What Happened
An account of false accusation, banishment, and spiritual abuse
Why am I writing this?
I am writing this account to defend my husband Michael against false accusations. Since Michael has been maligned publicly, my defense must also be public.
Some might ask, why not first raise your concerns privately? We have. Michael and I have done everything we can to seek private mediation and reconciliation. We have petitioned the elders of Indelible Grace Church for the past three and half years and their answer has always been “No.”
I am also writing to defend our church. As the Apostle Paul had to defend his ministry in 2 Corinthians 10, the ministry of our church, Imago Dei, has likewise been maligned. Imago is a true gospel church, with true followers of Christ, shepherded by a true minister of the gospel.
Finally, I am writing this account because for a long time, I was silenced by the elders of IGC, and then by my own grief and trauma. But after years of prayer and healing by God’s grace, I have found my voice. Over the years I’ve heard so many rumors and falsehoods reported back to me from a wide range of sources. It is deeply violating to have the only voices “out there” be those who have harmed us. I want my voice and my truth to also be told. I am finally ready to share my story with the many people who have asked me over the years: What happened?
Introduction
Two and a half years ago, on June 5, 2022, my husband, Michael, served his last day as the founding senior pastor of Indelible Grace Church in Castro Valley. We had planted the church with a small core team twelve years earlier, just a few months before our first baby was born, and had always joked (in all sincerity) that the church was our actual first child.
Throughout his tenure, my husband often preached of his heart to spend his entire life, God willing, serving IGC. He joked with the congregation (again, in all sincerity) that through the decades, either he would bury them, or they would bury him. His heart was one of steadfast commitment. IGC was never just a job, or even a vocation. It was our heart’s spiritual home. We gave ourselves unreservedly to the congregation, as parents love their children.
But God was not willing.
For nearly a year prior to my husband’s resignation, the elders of IGC, with the support and guidance of most of our PCA presbytery’s Ministers and Churches Committee (M&C), waged a fierce campaign to drive him out, and they succeeded.
The following account is a deeply painful and difficult retelling of the past three and a half years. Where relevant, I have included links to documents, emails, and screenshots for verification. In some places, I have included footnotes, so as not to weigh down the narrative with too many additional comments. I have also avoided the use of names to protect people’s identities, referring only to titles.
I have divided the account into three parts for ease of reading:
Part I covers the conflict between Michael and the elders.
Part II covers the lead up to the congregational vote.
Part III covers the presbytery’s campaign to stop the planting of our new church.
Part I: Conflict
The beginning
The conflict between Michael and his elders began during the COVID-19 pandemic. When the pandemic first hit, it caused significant disruptions and disagreements in our church, but the death of George Floyd in the Summer of 2020 produced the most intense controversies. Our session (comprised of three elders, the associate pastor, and Michael) was under much duress and anxiety as some in the congregation decided to leave the church because of these disagreements.
This turmoil was greatly exacerbated by the breakdown in the associate pastor’s marriage. The associate pastor’s wife reached out to Michael, expressing how deeply her husband had broken her trust, and that she felt that this breach was so serious that he had disqualified himself from ministry. Michael strongly encouraged the associate pastor to take a 3-month sabbatical to work on his marriage, but upon his return, the associate pastor reported that the marriage was as bad as ever.
Michael felt that this pattern of marital discord was unsustainable, and that without wholeness in the marriage, a pastor could not care well for the household of God. Thus, Michael felt it was necessary to have engagement and deeper conversations with the associate pastor and his wife. But the elders strongly disagreed.
The associate pastor himself protested vigorously, using this vivid metaphor: that talking to his wife about their marriage would be like pulling on a loose thread in a sweater—it would eventually lead to the whole sweater unraveling. Meaning, engagement would result in the associate pastor having to resign.
Two brothers on staff
The additional reason the elders were adamant that the associate pastor’s marriage be left alone is because three years prior, the associate pastor’s younger brother had left staff, causing deep frustration from many in the congregation. The elders were anxious that the possibility of the associate pastor also leaving would again stir up anger and cause more of the congregation to depart.
The younger brother had left staff largely due to differences in work styles. Michael’s direct style of communication was off-putting and made him feel unappreciated. Though Michael sought to work things out, asking the younger brother to stay on staff through a reconciliation process, the elders still blamed Michael for his departure.1 This resulted in a loss of trust that never healed, and the current issue of the associate pastor’s marriage now exposed and exacerbated those deep fissures.
The breaking point
For several months in early 2021, Michael and the elders went back and forth on what to do about the associate pastor’s deteriorating marriage. Michael pressed the issue unrelentingly, even though the elders wanted the matter left alone.
I can understand how these months of constant arguing would have deeply frustrated the elders and even demonstrated to them that their relationship was unworkable. I imagine they felt a sense of hopelessness, that Michael would not concede even when they were all united in their opposition. Why even have elders if you weren’t going to listen when they spoke in unison? The church was in an unprecedented time of turmoil due to Covid, and this sense of dysfunction heightened their already elevated levels of anxiety about keeping the church intact.
This protracted season of arguing drained all trust and broke their relationship. Michael eventually came to see this, and he sincerely apologized and promised to make amends, even hiring a pastoral coach (a 30-year veteran pastor in the PCA). Every week, Michael worked on projects and read books on leadership and EQ assigned by his coach and made every effort to demonstrate his desire to change. He and his coach created a detailed improvement plan that he submitted to his elders.
But it was too late. Much like a wife that has reached her limit of endurance and demands a divorce, the elders had had enough. The clueless husband might earnestly apologize and beg for marriage counseling, but it’s too little too late. The elders turned down all of Michael’s subsequent pleas for mediation and counseling, saying it would “take too long.”
The mood turns dark
In late Summer of 2021, the mood in the session took a dark turn. The elders began having private conversations without Michael present and all warmth and camaraderie disappeared. Michael began to feel deeply isolated and alone.
From that point on, Michael was treated as a scapegoat for all the problems of the church. The elders would often say to Michael, “All you do is cause problems, and all we do is clean up your mess.” Every departure in the last twelve years was put on Michael. This was exacerbated by the heightened conflict brought on by Covid where angry emails from congregants increased exponentially. It no longer mattered if what Michael did was objectively right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, it only mattered that it resulted in people feeling unhappy.
It felt like we were trapped in a fun-house of mirrors, condemned by a narrative that was impervious to facts and reasoning. I personally spoke with the elders during this time, listening to their concerns, offering different pathways to peace and harmony, but their hearts were closed. Michael’s coach also intervened multiple times, making the case that Michael had shown great remorse and could improve as a leader. Later, Michael’s coach said, “These men have hard hearts, and they will not listen.”
“Harming others”: The Letter
The narrative of the elders was that Michael had a pattern of “harming staff and congregants.” Again, it did not matter why someone was upset. The elders defined “harm” only by the fact that someone was unhappy.
One key example was a letter Michael wrote to a married couple in our church during the pandemic. This couple was deeply angry with Michael for his views on racial justice and gender roles, and as a result, they started attending another church closer to their views. After about a year, Michael wanted to write them a letter to release them from membership, as he had done many times for other members in similar situations. He wrote a letter expressing his love for them, and asked if they could be released from membership so that they could serve in their new church.
Upon emailing the letter to the couple, and then forwarding the letter to the elders, the session erupted in anger.2 The associate pastor stated that the letter put additional pressure on him to leave the church because his wife was best friends with the wife of the couple.
Michael later showed this letter to multiple members of Presbytery, and no one found it objectionable. In fact, his coach said it was an exemplary pastoral letter. But the elders were outraged and felt it was part of a pattern of harming people.
During the final congregational meeting, this letter was the only concrete example the elders cited that Michael harmed someone.
The Christmas dinner devotional
Another key episode in the conflict arose a few months later. Around November of 2021, based on the advice of his coach, Michael planned a Christmas dinner to honor and appreciate all the elders and staff, and their spouses. He proposed the idea during staff meeting, laying out an outline of the evening, and everyone approved the plan.
Since the leadership was in a protracted season of conflict, the mood of the evening was tense. But Michael put on a brave face and gave a beautiful talk on Barnabas as a godly example of encouraging others and ended his devotional by individually commending and praising each elder and staff person. Michael and I felt that the evening was a positive step towards healing. The church administrator texted Michael that evening to express the same sentiment. But a few days later, Michael received the most angry and accusatory email of his ministry, written by one of the elder’s wives. She accused him of evil, malice, and unrepentant sin.
Michael and I were stricken with grief and shock. How could such a goodwill gesture become so distorted? Michael took a walk with that elder and the elder explained that the youth pastor (who had joined our church in 2020) was deeply traumatized by the evening and had spent an hour in the parking lot afterwards, shaking and sobbing with his wife. The elder said the worst thing Michael had done was express appreciation for the youth pastor, since the youth pastor was thinking of leaving the church. He accused Michael of manipulation and harming the youth pastor.
When Michael brought up the fact that the church administrator felt Michael’s words were loving and pastoral, the elder replied “That’s because she doesn’t know what we know.” I couldn’t agree more.
The elders interpreted the Christmas dinner as evil because they had put Michael in a dark narrative. If an objective third-party observer could have witnessed the evening, they would have commended Michael for his loving and pastoral actions. Indeed, this was the opinion of the church administrator. But the elders were reading into Michael’s actions evil motivations that simply were not true.
“It’s a business decision”
When Michael explained that he was being greatly misunderstood, another elder told Michael that such a misunderstanding was even more evidence that Michael should leave.
That elder explained, “It’s like a baseball team that’s had a couple of losing seasons. It’s time to change the coach. It’s not personal, it’s a business decision.” This elder also repeated this explanation personally to me.
This was deeply hurtful. This elder was telling us that the church was not a spiritual family, but a business, and that Michael and our family were disposable for the sake of the “business” of the church.
“Lack of submission”
During this time, the elders began to accuse Michael of being “un-submissive” because Michael would not resign. When Michael asked how he could show his submission to them, they told him only one thing would suffice: Resign.
This was despite all the ways Michael showed his submission by complying with their over-reaching and demeaning demands. Michael had to submit his sermon manuscripts for approval before he preached. He had to submit names and get permission to do pastoral visits to church members. He had to submit Sunday school topics for their approval. These were policies that had never been implemented before in the history of the church and did not apply to the associate pastor. But in all these things, Michael complied, yet it was not enough. He was still “un-submissive” because he did not resign.
Misuse of authority
This was a misuse of their authority. Elders and pastors only have authority to command what Scripture commands.3 They have no right to demand their own goals or preferences when Scripture is silent on the matter. To command Michael to resign the pastorate when they have no lawful authority to do so is an abuse of power. And then, to denounce Michael as “un-submissive” for not complying with their unlawful and unbiblical commands is to compound their wrong.
Why Michael did not resign
Michael did not immediately resign for three main reasons: First, he wanted the session to be an example to the congregation of gospel reconciliation. How can the leaders of the church preach forgiveness, and then turn around and cast each other out?
Second, Michael pleaded for the sake of our family. Our boys (ages 9 and 11 at the time we left) were both born in the church. IGC was the only spiritual family they had ever known. When we eventually did leave the church, the experience was profoundly traumatic and devastating for them.
Third, Michael felt that his forced departure would ultimately harm the well-being and peace of the church. Every church goes through seasons of conflict and difficulties, all the more so when there is a global pandemic. If the elders forced our family out, it would cause needless destruction. Although the path of reconciliation would be hard, it was worth an attempt in order to preserve all the deep friendships and community life of the church.4
Pleading for reconciliation
All throughout this time, Michael and I each begged the elders for mediation and reconciliation. Michael acknowledged he had made many mistakes and expressed his deep commitment to learn and improve. But every time Michael pleaded for reconciliation, they would respond that reconciliation was “inappropriate,” without further explanation.
One elder told Michael that reconciliation implied there were “two sides,” and that in this situation, there was only “one side.” In the last months of the conflict, the elders grew to hate the word and told Michael to stop uttering it, glowering with anger if Michael brought it up.
Our season of breaking
I call this period “our season of breaking.” My husband’s heart was being broken over and over again during those six months of weekly Zoom sessions with the elders and the M&C committee of the Presbytery.5 Every Tuesday evening at 8:00pm, he would log on for another session of being bullied that would leave him literally doubled over in pain. Sometimes, when it was especially brutal, I would find him pale and still awake when I woke up to start my Wednesday. Those days were the worst.6
I begged Michael to stop doing these weekly Communist-style “struggle sessions.” They were pointless and agonizing and our bodies were physically breaking down from the stress. But Michael continued, hoping against hope, that the elders would have a change of heart. The elders had been his best friends in ministry. He loved them. They were our closest friends and our children grew up in each other’s homes. It is truly impossible to express our profound sense of betrayal and rejection.
Part II: Banishment
The elders face a choice
Throughout this intense 6-month period, the session’s only goal was to pressure my husband to resign. But in the PCA, no session has the authority to remove its own pastor.
The PCA operates by the Book of Church Order (BCO), which provides only two pathways for removing a pastor: (1) in cases where a pastor has committed disqualifying sin, he can be put on trial at Presbytery; or (2) in cases where a pastor’s sin is not the issue, his removal can be voted on by the congregation. That’s it.7
Since the elders were determined to remove Michael, they had to decide whether to proceed by trial or by congregational vote. Now the elders were told by the M&C committee that they would not prevail in a trial because there was no evidence of disqualifying sin. But the M&C also gravely warned that a congregational vote would be supremely destructive to the church, referring to it repeatedly and ominously as “the nuclear option.”
Choosing the nuclear option
Towards the end of 2021, the elders decided to go the nuclear route. Since Michael would not resign, they laid out a series of steps to prepare for a congregational vote.
On January 3, 2022, they sent a formal letter to Michael outlining his disqualifying sins and laying out the threat of removal.8
In late January, they held a small group leaders’ meeting to inform the lay leaders of the conflict and asked the leaders to bring forward any examples of Michael “harming” people in the church. (Nothing came of this.)
In February, they held an all-church meeting to announce the conflict to the whole church. In that meeting, they said that they were still evaluating the situation, and that no decision had been made. This was a facade, since behind the scenes, during the weekly Zoom meetings, the elders had been waging an unrelenting campaign to force Michael to resign for months.
In April, they held the final congregational meeting to inform the church of their decision that Michael should be removed from his pastoral office and that a congregational vote would be scheduled for May.
During these four months, the elders told the congregation, both publicly and privately, that they were removing Michael because of his “unrepentant sin.” They said Michael’s lack of repentance and submission was getting worse and there was a “pattern of harm” against staff and others. In actuality, those four months consisted of Michael proposing pathways of reconciliation, and the elders responding with anger and hostility.
We heard multiple comments from congregants during this time that the elders explained this process as “church discipline” for Michael. To this day this comment makes my blood boil because (a) church discipline for a PCA minister should only be done by Presbytery; and (b) the point of church discipline is restoration, not removal, the exact opposite of the elders’ goals for months.
Violating the BCO rules
In proceeding forward with a congregational vote and charging Michael with disqualifying sin, the elders flagrantly violated the BCO.9 The BCO clearly states that charges against a pastor must be conducted at Presbytery, which is the only body properly equipped to hear such cases, and certainly never before the pastor’s own congregation.
For the elders to accuse Michael of disqualifying sins before the congregation that he had loved and served for twelve years was not just a violation of the BCO, but a profound act of cruelty and a violation of basic fairness and due process. The BCO outlines rigorous rules of evidence and gives pastors the right of self-defense. These rules are designed to protect the innocent from false accusations.10 The elders denied Michael this due process and chose to accuse him before the congregation with vague details and no concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Indeed, they did this for the very reason that they lacked real evidence.
The M&C committee: “Majorities are always right”
This raises the question – why did most of the M&C committee support the elders in such a flagrant violation of the BCO?
We have found that the senior leadership of the NorCal Presbytery operates by this guiding principle: majorities are always right. Again and again, when Michael asked the M&C to look at whether the elders’ accusations were true, he was told that it didn’t matter since all Michael’s elders were against him. They would repeatedly say, “Your elders seem like good guys. How can they all be wrong?”
The elders likewise parroted this reasoning—that since they constituted a majority, they could remove Michael. When Michael responded that there must be reasonable cause, an elder bluntly replied, “Even if the reason is that we don’t like your haircut, you have to leave if we all say so.”
Michael and I were told by the elders ad nauseum, “We’re all so different, yet we all agree Michael should leave.” The bare fact of their majority itself became the chief evidence against Michael.11
But history and the Bible show us that majorities can be and often are wrong. Many innocent people have found themselves on the wrong side of an angry majority. The very reason for due process and a fair trial is so that majorities cannot simply condemn a man by the power of their numbers.
A dissenting voice on the M&C committee
During these last months of the conflict, new members were added to the M&C and one of them expressed serious doubts about the narrative against Michael. He asked the committee to examine the underlying reasons for why the elders wanted to remove Michael, since it had never been discussed or investigated. He was repeatedly told “No.”
This new member of the M&C came to the conclusion that Michael was being unfairly scapegoated for all the problems of the church. He spent many hours on the phone talking individually with the elders, asking them to pursue mediation and reconciliation to preserve the church. When they refused, he strongly pleaded for the elders to give Michael due process with a trial at Presbytery so that the congregation would be spared the trauma of a vote, and so that Michael would not be slandered before his congregation. But the elders were unmovable in their plans.
Silencing the pastor’s wife
The elders also poured scorn and hatred on me when I spoke during congregational meetings. As the elders held a series of meetings in early 2022 to inform the church of the conflict, I spoke in defense of Michael and pleaded for mediation and reconciliation, as is the right of any congregant during these meetings.
The elders were outraged after I spoke at the lay leaders’ meeting and wrote many insults against me on their Slack channel afterward. They asked the M&C for help in silencing me and the M&C produced a “letter” that recommended that I not speak in future meetings.
Then, during a special Zoom meeting convened for the purpose of reading out the letter, the elders glowered at Michael and angrily demanded my silence.12 Michael asked if the BCO allows pastor wives to speak during congregational meetings, and an M&C member reluctantly conceded that it did. Afterwards, one of the elders expressed his disgust at Michael and said, “This is why we want you to leave.”
I also personally experienced the elders silencing me when I attended a Zoom meeting at their invitation because they wanted me to share how I felt about all that was happening. At this point I felt very unsafe speaking with them alone so I asked for a sister in IGC to attend the meeting with me for support, which the elders permitted. I had worked all day, tearfully writing a letter to share with them, and began to read it. I only managed to say a couple of lines before the elders started talking and arguing over me and refused to let me continue. They said that I could not speak because they did not want this one sister in the church to hear what I had to say. I have never been treated with such open hostility and bullying, and it helped me appreciate what those weekly meetings must have been like for Michael.
The congregational meeting: April 24, 2022
All these months of blatant disregard for truth and fairness culminated in the most traumatic experiences of our lives—the congregational meeting of April 24, 2022.
This was the final meeting planned by the elders in which they would call for a congregational vote to remove Michael. We anticipated that the elders would say condemnatory things, but the actual meeting was far more brutal than we ever imagined.
For nearly four excruciating hours, each elder took turns accusing Michael of disqualifying sins and failures of moral character, and in the end, presented an ultimatum: either Michael is removed or all the elders would resign en masse.
Sitting there and listening to hour after hour of false accusations of my husband before the congregation he faithfully served is an indescribable feeling. The horror of it all caused me to disconnect my mind and body in a fog of incomprehension as vertigo and nausea washed over me. Many times, I remember wishing they would just physically beat him instead of murdering him in this more painful and soul-damaging way. For many months afterwards, Michael had intense nightmares of that evening. It was, without comparison, the worst night of our lives.
Guilty without a trial
In the end, the result was what you might expect from such a meeting filled with slander. Many people believed the elders and felt deceived by Michael. One member of the church told him “It’s like discovering that your pastor has been lying to you all these years, like Ravi Zacharias.”
Since then, we have gotten countless disapproving looks and coldness, not just from the congregation, but also from people outside the church. We have effectively been shunned by many in our community—Michael is regarded as a villain, a fallen and disgraced pastor. The elders destroyed so many dear and long-standing relationships for us.
It is an incredible feeling to be tried and hung in the court of public opinion with no evidence.
Which leads me to the other common reaction we got—confusion.
Countless people asked Michael, “What did you actually do?” Did you embezzle? Have an affair? Shout abusive rants at staff members? Of course, it was none of these things.
Though the elders condemned Michael, they never got into specifics, which was intentional because there was simply no evidence of wrongdoing or disqualifying sin. The elders’ “proof” was their unanimity: “Trust us because we all agree.”
A failure of love
In the end, the greatest wrong the elders committed against us was not the many false accusations or violating the BCO. It was the violation of our highest law in Christ—the law of love.
When the elders were installed, they each took solemn oaths to love each other as brothers in Christ. To cast our family out of the church, despite Michael’s tearful pleas for mercy and forgiveness, was not just an act of cruelty and injustice, but ultimately, it was a failure of love.
Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35). The elders did not show our family any compassion or love, but rather, treated Michael and I with hatred and disdain throughout the ordeal.
One argument that Michael and I heard again and again is that the elders were compelled to act for “the greater good.” We heard this justification countless times. But this is the logic that justifies all kinds of evil: that an individual or a single family can be discarded for the sake of the larger group.
Jesus taught us an entirely different ethic: that each individual is precious and worthy of love, and that true Christ-like leadership would leave the 99 to pursue the 1 lost sheep. To cast an individual out with such ruthless malice does not preserve the community, it destroys it.
We’ve heard so many times how shocked and shaken people in the congregation were at what happened, and it made them lose trust in the church and her leaders. To witness such hatred and scorn poured out on a family of a church makes everyone rightly wonder, “Is this the Spirit of Christ?”
The decision to resign
Going into the final congregational meeting, Michael hoped, even at that late hour, that the elders might agree to try coaching or mediation and spare the church the vote. I personally pleaded in a speech before the congregation for reconciliation to preserve the community of the church.
But after the meeting, it was clear to Michael and I that there would be no way to avoid the tragedy of a vote. And though Michael could have prevailed in a vote, the idea of congregants voting against each other and basically waging civil war was too horrible for him to contemplate. It was bad enough that the session was irreparably broken, my husband wanted now to at least spare the church body from such a fate.
In my mind, he was like the true mother of the baby that was brought before Solomon’s judgment. One alleged mother was eager to have the child cut in half, but the true mother was the only one that loved her child enough to surrender the baby that its life may be spared.
And so, with the heaviest of hearts, my husband tendered his resignation a week after the awful meeting and served out the rest of the month, his last.
Though he had served these twelve years with all his heart and even resigned out of self-sacrificing love, we left under a dark cloud of suspicion and condemnation.
Grief and loss
A wife knows her husband’s heart like no other. Michael has made countless mistakes, but he is a good and godly shepherd. For the past 21 years that I have been married to Michael, I have only grown in my esteem for him as a husband, father, pastor, and simply a brother in Christ. He is the same in public as he is in private. And by God’s grace, Michael has only grown in wisdom and the fruit of the Spirit since this awful tragedy. It has been, and is now all the more, my great privilege to have my sons and myself sit under his excellent teaching and godly shepherding.13
For these elders to strip away so much goodwill and affection for my husband through lawless deceit was something that greatly disturbed my faith, not just in men, but in God himself.
For many months afterwards, Michael wept, and I gnashed my teeth and shook my fist at God. I threw back in His face all His promises of blessing and protection, especially Psalm 91, which I had prayed all these months in hopeful expectation.
My entire existence became just one long wrestling match as I argued with God in my head from the moment I woke up to my last waking thought. But praise be to God, eventually, I lost.
He won. I surrendered.
God has every right to do what feels entirely wrong to me.
I concede that He has broken none of His promises. In fact, He has only ever promised trouble in this world. In those dark months I learned the awful lessons of a bruised reed and smoldering wick, hovering a hairsbreadth away from being snuffed out altogether.
Part III: Persecution
A new beginning and a new church
During our one-year period of mourning, we deliberately chose not to think about the future. We wanted to fully process our grief with friends and counselors and be wholly open to wherever God might lead us now that this huge chapter in our lives had been sealed shut.
Then, in the Spring of 2023, Michael started to feel again the call and tug toward pastoral ministry.14 We had a handful of friends who had not attended church since Michael’s resignation, and it felt completely natural that we exiles should come together and form our own spiritual community.
Here were sheep without a shepherd, and a shepherd without sheep. What could be a more fitting good to come out of this tragedy? We were about to find out.
Resigning from the NorCal Presbytery
At the final congregational meeting at IGC, the chair of the M&C explicitly made promises to care for Michael, but he never once reached out.15 Yet in a spirit of hopeful reconciliation, Michael called the chair in March 2023 and shared his desire to plant a gospel church for those who did not have one. The chair’s reaction was anger and hostility and it made Michael realize that there was no future for him in NorCal Presbytery.
So with great sadness, Michael resigned from the NorCal Presbytery a few weeks later in April 2023. In his letter of resignation, he made sure to express his goodwill and blessings to Presbytery and his hope that he could depart in a spirit of peace.
Presbytery tries to stop our new church
Typically, after a member in good standing sends notice of his resignation, it is received and recorded at the next stated presbytery meeting. So, at the May 5 stated meeting of NorCal Presbytery, Michael’s resignation should have been recorded, and that should have been the simple and unceremonious end of his membership.16
But it was not.
The chair told Michael that his resignation would not be accepted if Michael was leaving to plant an independent church. The chair had spoken to the elders of IGC and relayed their complaints and alarm: Michael’s church was too close to IGC17, it was too similar, it was too soon. The new church was perceived as a threat and “competition” to IGC. Furthermore, the associate pastor spoke to many in Presbytery claiming that Michael was “harming IGC” with his church plant.
Michael assured the chair that he had recruited no one and taken no one from IGC, nor did we plan to. In the year and a half that our church, Imago, has existed, we have never pulled a single person out of IGC. Rather, our church is a small community of believers who want to worship God together. Why is this wrong?
Nevertheless, the chair, in support of and at the request of the elders of IGC, began to use every administrative action to kill our new church.18
At the May 5 meeting, Presbytery voted to hold Michael’s membership, per the chair’s recommendation.19 Then on May 17, the chair of the MNA committee (which oversees church planting) sent Michael an official letter warning him that he was not authorized to plant an independent church until released from Presbytery. This whole process was persecutorial because the chair of the M&C was holding Michael’s membership for the very purpose of stopping the planting of our church.
When I first heard that Michael was “not allowed” to leave Presbytery, I remember having an out-of-body sensation. As I have only done once before, I told Michael to watch the kids, grabbed my car keys, and ran out with no plans but to find a desolate place to scream.
After enduring months of lawless deceit and injustice, I knew what was coming. More of the same.
“Competition” is not a godly response
During this time, we were told that our church was intruding on IGC’s “territory,” that we were diluting IGC’s “market share,” and other such concerns. This is not how Christians should react. Churches do not have “territory” and “market share.” These are not biblical concepts, but worldly ones.20
Nowhere in Scripture do you ever see this “competition” logic upheld. In fact, when you do see it coming out of the mouths of ignorant disciples, it is always rebuked.
In Mark 9:38, Jesus’ disciples ask if they should stop some people from casting out demons because they were not authorized by the disciples. Jesus rebuked the disciples, stating that anyone doing Kingdom work was part of the same gospel cause.
In Philippians 1:18, Paul rejoiced that others were preaching the gospel, even if out of rivalry and opposition. His greatest concern was not competition, but that Christ was preached. This should be the attitude of all Christian leaders.
Our goal in planting Imago was never to “compete” or pull people out of IGC. Again, we have never recruited or solicited anyone to leave IGC and join Imago. Our goal was simply to have a spiritual home and family once again. Why should this be so opposed and condemned?
IGC publishes a letter disapproving of our new church
The elders then asked the chair of the MNA committee to write a letter to the congregation of IGC condemning Michael’s new church plant as illicit. The letter was published two weeks before our launch date in an open link in the church newsletter.
The letter presented only one side of the story—that Michael did not have the approval of the MNA committee to plant his church—but left out the crucial detail that Michael had submitted his resignation from Presbytery four months earlier, which meant the MNA committee had no jurisdiction over our church plant. At the very least, the question of Michael’s membership in Presbytery was in dispute. This pivotal fact should have been noted and its absence constitutes a lie. The MNA letter falsely characterized Michael as an un-submissive renegade and our church as illegitimate.
This letter caused great pain and grief for many in our congregation. Our core team was made to feel like they were participating in something wrong and immoral. We had hoped our brothers and sisters would be happy for us to find a little family after being adrift for so long, but the leadership modeled only hostility and condemnation.
We clung to our only hope—that our Shepherd would defend us through this deep valley.
In August of 2023, with much humble prayer, we planted Imago Dei Church of Castro Valley.
Michael is asked to explain his church plant
During these months, Michael met with multiple people and committees in Presbytery to explain why he was planting an independent church. Michael agreed to these meetings because he felt an obligation of love for his brothers. Most of these conversations were actually quite positive and many of the rank-and-file members of Presbytery expressed sympathy and support for Michael’s new church.
Michael was also asked to share his story before Presbytery at the October 6 meeting and he agreed to appear.
Charges at the October 6th stated meeting
At the 2023 October 6 meeting, Michael went up to share his story but was immediately silenced by the moderator.21 A member of the Presbytery leadership then moved to charge Michael with “contumacy” (argumentativeness) and “refusal to submit.”
Essentially, the argument was that Michael was disqualified from ministry because he wanted to leave the PCA and plant an independent church. That’s it. That was the disqualifying sin. There were no charges or accusations regarding Michael’s ministry or conduct for the twelve years that he pastored IGC. The single unforgiveable sin was that Michael now wanted to leave Presbytery and do ministry outside the PCA.
Their argument was that Michael was defying Presbytery in planting his church. But why were they prohibiting it? What biblical commands or godly principles prohibit starting new churches? Moreover, they were the authors of this “crime” by holding Michael’s membership illegally. It is a gross abuse of authority to take legal actions against a minister who they find to be “competition.” This is not the way of Christ. This is persecution.
Persecution happens when one religious group feels threatened by a smaller group and uses their size and power to crush the smaller group. It is shameful for Christians to use such tactics, but unfortunately, we have witnessed this throughout church history. NorCal Presbytery was using charges against Michael to stop our church or at least put a black mark of disrepute on it.
A contentious presbytery meeting
What ensued was the most contentious and divisive meeting of the NorCal Presbytery in anyone’s memory. The entire leadership of Presbytery lined up against Michael, but the rank-and-file members voted against the leadership. This has never happened as far as Michael knows.
Michael was only allowed to present his legal defense narrowly focused on the issue of his membership in Presbytery. Michael had already submitted his argument, four months prior, in the form of a legal brief outlining why his resignation was proper and legal. No response was given by the leadership, even though Michael followed up several times.22
The SJC weighs in
In the week leading up to the October 6 meeting, Michael also spoke with a member of the Standing Judiciary Committee (SJC), the highest court of appeal in the PCA, who then consulted with another member of the SJC. They both read Michael’s brief and declared that Michael’s argument was correct—Michael had properly resigned and NorCal Presbytery had no authority to prohibit him from planting an independent church.
That SJC member went on to lament, “your Presbytery seems quite vindicative and mean-spirited.” He assured Michael that if charges went forward, Michael should appeal to the SJC, and the SJC would summarily reverse the decision. Michael communicated the SJC’s assessment to the leaders of Presbytery, inviting them to speak with that member. No response was given.
During the floor debate on October 6, the opinion of the SJC was compelling to many in Presbytery. But the chair of the M&C rose up and said, “Don’t worry about the SJC and what they might do in the future. Let’s just do the right thing now.”
To me, that statement says it all. For the chair, the actual legality of the case did not matter. What mattered was charging Michael for defying the leadership, even if it required misusing the BCO.
In our experience, the leaders of NorCal Presbytery use the BCO as a wax nose to ignore or misapply when it suits their goals and to exert unbiblical compliance. Ironically, the leadership accused Michael of a lack of submission, but it is the leadership who do not submit to their own laws and constitution.
An apology
At a certain point during the floor debate, Michael was asked if he would apologize, not for planting the church, but for not waiting an additional two months until the October meeting.
Michael replied that since Presbytery’s goal was to prevent him from planting a church, it was not clear why waiting two months should make any difference. Nevertheless, this seemed to be a concession for a compromise, so in a spirit of brotherly unity, Michael gave an apology that he did not wait two additional months before planting Imago.
Presbytery votes in favor of Michael’s release
Ultimately, although the leadership of Presbytery voted for charges against Michael, the rank-and-file members voted against charges and voted to release Michael “without censure.” The long nightmare was finally over.
There was a subsequent debate about which BCO provision to release him under. Michael and other members argued that he should be released on BCO 38-3—transfer to another church. But everyone was too exhausted to keep discussing Michael’s case, so Presbytery kept the original provision, release on BCO 38-2—retirement from ministry. This was a nonsensical application since Michael was obviously not retiring, but continuing in ministry. Even so, Presbytery voted to have Michael “divested of office without censure,” which essentially means honorably retired.23
Nevertheless, Michael and I feel gratified that he was released without censure, and that the leadership’s attempt to place charges on Michael failed. The one and only time Presbytery spoke as a whole, in which an official vote was taken, Michael was cleared of all wrongdoing. There was no finding of any disqualifying sin. There never was.
But to this day, the leaders of NorCal Presbytery treat Michael with coldness and hostility.24
Final reflections
I have now spent weeks and untold hours writing this account. And truth be told, I have hated every minute of it. I hate this story and I hate telling it. This is not the story I wanted to tell.
Since 2021, I have wanted to tell a story of gospel reconciliation. Of a session mired in misunderstanding and conflict, but after seeking godly counsel and coaching, emerged stronger and better, and created a more beautiful community of faith that testifies to God’s amazing grace.
I believe that story is still possible—one in which two churches exist in peace. And so, in the spirit of Matthew 18, we have repeatedly invited the elders of IGC to mediation and reconciliation. But each time, they have declined or ignored us.25
People have sometimes asked us if we forgive the elders. Tim Keller’s book Forgive came out right after Michael resigned in 2022. It seemed like a special gift just for us. We acknowledge that we are the big debtors before God, and therefore, by His grace, we can release all smaller debts owed to us by others. We have forgiven and continue to forgive and pray that God will richly bless the elders’ lives and ministries. But as Keller explains, forgiveness does not mean the absence of truth and accountability.
God is a God of truth. And especially when lies hamper the gospel, truth must be courageously proclaimed. I say this with much thought and caution, the elders have committed spiritual abuse against our family.26 The Spirit of Truth requires this to be held to account.
I call upon the elders of IGC to repent and publicly apologize for making false accusations against Michael and violating his due process right to a fair trial.
I call upon the leaders of NorCal Presbytery to repent and publicly apologize for misusing the BCO and persecuting our church.
And above all, I call upon them both to repent of their hardness of heart toward Michael and our whole family. My mind still boggles at the reality that we have never experienced more sustained hatred and harm than from our shepherds.
Finally, I want to acknowledge that there are many ministry families like ours. We are not at all unique, though ironically, we often feel utterly alone. To those who have been crushed by persecution and feel unseen, unheard, and unbelieved, my prayer is that we may truly believe our Lord’s promise:
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. -- Matthew 5:11-12
If you would like to contact Christina, you can reach her at christinachungcv@gmail.com
Epilogue
Since this difficult season, we have, by God’s miraculous grace, all experienced much healing and growth. Michael continued to meet with his coach and has gained invaluable insight and wisdom from counselors, friends, and mentors in ministry. Through much humble reflection and prayer, Michael has grown in his understanding of the vital importance of leadership and relational dynamics and has continued doing the assignments from the “improvement plan.” Despite all the heartaches, Michael still finds his deepest joy in doing gospel ministry. Truly this must be his calling.
For our family, the best thing about starting a new church with older kids is getting to serve alongside each other. Our boys, like us, are the first to come and the last to leave every Sunday. And best of all, they do everything with cheerful and earnest hearts. I am amazed how God has preserved their faith in Him and love for His church.
As for me, my faith has grown exponentially in these dark times in a way that could have never happened in the sun. The thorny hedges of persecution and powerlessness pressed me closer and closer to my Savior until I felt his breath and heard his words like never before. Can I really complain of loss when I’ve gained such immeasurable wealth in Christ?
He has given me the “treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places” (Isaiah 45:3). He has given me Himself.
Michael asked the younger brother to stay on staff through a reconciliation process multiple times: in person, through texts, and through emails. Attached are 2 emails where Michael expressed his desire for the younger brother to stay and continue to serve in IGC.
Another accusation that the elders made against Michael is that he acted unilaterally in sending the letter. This is simply not true. The session discussed how to resolve this couples’ membership for several months and assigned an elder to speak with the couple first. After several months of unsuccessful attempts at communication, the elder agreed to let Michael write the letter instead. Michael gave him a brief outline of the letter and the elder approved the plan, and shortly afterwards, Michael wrote what had previously been a standard letter that he had written many times before.
This is beautifully articulated in the BCO, Preface II, section 7, “All church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or by representation, is only ministerial and declarative since the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may make laws to bind the conscience. All church courts may err through human frailty, yet it rests upon them to uphold the laws of Scripture though this obligation be lodged with fallible men.”
In other words, church power is only and always simply a ministerial application of Jesus’ authority speaking in Scripture. Jesus says “All authority, and all power is given to me.” (Matthew 28:18) Any true and righteous authority is dispatched under the commands of our Lord to carry out his plans in his ways. Church leaders must never add additional requirements or make laws to bind consciences where Scripture is silent. They must never elevate their personal goals or preferences as a matter of submitting to their authority.
In light of this, BCO Chapter 29-1 explains that church discipline is only properly done for “anything that is contrary to the Word of God.” It furthermore states, “Nothing, therefore, ought to be considered by any court as an offense (that is, a sin), or admitted as a matter of accusation, which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture.” Spiritual abuse is when church leaders demand obedience to their word where Scripture has not commanded it.
The associate pastor frequently accused Michael that his younger brother was treated in the same manner – that Michael had cast the younger brother and his family out of the church without mercy. In the final months of the conflict, the associate pastor said to Michael on several occasions, “I’m going to do to you what you did to my brother.”
But this claim of casting out the younger brother is simply not true. First, as stated in footnote 1 (which includes emails), Michael repeatedly asked the younger brother to stay on through a process of reconciliation. Second, Michael never denounced the younger brother before the congregation, nor declared him morally unfit, nor demanded his resignation. But this complex family tie between the brothers created a lasting bitterness that never healed.
After several months of conflict within the session, Michael asked for mediation and help from Presbytery. The Ministers and Churches Committee (M&C) convened a subcommittee and spoke to Michael, the associate pastor, and the elders, each group separately. They gave the following recommendations:
The associate pastor and his wife were assigned to meet with another pastor in Presbytery for marriage counseling and mentorship.
Michael should get evaluated by the PCA Assessment Center to learn his leadership strengths and weaknesses.
Based on Michael’s evaluation, the entire session should go to an organization called Flourish to get coaching and leadership training.
Michael completed his Assessment application, but the director aborted the process because he stated that the elders were not participating in good faith. In the end, the full recommendations were never followed as the elders lost patience with this path and wanted to proceed with removing Michael.
Groups often act worse and with greater cruelty than any one individual in the group. This has been frequently observed in psychology and is the dynamic behind lynch mobs and witch hunts. As group polarization sets in, all doubt is eliminated and conformity enforced. The elders and the associate pastor were united in pushing Michael out, and this created an environment where harsh measures were justified. Michael’s worst experiences were always in these meetings with the elders all together, not individually.
The BCO is absolutely clear on this. The only proper place to adjudicate a pastor’s sin is Presbytery. BCO 31-1 states, “Original jurisdiction in relation to ministers of the gospel shall be in the Presbytery of which the minister is a member.” This rule is stated again in BCO 34-1, “Process against a minister shall be entered before the Presbytery of which he is a member.” The elders do not themselves have the authority to put their pastor on trial and find him guilty.
A congregational meeting is not the proper forum for a trial for the simple reason that a congregation should not be burdened with such a heavy task. According to the BCO, the only appropriate and lawful place to charge a pastor for his sins is Presbytery. They are the “original jurisdiction.” The BCO also recognizes a court of appeals, which is the Standing Judiciary Committee (SJC). These are the only forums in which a pastor’s sins can be charged and the pastor removed.
The BCO allows for a congregational vote to remove a pastor only in situations where sin is not the reason for removal. This commonly occurs when a congregation disagrees with the ministry philosophy or vision of the pastor. For example, a pastor in a suburban church may want to focus heavily on inner-city ministry but the congregation would like church resources spent on building up their children’s ministry instead.
The letter accused Michael of three sins: (1) a pattern of conflicts in the church, (2) argumentativeness and defensiveness, (3) lack of submission to the elders.
During one of the congregational meetings, an elder explained that a Presbytery trial is only appropriate for sins of an extreme and egregious nature. That is simply not true.
BCO 29-1 states that any “offense” (that is, sin) must be handled by Presbytery trial and defines an “offense” as “anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is contrary to the Word of God.”
Offenses include sexual immorality and financial misdeeds—which most people associate with the removal of pastors—but also sins like “lack of submission,” “lack of humility,” “argumentativeness,” and “abuse of staff.” There have been several cases where PCA pastors were put on trial at their Presbytery for these latter reasons, including Scott Sauls and Rankin Wilbourne.
BCO 34 lays out the rules of a fair trial. 34-2 specifically warns against charges made on thin evidentiary grounds. BCO 35 lays out the rules of evidence. 35-1 gives the accused pastor the right of cross-examination. The rules are rigorous and thorough to prevent false accusations against the innocent.
It is not uncommon for elders to get frustrated at the senior pastor during a difficult season of ministry. Senior pastors receive the brunt of the blame for problems in the church, and elders will sometimes conclude that a new pastor is the solution. This is intuitive and natural in any organization, be it a sports team, company, or church.
Michael’s coach observed that the elders of IGC were extremely anxious about the potential departure of the associate pastor and the impending departure of the youth pastor and needed to find a “solution” to present to the congregation.
Michael’s coach explained to the elders that it’s very common for elders to grow frustrated at the pastor when a church plant gets to our maturity stage, the early years of adding elders. The strengths of a planting pastor (active and decisive leadership) become points of friction because the pastor fails to transition from being a fast-acting decision-maker to slowing down in order to collaborate with the group.
All these common points of conflict are not sin issues, but team dynamic issues that should be addressed with proper coaching. Unfortunately, the elders would not be dissuaded from moralizing these issues, despite the hours Michael’s coach spent explaining this to them.
A special meeting was convened for the purpose of reading out the M&C letter. A single M&C member joined Michael and the elders on Zoom, and he dramatically read out the letter demanding my silence. When Michael said that he would not forbid me to speak, the M&C member threatened repeatedly, “Are you choosing not to follow our recommendation? Should I report back to the committee that you are defying our recommendation?”
The elders likewise demanded my silence, stating that this was further evidence of Michael’s unsubmission. They were furious and poured scorn on Michael. This went on for a full hour. Michael later told me that it was the worst of all the meetings he endured with the elders.
To this day, it angers me that the elders would so arrogate their own assessment of my husband’s moral character (though they’ve served less than 3 years) above my own assessment (though we’ve been married for 21 years). During the last congregational meeting, they used Titus 1, qualifications of an elder, to condemn my husband, while I also cited Titus 1 to commend him. Shouldn’t my unmitigated confidence in his godly character have given them some pause? Why is a woman’s opinion completely dismissed, though she is the world’s leading expert witness, when a group of men say otherwise?
One book that particularly ministered to Michael during this period was Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor by DA Carson. It is the story of a faithful pastor who all his life served only two churches, each never numbering over 40 people. In the end, though Tom Carson never achieved worldly heights of acclaim or stature, he faithfully served his congregations. And at his death, he was received into Jesus’ arms: “well done, good and faithful servant.” This story of faithful ministry moved Michael to tears and greatly encouraged him to try ministry again.
Throughout this ordeal, the chair of the M&C was extremely biased and hostile to Michael. Just to give one example, he was supposed to play the role of a “neutral” moderator at the final congregational meeting, but his bias towards the elders was blatant. After the congregational meeting, he huddled together with the elders to give them encouragement and comfort, while Michael was left completely alone.
The simple process of resignation is clearly laid out in BCO 38-3:
“When a member or officer in the Presbyterian Church in America shall attempt to withdraw from the communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with some other branch, if at the time of the attempt to withdraw he is in good standing, the irregularity shall be recorded, his new membership acknowledged, and his name removed from the roll. But if at the time of the attempt to withdraw there is a record of an investigation in process, or there are charges concerning the member or minister, the court of original jurisdiction may retain his name on the roll and conduct the case, communicating the outcome upon completion of the proceedings to that member or minister. If the court does not conduct the case, his new membership shall be acknowledged, his name removed from the roll, and, at the request of the receiving branch, the matters under investigation or the charges shall be communicated to them.”
In other words, if there are no outstanding investigations or charges against a member of Presbytery, that member is free to resign. Presbytery is not in the business of holding members against their will. At the time Michael resigned, there were no investigations or charges, and thus, he should have been released immediately according to BCO 38-3.
We have heard this particular protest, that Imago is too close to IGC, so many times that I would like to address it. First, virtually our entire core team lives in Castro Valley. We have a right to belong to a local neighborhood church. Second, the elders of IGC vigorously protested that Imago is located in the old building that IGC used to occupy. IGC moved locations because their new facility is significantly better, and it had outgrown the old one. When we looked for a building to meet in Castro Valley, we realized that the old facility had a huge benefit we could not ignore: a fully installed audio-visual system that does not require setup. This saves our church an hour of setup and an hour of take-down each Sunday. This is a significant benefit, especially for a small church plant.
In the twelve years that Michael was a member of the NorCal Presbytery, he has observed the frequent use of the “good cop/bad cop” tactic. Presbytery plays the role of “bad cop” in making decisions and taking actions that might be unpopular with the congregation. The session of the church plays “good cop” in feigning ignorance or neutrality in the actions taken by Presbytery. This protects the session from criticism, and shifts the blame to a distant and remote body, Presbytery. However, in actuality, everything is done in close coordination between Presbytery and session. Presbytery will never take any action against the wishes of session, but always in support of and at the request of session.
Michael was told by several committee chairs that Presbytery was taking action against our church plant “on behalf of IGC.” He was told repeatedly that IGC asked for help and protection, and that Presbytery was doing whatever it could to “help IGC.” This help would involve a multi-step plan to attack Michael’s character and discredit our church.
The chair’s argument was that Michael’s resignation should be considered under BCO 38-2 (though it clearly did not apply). BCO 38-2 outlines provisions for what to do when a minister wants to quit ministry altogether. It requires that the minister give “satisfactory evidence” for his retirement and then Presbytery must “concur in judgment.” BCO 38-2 then allows Presbytery to hold the membership of the retiring pastor if his reason for retirement is hasty or ill-conceived.
This provision, of course, did not apply to Michael because he was not seeking to quit ministry, but only to withdraw from the PCA. We have found that the NorCal Presbytery uses the BCO like a toolbox, in which it reaches for various provisions to accomplish their goals, rather than following the actual statutory purpose or language.
Jesus said, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.” (Matthew 9:37-38) Notice Jesus does not say that there are too many churches, and that new churches should therefore be blocked to preserve the market share of existing churches, but he asks his followers to pray for more laborers and more churches. This is the heart of all gospel ministers.
Michael spent several weeks preparing to share his story. He was asked to present his story at Presbytery by virtually every member he spoke with, including several of the leaders. It was agonizing to watch him do this because he had to revisit all the traumatic memories in close detail. In the end, they simply waived their hand, declared his story irrelevant, and refused him the right to speak. Their callous disregard and dishonesty still angers me every time I think about it.
On June 21, Michael submitted this brief to all the committee chairs, the clerk, and other leaders in Presbytery. They promised to read it, but when Michael followed up several times, he never got a response. Finally, as the Oct 6 meeting date approached, he asked the clerk to include his legal brief in the meeting notes that would be sent to all of Presbytery. Again, no response. Finally, a day before the October 6 meeting, Michael had to email his brief out himself to all the members of Presbytery.
I personally think that the leadership wanted the absurdity of retiring Michael because the language “divested of office” makes it sound like Michael was defrocked. Indeed, to “divest of office” does mean to remove from office. But the pivotal part, “without censure,” I imagine, gets buried when leadership communicates the final results to others.
After the vote, Presbytery also voted to have the chair of a committee write a letter to IGC to communicate the action taken by Presbytery and the apology Michael offered on the floor. Having experienced a highly biased and prejudicial letter from the chair of the MNA, I suspect this letter also slanted the information in a way that conveyed condemnation, when in fact Michael was exonerated.
Any letter from a committee of Presbytery is prone to this type of distortion because it is never vetted, approved, or disclosed to all the other members of Presbytery. Fairness would require these letters about Michael and our church be made available also to us, but we have never been given a copy of them. In essence, there is no accountability for what is reported in these committee letters.
The leadership of Presbytery has consistently shown bad faith in their interactions with Michael.
First, they pressured the one dissenting member of the M&C who expressed support for Michael to distance himself from Michael so that he would be isolated. They told this member that they wanted to create a uniform block of opposition and that this member’s support for Michael would be “confusing.” They then engaged in petty slights against this member in reprisal.
Second, at their May 5 meeting, when they held Michael’s membership, Presbytery justified their action by stating that it was for the purpose of “seeking reconciliation” with Michael. They even set aside $2,000 in funds for this purpose. Michael was very glad to participate, but he soon discovered that what they meant by “reconciliation” was threatening him and trying to shut down Imago. When that failed, they lost all interest in reconciliation, even though Michael has brought it up several times, including at the Oct. 6 meeting.
Since that final Presbytery meeting, Michael has had numerous positive interactions and conversations with rank-and-file members of Presbytery. Many have expressed gladness and support for Michael’s ministry. But no one in the leadership of Presbytery has reached out to Michael or shown any kind of pastoral care or follow up. In PCA polity, Presbytery was technically Michael’s “church.” But the leadership has only shown Michael enmity, vindictiveness, and rejection.
Michael is not alone in this treatment he received from the leaders of Presbytery. We know of several other cases where a member of Presbytery was treated with enmity and disdain, bullied and cast out of Presbytery. Michael was not the first and he will almost certainly not be the last. This is a systemic problem in the NorCal Presbytery.
After stonewalling for more than 3 years, one elder recently agreed to do mediation with Michael. He said the other elders and the associate pastor would not participate, but he would be willing. Michael has explained to this elder why this would be insufficient. In their interactions with each other, whenever Michael brings up an issue, the elder would respond, “you should talk with all the elders about that” or “I can’t speak to that—it was a group decision. You need to talk with the whole group.” This pattern of deflection is not conducive to communication, and would be frustrating and fruitless for all parties. Thus, Michael has and continues to reiterate his invitation to all the elders for mediation.
I am greatly indebted to Dr. Diane Langberg for giving me words and categories to understand the nature of spiritual abuse through her book, Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church.
She defines spiritual abuse as “spirituality being misused to damage a person created in the image of God,” and “using the sacred to harm or deceive the soul of the other.” She elaborates, “When we use God’s sacred Word in a way that harms another, commanding them to do wrong, manipulating them, deceiving them, or humiliating them we have spiritually abused them. We tell them, ‘God says,’ but we don’t reflect the character of the God whose words we use. We twist God’s word in order to coerce and to manipulate. Jesus’s strongest rebukes were for those religious leaders who used the words of God to crush and control.”
The elders, with the support of the M&C committee, commanded Michael to resign, and accused him of unrepentant sin when he asked for reconciliation and mediation. They used their positions of authority to crush and control us. They threatened and silenced me. They demanded power that did not rightly belong to them and denounced Michael for, as Langberg described in a case in her book, “insubordination, for an inability to submit to the church’s order of authority, and because he was deemed full of pride.”
Langberg goes on to reveal the further implications of spiritual abuse: “Though many may not recognize this, the church spiritually abused everyone in the congregation. The name of God, the Word of God, and the authority of God were used to silence accusations and attempts to expose darkness. The congregation was deceived and confused.”
The elders and the M&C used “the power tools of deception, intimidation, condemnation, manipulation, and isolation” to get their desired outcome and manage the ensuing crisis. “Those in power did all they could to silence the truth.”