Perspective(s) and an Uncomfortable Either/Or Situation

Somebody mentioned still having problems accessing posts at the TalkBCC Forum. I am still having trouble accessing them too. I am receiving the posts via e-mail, though, so I will continue posting some forum messages on the blog.

Here is another follow-up from Rod Frank.

Most of us who know BCC know it primarly from what we see on Sundays
which is personified by Dave Foster. David has truely touched many
of us in deep ways by his astonishing and unique ability to make
Christ's teachings relevant. But this is not the complete BCC.

There are two perspectives that frame the issue that were summarized
by someone at the session last night. One perspective is we have a
church led by a gifted teacher supported by an advisory board. The
other is we have a church board that bears the full responsibility
and liability for all aspects of the church who employ a lead
pastor. Our conflicted emotions and the root of the differences
between both "sides" fall from these two perspectives.

The By-Laws that govern BCC were written by Dave Foster when BCC was
set up as a non-profit entity. (These By-Laws are promised to
appear on the BCC website eminately so you can read them for
yourself.) What we've been told that Dave wrote in these By-Laws,
and I believe this, is that BCC is to be governed by a group of
people initially appointed by Dave that will have dual roles as a
board of directors and as a board of elders. This board bears full
responsibilty for BCC and that responsibilty includes liability for
the church's legal and financial obligations.

The By-Laws answer the first of my four questions:
1) Is the board legitimate?
2) Why did they take this action?
3) Why now?
4) Why in this way?

An answer to the second question is truely complex and you need to
attend a session to fully vette the reasons. An important point is
that Dave Foster first approached the board to advise them that he
intended to leave BCC to become the lead pastor at a church in
Austin TX 18 months ago. Dave decided not to go to Austin, but a
former board member stated later in the discussion that this was not
the first time Dave presented the board with a letter of
resignation. Ironically, at the beginning of this, Dave wanted to
leave BCC and the board took every possible action to keep him here.

Why now? The short answer is that now is the time that all
negotiations failed over the terms of Dave's transition from BCC.
According to the evidence presented by the board members, which
includes letters of understanding, offers of a separation contract,
counter offers from Foster and back and forth, the board sought a
way to make the transition honorable and dignified. A longer answer
involves a judgement of how long of a time BCC could survive in the
status quo.

And to, Why this way? Sadly, I am at a loss to fully explain this
and it is too easy to criticize it in hindsight. I can only say
that I wish it hadn't happened this way, especially at a worship
service. The board says that given the failure of prior
negotiations they were hoping that Dave would take the path of
resignation rather than termination and gave him every opportunity
to do so. They didn't come to the church earlier with this because
that would effectively choose a less dignified route for Dave. In
the end, though, this is exactly what happened and this resulted in
quite a lot of very hurt and confused BCCers. I object most that
this was done during a scheduled time of worship when seekers and
guests were present expecting inspired teaching and uplifting
musical praise.

Notwithstanding my objection to the venue of the announcment, it's
important to emphasise that Dave Foster chose termination. He was
given the choice to resign or be terminated after a long series of
truely win-win propositions that he rejected. He chose the
termination. Being able to claim (correctly) that he was fired
combined with the apparently suddenness of the action by the board,
certainly creates in most minds a great deal of sympathy for Dave's
situation.

We see now that this was not a sudden action. When the details of
the entire timeline are laid out, we see the difficult situation the
church was in and the board needed to take action. I conclude that
as disruptive and unsettling as this has been, that it was the right
thing to do.

The standout theme of Rod's post here is that this was no rash decision on the part of the elders. I know it feels that way to a congregation that had no idea this was going on and just learned of it, but this is a result and culmination of many months of attempted reconciliation and negotiation. It seems clear to me that getting Dr. Foster to leave was not the initial aim of the elder board.

I do want to highlight something else. This quote:

An important point is that Dave Foster first approached the board to advise them that he intended to leave BCC to become the lead pastor at a church in
Austin TX 18 months ago. Dave decided not to go to Austin, but a
former board member stated later in the discussion that this was not
the first time Dave presented the board with a letter of resignation. Ironically, at the beginning of this, Dave wanted to leave BCC and the board took every possible action to keep him here.

This is a very important point. At the service I attended Sunday (8:30), the statement Richard McKinney read made two claims of fact: 1) that a representative of the board approach the Fosters privately to express concerns, and 2) the Fosters abruptly quit BCC during that initial meeting. At the Red Caboose Park rally I attended (immediately after the 8:30 service), Dr. Foster made two claims of fact: 1) none of the elders ever approached him privately to talk about this "operational issue", and 2) he never quit BCC or wanted to quit BCC.

I am very uncomfortable even stating the obvious here, but I cannot sugarcoat it. Somebody is lying.
I suppose it is theoretically possible to massage the meanings of "quit" and "wanted to" and perhaps the "operational issue" each is speaking of is something different. But do we want to get into "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" territory? I hope not.

Either Dr. Foster (wanted to) quit BCC or he didn't. If the former is true, he is not being truthful. If the latter is true, the elders are not.

I am told the elders/staff have an extensive paper trail documenting these developments over the last year+. Not wanting to be accusatory, and not having seen this documentation myself (that comes tonight, I guess), I will leave the conclusion open for the time being.

Peace.