the greater good of the Brethren movement, they circle the wagons to defend institutionalism, where Brethren really aren’t their best.

For Indiana congregations that are interested, here are the relevant Indiana court opinions of the Roann case from a few years back.

Wabash Circuit Court decision held held that the Congregation did not place its property into an irrevocable trust, express or implied, for the benefit of the Denomination.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that the trial court was correct.

The national office office of the Church of the Brethren has declared that it would be backed up by court decisions in all jurisdictions, yet that seems to be overstating its position in Indiana–where there is no trust language in local congregational documents such as deeds, constitutions, etc.

IT IS REMARKABLE that for all the talk that the Church of the Brethren has about peacemaking/peacebuilding, it has been revealed as being hollow in the current circumstances of division in the Church. Over the past several years, the leadership around Covenant Brethren Church has consistently taken the initiative to communicate with COB leadership, appealed for gracious interactions and consistent across-the-board policies of congregational release, and initiated the inter-group meetings. These attempts have been met with fearful resistance and calculated defensiveness.  Instead of an orderly, gracious, and brotherly (Christian) process of transition, the denomination and some Districts are encouraging a “scorched earth” policy in dealing with local congregations and their property.  While there is mention of “loyalty” to the Church of the Brethren, where is the reciprocal loyalty of the denomination and Districts to Brethren doctrines and Annual Conference statements?  Commitment should be two-way.

This was written nearly eight years ago, with relation to the Roann case.
————-

And who holds the bureaucracy to account for upholding our doctrine? Some staff seemingly have little loyalty to our doctrine, and see it as merely tradition that can be altered at will. With people going against 2011 [the Annual Conference affirmation of the 1983 paper on Human Sexuality], it is easy to be sympathetic with the departing folks at Roann. When I ask leadership what other things conservatives can do, they don’t have an answer. The frustration is incredible, and yet the leadership persists in poking our eyes [confirmed with the presentation of the Wildwood fellowship]. The AC Moderator says bring those concerns to AC, but there is no guarantee of a hearing, and little prospect of any action. And the leadership only has itself to blame. The situation at Roann has simmered for over a year.

I have seen very little that is reassuring from leadership. The LaVerne demands gradually are being acceded to. Yet when conservatives speak up, Elgin seemingly goes on immediate offense. When that is the response, Elgin has conceded it is essentially the loser. Leadership has been “out front” on behalf of liberals, but not at all in reflecting any conservative concerns. All we get are canned answers. Some congregations haven’t even received the courtesy of the canned reply. Midlevel staff have told me that Elgin just doesn’t care.

THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS HAS RULED in the Roann case, and completely affirmed the circuit court decision. I suspected at the time of appeal that the District/Brotherhood would lose also on appeal. While this could be appealed further to the Indiana Supreme Court, I doubt that the Church of the Brethren could prevail there either. The Roann decisions are based closely on the Olivet Presbyterian Church case which was decided just a few years ago.

The following letter was sent out this morning to various persons in Southern Ohio District and other interested parties.  The distortions in this letter are disappointing.  Meantime, the three largest congregations (Bradford, Castine, and Eaton) in the District have departed, without any assistance or encouragement from the Association of Brethren Churches. The Southern Ohio District has received a financial windfall from these departures, enabling it to maintain a District program that is not receiving needed  ongoing support from its congregations. 

Since May 2018, over a dozen congregations, with over 3,000 members, have left the Church of the Brethren all over the country, from Maine to Ohio. This is the largest mass exodus in nearly a century; again, quite apart from the ABC.

The distortions are indicated in italics.

———-

Southern Ohio/Kentucky District
P. O Box 785
Greenville, OH 45331
www.sodcob.org

Dear Congregations and Members of the Southern Ohio Kentucky District,

In a spirit of deep concern and care for our congregations, we are informing you that the District Board has become aware of a group of Church of the Brethren members calling themselves the Association of Brethren Churches (ABC) advocating withdrawal from our body.

This association was formed at a closed meeting in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania in July of 2019. Following that meeting the association declared three reasons for organizing. The first was a felt need to provide a “haven” for congregations leaving the denomination; the second was due to a perceived failure of the denomination to stand strong on Biblical Authority; and the third was a perceived failure of the compelling vision process to address differences regarding human sexuality.

Here in our district we appreciate our diversity and the ways we have practiced ministry together in the past.

The District Board recently reaffirmed the 1979 Annual Conference statement on “Biblical Inspiration and Authority”.

In our affirmation we cite page 15 of the 1979 paper which says: “In our diversity we are not yet fully agreed on all that it means for Brethren to respond faithfully to the message of the bible in our day. We are agreed however on the need for a continuing dialogue with and about scripture that we might experience biblical renewal in our midst.” The District Board encourages that kind of continuing and respectful dialogue as the best expression of our brethren heritage.

Most concerning about this situation is the involvement of leadership, including ordained ministers, in the formation of this association. We are aware of persons within our own district who are actively recruiting to this association.

If you or others in your congregation have been contacted by such persons, please contact either our Board Chair, Jennifer Keeney Scarr or our District Executive, Dave Shetler so that we might address any concerns you may have. Contact information for these persons is listed below. We invite to join us in prayer during this difficult and challenging time.

On behalf of the district board,

Jennifer Keeney Scarr
District Board Chair
Jennifer Keeney Scarr

Dave Shetler

THE DEFINITION OF PRIVILEGE is having so much free time and money—you can spend your day online complaining about the patriarchy.

MERCILESS SYMPATHY. This is what the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference at Grand Rapids in 2011 was subjected to.

From the manager of the new “Thriving in Ministry” initiative of the Mission and Ministry Board of the Church of the Brethren.

GUIDELINES FOR CONGREGATIONAL WITHDRAWAL
Southern Pennsylvania District Church of the Brethren
Adopted by the Southern Pennsylvania District Board
–
January 12, 2019

I. It is the responsibility of the congregation, its moderator and/or ministerial leadership, and its Leadership Team to notify the District Executive of its conflict or uncertainty about remaining in the Church of the Brethren. Plans for withdrawal should not be made in secret.

II. The District Executive, District Board Chair, District Ministry Commission Chair, and one other District Board member appointed by the District Executive shall serve as a Reconciliation Committee. Should the District Board Chair or District Ministry Commission Chair be part of the congregation wishing to withdraw or if either should be unable to serve for any reason the Vice Chair of the District Board and the Vice Chair of the District Ministry
Commission shall serve.

A. The Reconciliation Committee should meet with the congregational leadership within thirty (30) days of receiving official notice of the congregation’s concerns to listen to their leadership, to understand their grievances, and to attempt a resolution of the same.

B. The Reconciliation Committee will listen to the congregation’s grievances, offer suggestions for resolution, and explain the process and the consequences of withdrawing from the Southern Pennsylvania District Church of the Brethren. Specifically, the Reconciliation Committee shall explain that upon a vote to disassociate from the District and the Church of the Brethren, the District shall own the Congregation’s assets subject to the District Board’s election to relinquish ownership if the Congregation complies with Section D hereof.

If the issues remain unresolved with the congregational leadership, the Reconciliation Committee should meet with the full congregation after the Reconciliation Committee’s determination that a reconciliation is not possible. The Reconciliation Committee, in cooperation with the congregation’s leadership, should schedule a vote on withdrawal by the congregation.

At or near the close of this meeting the Reconciliation Committee shall indicate that individual members wishing to discuss the matter of withdrawal any further are welcome to contact the District Executive.

C. The Reconciliation Committee, in cooperation with the congregation’s leadership, shall conduct the vote of
the congregation concerning its withdrawal from the Church of the Brethren. The congregation shall provide a copy of its most recent active membership list to the Reconciliation Committee. The Reconciliation Committee sha
ll individually issue ballots only to those whose names are included on the most recent official membership list.

The Reconciliation Committee shall provide printed ballots as illustrated below.

1. No absentee ballots are permitted.
2. Votes will be counted by the Reconciliation Committee along with the local Moderator/Board Chair and two other individuals appointed by the local congregation.
3. A vote to withdraw will be successful if two-thirds of the total number of votes cast are in the affirmative.
4. A vote which does not attain the necessary two-thirds majority will result in the congregation remaining with the COB. The Reconciliation Committee will offer to continue working with the leadership/congregation to achieve reconciliation and a healthy working relationship.
5. Any individual members of the withdrawing congregation who wish to remain in fellowship with the Southern Pennsylvania Church of the Brethren will be encouraged to do so and will be offered support from the District. Details of such support will be determined by the District Board on a case by case basis.

BALLOT CONCERNING WITHDRAWAL
(CHURCH NAME)
(DATE)
INSTRUCTIONS

Circle YES to
withdraw from
the Church of the Brethren

Circle NO to
remain with
the Church of the Brethren

YES                                                                                 NO

________________________________________________
Signature and printed name of person casting ballot
Prepared by the Southern Pennsylvania District

D. Disposition of Property

According to both Denominational and District Polity, all congregational property is held in trust with the District and, accordingly, will be the property of the District immediately after the vote, if the Congregational vote is to disassociate from the District and the Church of the Brethren. In the event the District Board votes at its next regularly scheduled meeting to relinquish ownership of the disassociating Congregation’s former property, the Congregation must pay two (2) times the current District Financial Ministries Allocation to the District for use by the District at its discretion.

E. Ministerial Credentials

Upon a successful vote to withdraw, all credentials for all ministers are immediately terminated with the Church of the Brethren and the Southern Pennsylvania District. No person may continue to perform weddings under the authority of the Church of the Brethren or the Southern Pennsylvania District. Accountability and liability for other
ministerial functions such as marriage, personal, or family counseling, ministerial ethics, etc. shall no longer be under the authority of the Church of the Brethren or the Southern Pennsylvania District but shall be the sole responsibility of the individual and/or of whatever subsequent denomination with which
they may associate.

F. Additional Issues
The withdrawing congregation should consult appropriate legal counsel concerning all matters of reorganization. The withdrawing congregation shall remove all references to the Church of the Brethren and/or the Southern Pennsylvania District from all church signage, electronic media; and printed media.

Adopted by Southern PA District Board, meeting at the Wolgamuth
Congregation, January 12, 2019.
Terry G Smith, District Board Chair

IT REALLY IS TRUE:  All Roads Lead to Rome.

https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/11-classics-every-christian-should-read

From the Brethren Prayer and Worship Summit:

“WHATEVER his intention may be, the reality of [his] legacy is confusion and shock.”

[He] has not just exposed conflicts; he has stoked them, encouraging sweeping ambitions among his allies and apocalyptic fears among his critics. He has not just fostered debate; he has taken sides and hurled invective in a way that has pushed friendly critics into opposition, and undercut the quest for the common ground.

No, not President Trump. Pope Francis.

THE LEADERSHIP TEAM IS QUITE COOL to the idea of a new District in Michigan, even though the new Great Lakes District was approved by an 80% vote at the 2017 Michigan District Conference. 

Two thoughts:

1. If consistency means anything, the Michigan District can still erect a new Great Lakes District (which essentially it did at the District Conference) without regard to Annual Conference statements that tangentially mention a geographical nature of Districts, as  the Districts are autonomous and not bound by specific Annual Conference statements on the issue of ordaining whomever they want (according to the presentations given at the recent Southern Ohio District meeting at Happy Corner).  If anything, the new Great Lakes District could organize and conduct itself as a District, while its congregations continue to send delegates to Annual Conference AND to the Michigan District Conference, even without being recognized as a stand-alone District with Standing Committee representation.
   
2. There is precedent for lack of geographical district boundaries. Atlantic Northeast was once divided into Eastern Pennsylvania District and North Atlantic District. In this 1910 division, Norristown Congregation remained with Eastern Pennsylvania District even though, geographically, it was in the North Atlantic District.  Further, the Putney, Vermont Fellowship was within the boundaries of Atlantic Northeast District, while being a Southern Pennsylvania fellowship.

Student at Catholic College Attacked for Sharing Catholic Teaching.

SUBSTITUTION IS NOT a “Theory of the Atonement.” Indeed–it is the atonement, and the heart of the Gospel. I was surprised many years ago to find that men in conservative circles denied penal substitution.

Penal substitutionary atonement is the hope of sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.