Dear Rick (MacInnes),
Sometimes a question mark is just a question mark which marks a question. I didn’t know if you are moderator yet or to whom the email was going. Your response to simple punctuation seems to underscore a certain level of distrust between two camps. And this background paranoia is not as unilateral as many would want to believe.We both know that you are of capable intellect and do not have difficulty comprehending the process. However, I feel the majority of the Council has difficulty having a truly unbiased approach. To clarify, the Tri Faith “issue” is not my primary concern. My concern is a financial one. I see no reason to spend what will likely be an enormous amount of money on a location at 132 and Pacific when we could do more good with programs and functions that address Tri Faith in our current albeit less fancy, less snobbish location. Eric’s letter is packed with enthusiasm for all of the amazing, positive and growing programs that are currently carried out from our humble church. In building a magnificent new church to publicly show, in grandiose fashion, our forward thinking, are we glorifying God or ourselves?
Even if we get money from foundations to build, which will inevitably happen, will these foundations pay for ongoing costs? We can’t ever seem to get enough money. I was quite surprised to learn that I am stingy and have short-sighted fear (re: Eric’s letter) I especially appreciated being lumped into the divisive and exclusionary “these folks”. This is the term Eric used to describe those who should not be approached in anger by “we” (the church members who agree with Eric). It is very clear that “these folks” are not thought of as true church members. I believed our church was opening and welcoming to all, apparently with the condition that one must first be in agreement with management. As far as I am concerned, let those members who want the Tri Faith campus go. I, with the rest of “these folks”, will wish them well and pray that their mission to expand Countryside’s reach to the community is successful. Just let Countryside remain where it is. After all, according to the letter, its programs are growing!
I always love the power of statistical manipulation. You cannot tell me that 69% of the congregation authorized this. Be honest and say 69% of those present did. What is the exact percentage of the total membership? I would also be curious to see the breakdown based on average number of years at Countryside. We may not even know our total membership anymore; have you been to Church of the Cross to see our members there? “These folks” are members without a church they call home. Do you remember when holiday services were so packed we needed to put up folding chairs in the entry? Do you remember when we were not harangued from the pulpit for being stingy? (a 34 year old member asked me why every time she comes the church is asking for money) We have trouble right here in River City and no amount of ignoring it will make it go away. That is actually a misstatement. People like me have been ignored and have left so I guess ignoring does work. If you create a congregation composed solely of those who agree with you by making others feel unwelcome, you can certainly get a lot accomplished and make yourself feel better because of the high level of support. In science this is referred to as selection bias. In this case, by making sure to let established members know month after month that they are: bigoted, homophobic, islamophobic, stingy, unable or unwilling to see a changing America, you have successfully driven many off and provided a sufficient level of bias necessary to push any agenda.
The vote will pass, many will move with the church, I, like many, will find another church but by golly Harvard, local and international media will know us by our name. Glory be to God? “Jan Papenfuss
acountrysider 