Faith Autopsy

We love you ben and are honored to be friends with you. Please don't give up the gifts you have they are extrordinary.

Dearest Brother Ben,

That is not what being a leader means; I know you're being facetious, but those are the misconceptions of leaders by fallen people who yearn for perfection. Your experience was intense in this context and your congregation yearned to see you as something more than human... something more than a sinner saved by grace. If you maintained an image where they could see you as that for a period of time, then I congratulate you. Your congregation loved you so much and were so blessed by your leadership that they couldn't bear to see your gifts, and therefore you, not in that role.

It is my belief that they are grieving. Grieving your sin, grieving their misconceptions, grieving for a community that thrived while their leader was living in shame and in fear.

I've been in church lay leadership for some 10+ years; even when a pastor retires he is asked to leave the congregation. It is too hard for the congregation to adapt to that person in a new role as a congregant. It is too hard for the new leadership to take hold with a remnant of the old leadership still in place watching the changes. People tend to run to that pastor every time they have a concern or a complaint and it puts the former pastor in an awkward position. It's usually better all around for that pastor, despite his/her reasons for leaving, to worship with a different community. That doesn't mean for ever, but it does mean for a while.

You were amazingly blessed in your ministry and God does not say, "Ok, you've had your chance, back to an ordinary life." We have an extraordinary God, who does extraordinary things with very ordinary people --gay men with leadership gifts among them! God WILL lead you to new ways to bless others with your leadership and you will be blessed in using your gifts. This is a season with some very painful lessons, but it is a season, joy will come in the morning and morning is just around the corner.

With love and compassion,
melanie

New wine into a new wineskin, I say.

Thanks Melanie... I am actually not being facetious at all. I think what you say about leaders is true and that is why I am done with it. If leadership means essentially never being fully part of a community -- only a facilitator of it -- and that every few years you must completely leave that community and try and rebuild a new one (whatever the reason you leave... good, bad or ugly) --- then it is not for me.

I am not saying that it is wrong... but I can't do it.

Ben-

I wonder how to say this without coming across as judgmental- because you know that I am not speaking from a place of arrogance or criticism. But from my vantage point, and knowing some realities of the situation to a personal level, I have to ask if you were unable to be part of the community as a leader because you were not fully yourself.

You have said repeatedly that you were keeping all of this inside- and when something like this is going on in someone's life (I don't care WHO it is), they are unable to bring their full selves to the people around them no matter how hard they try. Even though we are all forgiven and covered under grace, I still believe that if we are in a period of sin that we are un-whole and unable to exist in the full intention of who we were created to be.

So while some of what you said is true, I ask you if part of the question is whether or not you were fully there in the first place? This may not change anything about the acceptance or response form the congregation or the weight that is placed on the shoulders of a leader...but it is just a thought. I do not mean to ask in an accusatory manner, it is just something that came up as I was reading.

Also- I believe that the gifts you possess will not be taken away, unless you neglect them. But...as I have prayed for you I have gotten the sense that you aren't done. This isn't about your choice, but rather what God is planning. I truly believe that God is going to do some great work through you and I don't really care if you don't feel that way right now or if you agree. Time will tell. And for the meantime, though I hear what you are saying in this letter, I don't expect you will be seeing the results you requested.

You may feel a lot of hate and judgment, but you need to remember that there are also a lot of people who are praying for you and who care for you.

That's my piece.

also, non of the above stated ever questioned your passion or true heart of pursuing the vision of the local church

Thanks Nate...

I appreciate it. Again, I think what you are saying is why I don't want to lead again. I think the reality is that in modern churches, leaders can't be fully known. It wasn't an option... and I am not willing to do that again.

This is not about people hating me or being angry (that is its own issue, lol) but about the nature of community, church and leadership.

In my specific case, whenever it was known, this would have been the result... whether I told people on my own or as it happened... whether it was 6 months ago, 2 years ago, or 5 years ago.

But more generally, I think sadly this is the nature of leadership and the institutional church.

In terms of the known/unknown issue, I can honestly say I was fully present to people and to the community. Some knew, most didn't. But I think the idea that one is not fully present in community or cannot be friends with people unless they have revealed all of their deepest sins, insecurities, struggles and secrets, is probably not possible in any community... those who asked knew... I never lied about it when asked... and I chose to disclose to some I thought I could trust and would be helpful to me.

But again, my sense of not wanting to lead again is not out of anger or bitterness... I think the cost of leadership is too high --- at least for me. If the notion is that a pastor is called from outside the community and therefore leaves the community when their pastorate is done, I want nothing to do with that. I am congregationalist at heart... believing that all leaders are called from within the community and share their gifts as everyone in the community does. And that the role/ministry is secondary to the relationships and community.

I've been told that I am naive to believe that... that may be so... that model may never work... but that is why I am done.

That said, I will not say no to God if he calls... but nor will I seek it out.

I've got to agree with what Nate wrote...and you know (at least I hope so) that there's no judgment from me about any of that. You are correct to say that few people in true community will reveal all of their struggles/issues to everyone, but in this case, it was such a large struggle on a hot-button issue that, fair or not, is different in an American evangelical church context than most others would have been.

I don't think your vision of leadership is "naive" or wrong -- look at the Bible, lots of God's chosen leaders were total messes. However, whatever we think God's vision for his Church is, it doesn't mean humans are equipped to handle it just yet. While the Church is God's and God-breathed at its best, it is still managed on this earth by His flawed children until he comes back to make His final healing repairs.

With love,.

I don't disagree with anything, Allison, that you or Nate wrote. Just underscores why I'm out. Again, this is not from anger or resentment... just a recognition of the reality of what people expect of leaders and of what leadership entails. And for me, the cost is too high.

I know myself. I need community. I need to be part of community. I can't be a hired chaplain for a community.

Even imagine the best case scenario... take away my sin and falleness from the equation...

What the institutional and denominational churches say is that a pastor could serve a church for 30 years, then retire, and would have to move and give up that community in retirement... precisely at the time of life when community would be most important.

And even don't assume best case scenario... take my scenario... it is when life falls apart that community would be most needed... and least available.

As long as the working assumption is that leaders can't be first and foremost members of the community, with their role being secondary, it is something I cannot do.

Maybe some people have the ability to do it. I do not.

Maybe being married and having a family would change the dynamic. But that is not me (and, at least according to the evangelical world, can't be me).

Again, I am not suggesting the system is wrong... just that the cost is too high for me. Someone else can do it.

And as for the disclosure issue... I understand what you are saying. In my case, anytime I disclosed, this would have been the result... so that makes it hard.

I am also slightly humored by the notion that at the same time many in the evangelical world object to even using the term "gay" or any sense of gay identity, but at the same time would say "this is such a big issue -- it so identifies you -- that you couldn't possibly have been real with us if you didn't tell us... (and btw, when you do tell us we will be sure to tell you have to go... because leaders can't sin that way.)" I know that is not what you are saying, but it is pretty much a reality.

The issue with the particular congregant with me started before I was pastor and pre-dates the existence of the church. So from day one, there was no way to reveal that without all of this happening. And with the gay issue -- again, in an evangelical context, I couldn't reveal -- and that is the advise I got from "wise advisors".

Anyway, I don't mean this to blame or be bitter... that is really not it at all. But for me, the most important thing about the church is that it is family and it is the hope of the world... the bride of Christ. If being a leader somehow means that I have to give up full membership in the family, then I am out of leadership. That is a cost I am unwilling to pay. And the idea that pastors are hired in from the outside, serve a period of time, and just move on... that means they are not really part of the family. They are a resource for the family... facilitator for the family... but at he end of the day, not part of the family.

And this is the dominant model in churches and denominations today. It is the only model within the institutional church (part of why I became a church planter... to change the model).

There are many ways to serve the church of Jesus Christ that don't involve teaching or leadership... I am not giving up on the church... just on leading.

You can do what you want with your spiritual gifts. I wouldn't advise it, since they aren't yours to start with. Maybe these gifts of leadership, communication, teaching, preaching, vision aren't your strengths after all. I'm not saying I believe that --- I'm just saying....Just because you are removed from membership doesn't mean you can't use those gifts of leadership, communication, teaching, preaching, vision, etc. to the Glory of God. And I think you should be very careful to not be telling God, "Gosh, I'm not getting to use these gifts how I want, so I'm taking my toys and going home."

I also gently, lovingly and tenderly submit to you that perhaps it's not what you did, but how you handled it. The church did it's best --- it's agonizing, heart-wrenching, soul-searching best to make some of the hardest and most important decisions of their life. They made those decisions all the while grieving for a brother who let himself down and was in trouble. They did it with pray and guidance from the same people (wise advisors) I bet you would have called for help and guidance in a crisis. I think you would have done the same thing, and can now find flaws in the system, when it's always easy after the fact to see the flaws. But there wasn't a playbook. There wasn't a manual to refer to. You have divided people with your criticism of the Board. Criticism is all bad, but you don't seem to want to see the black and white part of this issue (relationship with a congregant) and want to muddy it with the gay stuff. I don't think that's fair. The gay stuff was the bigger shocker, and you made that decision to not tell because you prejudged the congregation as the unaccepting evangelicals you are calling out now. We didn't get a chance, Ben. Now we (the church both local and large) have become what you predestined us without a fair hearing. I know I have my homophonic side --- I just don't totally get it, but I have very dear friends who are gay and I've never abandoned one of them or not accepted one of them. I'm as confused and uncertain about the Church's role in this as most people, but I'm not exclusive.

But you assumed I was. You didn't give me a chance, so it's really easy now (Monday morning quarterback) to make us (the local church, the Board, the wise advisors, the Church) out to be what you feared, but we all aren't.

Having said that, there is NO excuse for the hate. None. At least not by anyone who claims to follow Jesus. And I will tell that to anyone's face. You will, however, have to let more time pass, so hearts can softened and friendships can be renewed, and there will be friendships renewed. And there will be friendships that would have never been formed had this not happened.

I've talked to two friends about this whole thing. Both are card-carrying political and social liberals. One worked diligently for five years to bring the statement on homosexuality to the ELCA for their consideration and vote this summer. Both friends are active in gay rights. Both of them said this has nothing to do with being gay. It's about the boundary that was crossed with someone in the congregation. Both agree the Board's decision was right and just. And yes, that means different rules as a pastor, all of which supercede friendship rules. That may not have been what you signed up for when you started the church, but those are the rules that everyone who joined that church understood as the standard. Doesn't matter how long you were friends before the church started. So the gay part, well, I'm kinda done with that. I'm not defining you that way. I'm not defining what happened seven months ago that way. And yes, I think the removal from leadership and pastoring would have been the same if it had happened with a woman. It's how you've handled since, my dear.

Dude
You are whining. Stop it. Grow up. Man up. You made your bed, now you are laying in it. Sorry it sucks. You shouldn't be disappointed that your utopian view of the church didn't pan out. It's not the view in the Bible anyway. See James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
Is James being prescriptive or descriptive? I think the greater judgment is to be expected regardless. You betrayed the trust of dozens of people who gave you their money as a gift unto God. You aren't a chief sheep. You were their under shepherd and took advantage of one of the sheep. You aren't safe to the flock bro. You turned wolfy. Your hunger was more important than your flock. Jesus spoke about this in Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
The ESV study note points out "Maintaining the earlier balance of not judging (vv. 1–5) yet not being naively accepting (v. 6), Jesus teaches his disciples that they must be wisely discerning when professed prophets come into their midst. The life of the prophet and the results of his influence on others are the fruits that will indicate whether or not his message is consistent with the kingdom life of righteousness. fire. The only thing bad trees are good for is firewood, a striking metaphor of the future judgment for false prophets"
But back to James 3. John Gill writes loquaciously but it's all good regarding this verse.
"My brethren, be not many masters
The apostle having dispatched the subject of faith and good works, which constitute the pure and undefiled religion mentioned in ( James 1:27 ) which gave rise to this discourse, he proceeds to consider the evidence of a religious man, suggested in ( James 1:26 ) who is one that bridles the tongue; and enters into an account of the use and abuse of the tongue: and which is introduced by this exhortation; and which seems to be opposed to an affectation among the Jews, to whom James writes, of being called "Rabbi, Rabbi", or "Mori, Mori", master, master, condemned by Christ, ( Matthew 23:8 Matthew 23:10 ) . The words may be rendered, "be not many teachers"; or be not fond, and forward, and ambitious of being preachers of the word, but rather choose to be hearers of it, agreeably to the advice in ( James 1:19 ) , "be swift to hear, slow to speak"; not but that the office of a teacher is a good work, and a very desirable one; and spiritual gifts, qualifying for it, are to be coveted with a view to the glory of God, and the good of souls; and to have many teachers is a blessing to the churches of Christ and a large number of them is often not only proper, but absolutely necessary: but then this office should not be entered upon without suitable gifts, a divine mission, and a regular call by a church; and when entered into, should not be performed in a magisterial way, as lords over God's heritage, and as claiming a dominion over the faith of men, but as helpers of their joy, peace, and comfort; nor according to the commandments of men, but according to the oracles of God. Or it may be, this exhortation may have respect to censorious persons, rigid and severe reprovers of others, who take upon them, in a haughty manner, to charge and rebuke others for their faults; reproof for sin ought to be given; sin should not be suffered upon the brethren; to reprove is not blameworthy, but commendable, when it is done in a right manner, with a good spirit, and to a good end: in case of private offences, it should be privately given, and for public ones, men should be rebuked before all; but then this ought to be done in a gentle manner, and in a spirit of meekness; and when it is a clear case, and plain matter of fact, and which ought not to be exaggerated and aggravated; mole hills are not to be made mountains of, or a man be made an offender for a word, or a matter of human frailty; and reproof should be given by persons not guilty of the same, or worse crimes, themselves, and always with a good end; not to screen and cover their own vices, or to be thought more holy and religious than others, or to satisfy a revengeful spirit, but for the glory of God, and the restoring of the person that has sinned.

Knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation:
should men enter into the office of teaching others without a call, or perform it negligently, or live not according to the doctrine they teach others, such would be judged out of their own mouths, and by their own words, and their condemnation would be aggravated; and should men judge rash judgment, they themselves will be judged at a higher tribunal; and should they be too censorious, and bear too hard on others, they will have judgment without mercy."

Can your gifts still be used by God? Certainly. Perhaps in a venue you never thought of, like the end of Robert Duvall's movie, the Apostle, 1997. Your sin has closed one door, but God is very creative.

God is good (which is why he forgives you as do many in your offended spiritual family)
jpu

Ben,

I have two comments on all this:

1- I would love to see a blog entry, suspending reality, from the perspective of you if you had been a member of the congregation and your pastor had committed the sins you refer to. What would be your response? Not as one who attended seminary and is in God's word daily, but as an "average" member of the congregation or as one who is just struggling with their faith in general. Apologies if you have written on this and I just missed it - I try to follow pretty faithfully but may have missed it. I have thought about how I would feel in this situation quite frequently as I read your blog... it certainly has been eye-opening for me - often how I would probably really feel is quite different from how I would like to think I would feel.

We should not put our pastors on a pedestal, we should not treat them as being more than a sinner saved by grace, but too often we do because I think we want to believe (or at least I do in my optimistic attitude) that they are better at defeating sin than we are (not perfect, but better). We want them to be a standard that we could strive for as a worldly representative of Jesus Christ. Is that a lot of responsibility for leaders? I think so... but it is certainly a worthy pursuit for them! I am being ordained as a deacon in our church this January, and I am excited about the elevated standard that I expect of myself being in that role.

2- Which leads me into the issue of leaders being in community... I see no reason why leaders in the church cannot be held to a higher standard and still engage in community with the church. A few of my very closest friends are either lead pastors or executive pastors at churches. But, I will say that leaders cannot be in intimate community with everyone at their church - there are some people who are not spiritually and/or emotionally mature to handle such a relationship. They put the leader on too much of a pedestal, or they gossip, or they have a "rose-colored" glasses view of what it means to work in ministry. I certainly don't know all of it, but am involved enough to know ministry in reality is not always sitting around the campfire singing "kumbaya". It is important for a leader to understand who they can and who they can't be in community with.

That said, I do think some of the issues and difficulties come because of the "type of sin"... sexual sins (of any kind), infidelity, etc are extremely difficult for anyone to deal with. In our group we try to be authentic and open, but still the issues people express are more with relationship difficulties with family, work difficulties, health difficulties, etc. I know people struggle in other "taboo" areas as well, but they are too ashamed or whatever to bring it up and honestly other people in the group would likely (unfortunately) be embarrassed to hear about those things as well. We need to find ways to be better!

I guess my encouragement would be to not give up on the gifts you have been given by God. I don't believe you have to give up community or fellowship or anything like that to be a leader, and I firmly believe that God can use whatever circumstances you face to strengthen you and make your ministry stronger. We desperately NEED people who have a biblically-centered view on these issues... who have faced the issues themselves and can provide biblically-centered wisdom on how to reach people who otherwise feel rejected by the church. Too much of the discussion is made up of the "burn in Hell" bible-thumpers versus the "anything goes" worldly view, republicans v. democrats, red states v. blue states, etc. Jesus was none of that... There is most definitely a God-given ministry path for you when the appropriate time comes. I honestly don't think it will ever be at your old church (even as just a member) - and that is OK... there are others... plenty of others that need strong leaders who are not afraid to be open and authentic about who they are, what they struggle with, and what the Bible says about living our lives. Don't cling to the past and what you miss about your old congregation, and instead look for the exciting new opportunities, groups, fellowships, etc that are out there to be explored!

Stay strong my friend, you are cared for and loved and prayed for!

I just reread my post and realized I said "Criticism is all bad..." when I meant "Criticism ISN'T all bad..."

Wow... I feel like people are totally missing the point and heart of that post. It came from my journal and a time of prayer discerning what is next for me.

I recognize the reality of leadership (which Beth and John so articulately restate) and the rightful expectations of leaders. I also recognize (and have written pretty extensively on this blog) my failures as a leader.

But the real clarity for me is this: in most churches and denominations, the premise is that when a leader leaves his/her role -- for whatever reason (good, bad or ugly) -- they are expected/required to also leave the community/local family.

I am not arguing whether that is good or bad. It is pretty standard practice. It is what it is.

But it also means that the leader is never really part of the community/family.

For some people, that may work. For many people, their view of church is much more utilitarian and instiutional.

For me, I need the family... I need the community... I need the relationships. The idea of going someplace else as a lead pastor, serving for a period of time (5 years... 10 years... 30 years...) and then having to sever relationships with that family/community, is just not something I am interested in doing. The cost, as I said, is too high.

I have never suggested that I should be allowed to stay as pastor or leader of any kind at the church I left. Nor have I asked for that. I agree with that decision (which is why I resigned). I also agree that there is a higher standard for leaders. I am not suggesting that there is anyone to blame for my situation other than me.

And in terms of "the gay issue"... that was not the point of my post at all. Some people asked in the comments about it... and if hiding it meant that I was somehow less present to people in community, and I responded to that comment.

But this post was about moving forward and discernment in that process. And it was a reflection of my heart as I prayed and talked to Jesus about it.

In some ways I feel wired to lead... it part of my shape... how God made me. But I don't want to lead anymore. The cost is to high and the burden to great -- for me. So I honestly expressed that to Jesus. He hears me. He answers me. We are talking about it.

Given the reaction here, I think I will keep what he said to myself. But as usually happens when you pray and talk directly to Christ, it was affirming... encouraging... challenging. He didn't yell at me or call me a whiner or lecture me... he listened and then responded with the grace, wisdom and mercy of which he always responds.

Without getting into details, here is what he said... "I hear you. And it is okay that you feel that way... today."

Anyway, didn't mean to get people upset and riled up. Just sharing my heart and journey, which is what this blog is all about --- some days it is good, others not so good... and always a bit messy. But it is always real and reflective of where I am today.

Brian... I think you pose a good question. I don't know the answer, but will give it some thought.

I do know this... in many denominations, they tell pastors not to have friends in the congregation. In fact, I heard that in seminary -- and thought it was crazy. But I understand why people say that... I get that model... I just want nothing to do with it.

Beth... would the issue have been different if I was straight? I think that is an impossible answer to know. Based on the emails I get, the things people say, the questions the ask, etc, I have my suspicions... but that is all they are.

But this I know... if my struggle was with heterosexual sin, I would not have felt like I needed to hide it as much... I could have shared it with many people, developed better accountability systems, and been able to confess the sin on my own earlier in the process, perhaps before the "Rubicon" had been crossed. That was my perceived reality -- and in that case perception becomes reality.

I do know this... that if three years ago I had stood up on a Sunday and said "I am gay. Have been my whole life. And while I have tried to be pure as a single guy, like a lot of single guys I have made mistakes in the past. I am trying to figure out what this all means as a committed follower of Jesus and thankful to have a community to process this out in..." etc etc... that would not be received well.

Many people would leave the church. Many would have wanted me to resign.

And if I said it 5 years ago, the church probably would not have started.

But today those are not the issues -- and certainly not the issues I am addressing in this post. All I am saying is that for me, right now, leading another church is not in the cards. I want to be part of a church community... I want to serve within a church community... I want to help build a church community that reaches people and is changing the world. I just don't want to lead it... I don't want a title... I don't want a pay check. I just want to be me.

Sorry if some find that offensive.

But I am pretty sure Jesus is saying... "I hear you. It is okay... for today."

BD

Ben, thank you for your honesty and transparency in this post and on this blog. I know we have never met, but as a pastor I find that I am encouraged and challenged by your blog daily.

I appreciate the way you have owned up to what you did wrong and done so without equivocation. So few will do that. I also appreciate your honesty in terms of struggles, emotions and how God is working in your life.

I want you to know that I fully understand your feelings in this blog. At least to me, it did not come across as whining or blaming, but as pained and heartfelt. I think anyone who has been in ministry will understand more of this than anyone could realize.

That said, I want you to know that I will be praying that God changes your heart on this and calls you back into ministry in his timing... I hope that is OK.

Blessings this Advent Season!

Rev. John

Ben,

I've been reading the responses and I don't think the responses are coming out of anger, disappointment or offense. As a bit of an outsider to the exact situation but someone who has known you for years, I think this blog entry reflected a lot of your emotions. I think you're an amazing man, a lot of the "push back" you received I think is very rational and much of it I tend to agree with. That doesn't mean people don't love and affirm you. In fact, just the opposite, we love you enough to ask you to consider other perspectives. Looking forward to seeing you tonight.

Melanie... I don't think the responses are coming from anger, etc... just a misunderstanding of what I am saying.

I am not sure how many times I can say it, but I agree that my removal from ministry and leadership at the church was 100% appropriate. That is why I resigned. This post has nothing to do with that or even my specific situation at the church.

In the midst of all that has happened, it has become more clear the standard idea that leaders cannot be fully embedded in a community. My suspicion is that the people who don't understand that reality have never been in ministry. But if the assumption is you must leave the community when you leave your ministry role (again, whether you leave for good reasons or bad reasons) then you are not fully part of the community... you are a hired hand of sorts while you are there... the community is not for you.

The vast majority of denominations work this way. I understand all the reasons why they work that way. I am just saying that for that reason I am not interested in nor seeking a lead role in a church again. I am a bit baffled why that would upset anyone for me to say.

The two dominant pastor models in American churches today is either (a) pastor-as-chaplain; or (b) pastor-as-CEO. I am interested in neither of those models.

A good friend and mentor told me something years ago that really stuck... he said when it is all said and done, the only things that last for eternity are relationships... people. So your significant and accomplishments are measured in relationships, not programs or ministries or attendance numbers or growth rates... relationships.

I agree with that and am simply no longer interested in ministry that demands that you walk away from relationships and community when you are done.

Am I naive? An idealist?

No and no.

But I also get to choose what I do with my life...

Ben
I totally agree with you. And I don't want you to bury your talent. Obviously, your talent can be used in so many different spiritual venues. That's why I referred to the movie the Apostle. None of us and none of our sins are ir-redeemable by our Father. And you know all this, so that's why I told you to quit whining. All this suffering is refining fire.
When I went hiking with my wife this summer, I kept telling her the peak gets closer every time you take a step. It's a drag to only look at the next step. You have to look up from the ground to the peak. But she wasn't motivated by that. She wanted me to praise her for how far she had already come. Perhaps you and her have something in common? If that's the case...
Ben, dude, you are making great progress. Keep it up. If you need a breather, I'll sit with you, and so will so many other people around you. Let's sit and look down where you were, and look up to where you'll be. Seriously.
God is good
jpu

John, I appreciate your sentiment and encouragement... but it is not really the issue here.

Hypothetically, let's change the scenario...

According to many churches policies (including now, the church I left -- they just passed this policy last week), whenever ANY pastor leaves the role of pastor for ANY reason, they must leave the church family as well.

Assume this scenario: after five years of serving as lead pastor (a purposefully different position than senior pastor, btw) I decided that I wanted to pursue my dream of going to culinary school. I want to step out of my vocational ministry role as lead pastor and go to school, while staying in the area.

Most churches would insist that I would have leave the church family in order to do that. In other words, pastors are only "part of the family" vis-a-vis their role as pastor (position) -- and therefore not fully part of the community (I suggest).

Now at some point I may blog about why I think this is an unnecessary deal, but for now just assume that it makes sense and is necessary.

All I am saying is that, under that scenario/policy/paradigm, I am no longer interested in serving in that role, because I think the cost is too high. I really believe that the church is a family and that without a church, a Christian is an orphan.

I have some experience with all of this. I have left 5 ministries in my career (4 churches, 1 parachurch). In some cases the "you must leave and have not contact" was implicit and others it was explicit (as when I was an "intentional interim pastor"). But the truth is that after 12 years of full-time ministry, I have no church family. I am simply unwilling to continue that pattern in the future.

Again, maybe some people are stronger than I am... maybe some are more independent... perhaps being married makes a big difference.

And again perhaps not.

The state of the pastorate in America does not scream health and that it is being done well. Study after study suggests that pastors are by-and-large unhappy, unhealthy and not very effective (based on growth data from different denominations). Perhaps the whole paradigm is flawed...

But that is a totally separate issue... the main issue here is simply that for me, I can't be a part of that model any more.

When did it become so wrong to be human?

To me it seems all Ben is saying here (and I could be wrong) that he's a human being who nees other human beings. He's being real, open and honest. Are we so blind that we cannot look at things and see to the heart of them any more?

Surely it is a sad state we are in when a child of God cannot simply say "this is how I feel." Are we so afraid of reality and the truth that when it is expressed we become guarded and dance around discussing everything but what we really should be talking about? Is the fact that we can't face reality the reason there's a world full of millions of pepole dying that are not being reached out to? Or that thousands sit in our churches every Sunday, singing, smiling and pretending everything is ok. The whole time they're hurting inside because they can't be real. Why can't they? Because we won't have it. The thing is if we can't face reality from one another how will we ever face it from God?

All he's saying here is he needs other people. He wants to be part of something that's real and not be on the outside looking in and that he's searching for a means to achieve that. What's wrong with that?

I doubt highly that Ben really wants to give up the gifts God's given him. He is merely expressing the extent to which he is willing to go to find a way to meet what is a fundamental human need. We all need others. To deny that need exists is to deny ones humanity. To do that is to deny what God has created. We were created in his image yes, but did he not create us as human beings? If that's not what we are then what are we? And if we can't recognize and effectively deal with simple humanity (either our own or that of others) then we're in trouble.

My prayers are with you my friend.