HOW THE PASTOR WILL LEAD THIS CHURCH TO ADDRESS
CONGREGATIONAL ISSUES IN A COVID WORLD
I want to address my concerns and what I imagine must be concerns to you regarding certain unresolved issues before this congregation. This document is being read by me, but it is the product of multiple discussions with Pastor Wolf. All that I will present has been read by Pastor Wolf and is presented with his full and complete agreement. When I say I in these statements, you may understand it as being we. I consulted with the deacons and I have their agreement to present this statement.
Several months have passed since the church has been able to meet as a congregation. From the reports guiding the new administration, it may be several more months before we are able to assemble as a congregation.
The constitution of this church does not address a continued time when the government may restrict the attendance by the membership of the church. Governmental interference and pandemics were not contemplated when the church approved the constitution. The nightmare of those potentialities never came to mind.
In addition to the restrictions of the government on our assembling together, the very practical issue of the process of the regaining of the comfortableness of the congregation in returning to the services must be of utmost consideration. Until that removal of covid fear is achieved, the congregation cannot be considered as being properly freely assembled.
Under the Florida laws of incorporation, we are a corporation with a president, a board of directors, and other such officers. Under the Scriptures, we are a church, with a pastor, deacons, treasurer, and trustees. Under the constitution of the church, we are both united into one.
We carefully constructed the wording of the constitution to ensure that the congregation always had the ultimate decision power and that it was specifically denied to any individual or group of individuals whether of the corporation or of the church. No board of deacons, no board of trustees, and no board of directors exists that can decide for the congregation. All power or authority of these offices is delegated by the congregation and is detailed as to its extent and to its limitations.
When teaching church polity, our system of governance is described as the congregational form of church government. A congregation meeting and the members of the church casting votes is the Biblical pattern for the New Testament Church. This is the historic practice of Baptist churches. Certain persuasive leaders have convinced some Baptist churches to accept another form of government. Some Baptist churches have moved to board-controlled government, the reformed/presbyterian system; others have accepted an authoritative pastor-controlled government, the episcopal/papal system. In the first, a few members rule the church; in the second, one man (usually the pastor) rules the church. Neither system is the Bible pattern for the New Testament Church. To the contrary, both the board-rule and the pastor- rule are rejected in the New Testament. This church has a constitution that places the authority in the vote of the assembled church in accordance to Scripture.
ARTICLE I: THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHURCH
SECTION 1. This church shall exist to accomplish the commission of her Head, the LORD Jesus Christ, which is to preach the Gospel to every creature, to baptize those who receive the Gospel, and to provide a place for assembling the people of GOD for instruction, for fellowship, for encouragement, and for edification.
The constitution defines the term congregational meeting in specific terms.
The term "the congregation" shall be defined as the attending active membership of this church who have been assembled in accordance with the provisions of and in compliance with the conditions of this constitution.
The term "congregational meeting" shall be defined as the attending membership of this church who have been assembled in accordance with the provisions of and in compliance with the conditions of this constitution on Sunday mornings and evenings and on Wednesday evenings for worship services or in specially summoned meetings of the membership or in the regular bimonthly congregational meetings on the first Wednesday following the first Sunday of the months of February, April, June, August, October, and December to consider the expenditure of church funds on items not included in the annual budget of the church, the granting of letters of transfer to sister churches, and as assembled on the first Sundays of November and of December for the purposes of the calling of active deacons and for the nominating and the electing of officers, and for adopting an annual budget of appropriations for the church, or as summoned together at such times and for such other purposes as are required to conduct and to fulfill the duties of this constitution.
“The attending membership who have assembled” does not recognize a board-controlled or a pastor-determined form of government and it also does not recognize a virtual meeting or some form of absentee participation. The stipulations required for a congregation assembling in meeting are specific.
On the other hand, the pastor is empowered to call special meetings and is given wide latitude to do so. The constitution states:
SECTION 5. THOSE MEETINGS WHICH ARE FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES
1. Special meetings of this church shall be called for such times and for such purposes as the pastor considers to be necessary.
2. Care is to be taken so that the membership is given notice of such meetings in advance.
The constitution continues:
THOSE MEETINGS WHICH ARE SPECIAL CONGREGATIONAL MEETINGS
a. A special congregational meeting may be called by the pastor, at his discretion and as he deems necessary, at any Sunday or Wednesday service to consider any item, or items, of concern to this church.
b. Unless the special congregational meeting is announced in two preceding services, one of which must be a Wednesday service, the quorum for a special congregational meeting shall be one half of the active membership sixteen years of age and older. If the meeting is so announced, the quorum shall be those members who are present.
As your pastor, I do have the constitutional right to announce a meeting and to proceed to present an item or items for a vote to accept or to reject that item or those items by those assembled in that duly called meeting; however, in granting that right, the constitution did not envision a time when the majority of the membership could not attend the services due to circumstances beyond the control of the individual members or that a pastor would take advantage of such granted right during a pandemic to connive his will upon the congregation. The assumption of the constitution was a free people with the right of assembly unfettered except by personal choice. After all, this was America with the Bill of Rights in operation.
While I may have the constitutional authority, as your pastor, I do not believe that it is prudent to call such a meeting under the present conditions unless it is necessary for the continued existence of the church.
Let me be specific. There are two items that if I could, I should like to have the congregation settle.
The first is the request by the county to purchase an approximate thirty-one-foot strip of property on the west fence-line of the church to expand the holding pond (roughly 14, 000 square feet). The county has said they would like a decision. The county has also stated that the work could be done without purchasing our property, but that it would be more expensive for the county to do so. Personally, I have mixed feelings regarding this proposal.
First, I personally asked our county commissioners to repair this ditch multiple times over the years and the county has ignored the ditch until now. Somewhere in South Gulf Manor, heavy rains produce relatively minor flooding. That is not a recent development and I feel no personal responsibility. The terrain situation ought to have been addressed by the contractor or the county at the time of construction.
Second, I believe that should we find in the future the need to construct that new auditorium, the church will need that land for parking. Additionally, the loss of the ground would impact the use of the front field for ball games that were part of the times of fellowship in the past. The proposed gazebo for picnics would not be able to be constructed. Therefore, I am not certain that it is wise or in the best interest of the church to sell that fourteen thousand square feet strip of land to the county.
Third, the county does not require the purchase of our property to accomplish the work and have stated they do not need the property. They can move forward without making the purchase. Therefore, I do not think that it is essential that we sacrifice our property to the county to save the county officials additional cost to their budgeted funds.
Fourth, I feel this is a decision that definitely has a major impact on the future of the church and should not be made by the pastor or the deacons or the trustees or a handful of members even in a duly called special meeting.
The second is the cell tower potential. The congregation was prepared to vote on the question when we were forced to close the services. I believe that the company would like a decision.
First, my general feeling is that likely this would be a good thing for the church, but I do not know with certainty that it is. I do know that it is not my responsibility to make the full decision, because this will have a major impact on the future of the church that could be a great blessing, but that might have a negative effect that I have not discerned.
Second, I feel that the small plot [2500 square feet] taken by the cell tower would not have a negative effect on the use of the property. However, if the church decided to sell that strip of ground to the county, the additional loss of the plot for the tower would have an impact that would be negative. I do not believe that the church can give up the large portion to the county (roughly 31 foot wide and 450 foot depth [almost 14,000 square feet]) and then also give up the additional 50 foot by 50 foot plot [2500 square feet].
Third, I also am convinced that this is not a decision that should be made by a pastor, the deacons, or the trustees, or a handful of members even in a duly called meeting.
I believe that these two decisions will affect the church, but I do not believe that either issue by itself affects the existence of the church. I believe that whichever way the congregation decided on either issue that the church would continue.
The conclusion of the matter is this. I am a pastor that refuses to be a dictator. I will not make these decisions unilaterally. I also will not permit the decisions to be made by the deacons or the trustees. These are decisions for the congregation. I will resist presenting these decisions to the church under the present conditions of operation for the same reasons that we cannot open the budget for new fundings.
This past year, when we adopted bylaws regarding officers and the budget, I believed that issue did involve the very existence of the church. The meeting was announced in more services than required; text messages and phone calls were made, and the bylaws were posted online for longer than the required meeting announcement stipulation. In the meeting, for which a good number, a reasonable quorum, was in attendance, we allowed those not present, but who were on the phone or online to voice their support or opposition. They did not cast a vote, but had opposition been expressed, we would have not proceeded forward until the issues were resolved or at least addressed.
Surely everyone is able to see that the enactment of bylaws that extend the previously voted will of the church is a vastly different procedure than presenting a motion that results in selling part of the property or in leasing ground for constructing a cell tower on the property or in dramatically altering the previously voted will of the congregation.
As a congregation, we are under sufficient stress from Covid and government. We do not need anything to divide us. It would be better for both of these situations to be viewed as lost opportunities than for the decisions to be made by a few members.
The county does not need the ground; it is a convenience to the county officials working on the project to keep the cost down. The money offered for the ground would not offset the loss of the ground for present or for future use.
The church does not need the cell tower; it would be a convenience in the matter of income. The money offered is not required for the present or the future use of the church.
I understand that I have not solved the problems. I hope that I have resolved the concerns.
The church is more important than the county or the cell tower company.
The church is my priority, not pleasing the county officials or securing the cell tower.
All present and future issues will be brought to the church or tabled until the future congregational meetings are possible based on the single question of “Is this essential to the existence of the church?”
If it is essential, the pastors and the deacons will determine some way to bring it to the church.
If it is not essential, it can wait or it can go away.
At this time, Pastor Wolf and I do not consider that either the request by the county or the request by the cell tower company constitutes an issue that is essential to the existence of this church. Neither he nor I will present either issue to the church for a vote until the membership of the church is able to meet as a congregation.