Mike Royal's Letter To Mike Braun

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[DrSam]

Also added:
Letter From Michael Royal to Pastor Mike Braun
There was also a Jim McCotter related newspaper article that was linked incorrectly that has been fixed:
The Mysterious Citizen On Sale Now

Folks,

I wish Mike Royal a great life in Christ. At the same time I was never aware of this letter to Mike Braun. I personally consider it insulting and disrespectful to have sent it to Mike Braun with the purpose to misrepresent what I was part of in Gainesville, FL. Though I never approved of how Mr. Victor Legra was treated by elders left behind (I was at that point part of the Wash., D.C. work) it does not give Mike Royal the right to misrepresent my character and my friendship with Mike Braun. Mike Royal had absolutely no idea what kind of relationship we had with Pastor Mike Braun. We considered him a great friend and a wise fellow clergy. We did activities with him. We had him speak to masses of students on the U. of Florida campus when one of the greatest pro-life activities took place. It went on national media. We were honored to have had such a good working relationship with Pastor Braun. Like Pastor Braun, I was the product of a great seminary and also lauded him for his Th.M. degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Today one of my graduate degrees is from Trinity. Also, Mr. Victor Legra is a very good friend of mine. I have his cell number on my phone.

Mike Royal in that letter deliberately characterized me as sneaky and untruthful. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. He also implied me to be elitist which again is the farthest thing from the truth about me and easily corrected by talking to me. I was one who enthusiastically endorsed the weakness paper, especially on the elitist points.

If I were to sit in front of Mike Royal today, I would want him to understand this mischaracterization as well as other intentional attempts to frame me in the context of ridicule. I would hope that Mike at this point of his life would see that playing these games are a just a way for the ego to feed on the juice of victimization and superiority. I would hope that he has surpassed this and gone on the be positively proactive.

Here is another example of many where the disgruntled and hurt ex-GCxers cross some lines of integrity and show their vendetta and bias. Those of you who know me know that I have been on the leadership side and on the hurt side... and I say there is the healed and joyous side eventually where a person can truly bless the persons who hurt them. That does not excuse the abuse but it is the goal of total healing and a measurable index of wholeness. That is my wish for those of you still processing your hurts.

[Linda]

Sam, Where were you mentioned in that letter? It was long and I am busy, so I only skimmed it a couple times, but I didn't think it was about you? Did I miss something?

[DrSam]

Sam, Where were you mentioned in that letter? It was long and I am busy, so I only skimmed it a couple times, but I didn't think it was about you? Did I miss something?

My name was mentioned several times in connection with "Campus Bible Church/Gator Christian Life." Then Mike Royal goes on to set up a case for Rev. Mike Braun, a good friend, to distrust me and my fellow leaders. I consider that slanderous, divisive, and character assassination. Again, this is a case of sloppy research (a la Jerry McDonald) encased in a lot of data to sometimes create straw men and vilify them. Larry Pile wanted heads on a platter and even dared to quote scripture on that. See what I mean? You can use scripture, data, events, and then try to destroy a person looking legitimate to those you present your obfuscated information. The ego is very sophisticated. It can dress up in Bible jargon and documentation in order to justify victimization. In the end it is pure and unadulterated narcissism. It happens all the time almost everywhere you look, even on this blog.

[Linda]

Oh, now I see it. I had only skimmed that letter a couple days ago and didn't see your name. Then, I skimmed it again late last night and missed you again. When I have more time I will read the full thing now that you have called attention to your name being in it to see if I can understand your point. I really wasn't sure who the pastor was, but had heard of Mike Royal before in conjunction with several excommunications. I thought he took some blame himself in that letter for actions he had taken and regretted. That was the part of the letter I noted.

Hope you have a great Christmas.

[puff of purple smoke]

Sam, he only mentions you once, when explaining his past involvement with GC and ISU. All he says is:

With regard to Sam Lopez in particular, I was his former elder at Bethany Bible Chapel in Winona Lake, Indiana where we were students together at Grave Theological Seminary.

This letter, according to the date, was sent at a time when McCotter was in the movement, GC was excommunicating people, and others were leaving damaged and in need of fellowship. He explains this in the letter. As I further understand it, Mike is explaining the situation to the pastor, including his past involvement in GC, and then laying out the specifics of what he sees are troubling issues in GC at that moment. Apparently, as the letter states, because "Victor Legra, a member of the group until recently, sought my help and counsel in order to leave the group without being excommunicated." Perhaps Victor Legra was considering moving to the E Free church.

You disagree obviously, but given what we know about that time period in GC history, I would say Mike Royal had a good reason to set up "a case for Rev. Mike Braun, a good friend, to distrust [you] and [your] fellow leaders." You and your fellow leaders (Jim McCotter) didn't exactly deserve trust during that time period, as GC was doing some terrible things to its members.

[saved]

Mike Royal in that letter deliberately characterized me as sneaky and untruthful. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. He also implied me to be elitist which again is the farthest thing from the truth about me and easily corrected by talking to me. I was one who enthusiastically endorsed the weakness paper, especially on the elitist points.

Hi Sam!  I met you years ago (although I doubt you'd remember me), and I'd have to agree that you are definitely NOT sneaky, and that you are a truthful, humble, and faithful brother.  Anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't know you are is a troublemaking liar.

I am delighted to learn you have your doctorate and think that's very cool.  Me allegre mucho aprenderle.

I went back and read the letter... it sounds to me like a very accurate depiction of what GCx was like in 1984.  If I understand correctly, you were not then a leader yet?  He mentions you by name... that is, that he knew you before.  Then he spends most of the letter describing the movement, its problems, and particularly the problems caused by Jim.  Then, at the very end, he mentions the leadership there, saying:

If you interview the local leaders, as I hope you will, do not expect them to confirm the things I have said. They play very loose with truth (I know from experience) and are sincerely convinced that to be "wise as serpents" in the answers they give, permits them, not only, not to give the whole truth, but even to misrepresent the truth. They would never say it, but, they operate on the principal that "the ends justify the means", because they are the only ones truly obedient to God.

Now, if you were part of the leadership when this letter was written (84? 85?) then you are included in this accusation.  But if you weren't raised yet, but merely a member, then you are not.  Even if you were, you are not being singled out but included with all of the leaders together.

Frankly, I think the letter was well written, and a good summary of the issues and problems of GCx.  One part in particular:

marriages that are approved by the elders among people that might not have compatibility beyond the goals of the group;

I know of such a marriage... they're still limping along.  They've found a lot of God's grace (because He is sovereign after all) but it's been a long, hard row to hoe.

[DrSam]

Nice to meet you (again) "Saved"! Thank you for standing up for me and sharing who you know me as. It is appreciated.

I am one of the founding pastors of the church Mike Royal refers to. By then I had been a pastor for some years. In Mike Royal asking Pastor Mike Braun to distrust and be careful with the sneakiness of the pastors of the Gainesville church he was, in my opinion, slandering and misrepresenting me, plus causing division in a pastoral friendship that was cultivated for some years. Somehow, few see how the disgruntle folks might be guilty of what they accuse GC of. I believe both sides are guilty.

[saved]

Nice to meet you (again) "Saved"! Thank you for standing up for me and sharing who you know me as. It is appreciated.

well, it's always awkward to stand up for oneself...

I am one of the founding pastors of the church Mike Royal refers to. By then I had been a pastor for some years. In Mike Royal asking Pastor Mike Braun to distrust and be careful with the sneakiness of the pastors of the Gainesville church he was, in my opinion, slandering and misrepresenting me, plus causing division in a pastoral friendship that was cultivated for some years. Somehow, few see how the disgruntle folks might be guilty of what they accuse GC of. I believe both sides are guilty.

Apparently this letter is from 1985.  Just for clarity sake, would you mind telling what year the church was founded, what year you became a pastor, and any other years that might help me get the chronology straight?

Until recently I was completely unaware that GC had a history of spiritual abuse.  Now I am reading this forum and saying, "hmmm... that explains a lot!"  My personal experience at GC was mostly positive, but that's because I was fortunate to spend most of my time there in an awesome church which had a minimal amount of the issues described.  I started out at a different GC church, though, rife with the type of abuses described on this site.  Had the newer church not been planted I would never have stayed with GC as long as I did... I'd have been gone much, much sooner, and on much less pleasant terms.  (We left mainly because we had moved and the commute had gotten too long.)

As it was, reading this forum has helped me to put some of my experiences in perspective.  I am not bitter, nor angry.  I didn't even realize I had anything to forgive, and I hold nothing against any of the brothers, sisters, or elders for the few things they did that hurt me... I guess I forgave them long ago.  

So, from what I hope is a relatively objective standpoint, I maintain that this seems to be a well-written letter predominantly warning against Jim McCotter and the abuses that resulted.  

Realistically, if you had been approached in 1985 by someone who said, "your church is practically a cult" wouldn't you have been defensive?  If they said, "people who disagree with Jim McCotter get booted" would you have agreed with them or tried to sluff it off?  If they said, "people who leave feel awful and need help adjusting" would you have wanted to hear that?

You yourself are an honest, faithful brother.  Is it not possible, however, that you were caught up in the movement along with the rest of us?  I am not saying you would have lied to someone who asked, but rather suggesting that perhaps you (as many of us) lied to yourself, or at least preferred to see things one way instead of another.

Just a thought...

[DrSam]

Apparently this letter is from 1985.  Just for clarity sake, would you mind telling what year the church was founded, what year you became a pastor, and any other years that might help me get the chronology straight?

If my neurons serve me right the church was started about 1980-81. My wife would know but she is not here now to ask her.

So, from what I hope is a relatively objective standpoint, I maintain that this seems to be a well-written letter predominantly warning against Jim McCotter and the abuses that resulted.

If Royal would have stayed just on that I would not have a problem with it. It is when he generalizes and then names me in order to be distrustful of and seen as sneaky and deceptive. I believe Mike Royal crossed a line there. If I were to say that of him, Pile, and Martin, then I would be looked as questionable here. These guys can hurl all the dirt they want and get away with it and no one questions their motives and their sloppy research at times. It is disproportionate and the rules get changed for them. On top of that Mike Royal drove a wedge in a friendship with Pastor Braun that took years to build. How would he like me to write a letter to his friends where I throw out innuendos about him and portray him as a slanderous, vendetta driven man? Again, I hope that Mike Royal is doing much better these days and could sit down with me and have a coffee in order to transcend these earthly and often ego-driven matters.

Realistically, if you had been approached in 1985 by someone who said, "your church is practically a cult" wouldn't you have been defensive?  

Yes, I would of. I would ask them what are their definition of a cult and what specifically do they see in our church that shows that to them. I would address it.

If they said, "people who disagree with Jim McCotter get booted" would you have agreed with them or tried to sluff it off?  If they said, "people who leave feel awful and need help adjusting" would you have wanted to hear that?

No one wants to hear negative input, right or wrong. Again, I would ask specifically why were they "booted? I booted one guy that was stalking a girl in our church. If you have a pedophile? Do you boot him/her? I would hope so and have them get help. Immorality that is unrepentant and arrogant, etc.? Or Aggressive narcissistic divisive spirit that is specifically designed and motivated to destroy the church? These are all difficult things that all pastors have to battle with regardless of whether they are in GC.

You yourself are an honest, faithful brother.  Is it not possible, however, that you were caught up in the movement along with the rest of us?  I am not saying you would have lied to someone who asked, but rather suggesting that perhaps you (as many of us) lied to yourself, or at least preferred to see things one way instead of another.

Yes, of course, it is always possible. You are speaking about self-deception, which every person has. See my article on the Johari Window at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/07/08/the-johari-window/

[Linda]

If you have a pedophile? Do you boot him/her? I would hope so and have them get help. Immorality that is unrepentant and arrogant, etc.? Or Aggressive narcissistic divisive spirit that is specifically designed and motivated to destroy the church?

When someone is involved in a specific sin that is an action (adultery, fornication, theft, murder) and is unrepentant, it is the duty of the church to discipline that person.

I have a lot of trouble transferring that idea to the "sins" where someone's motives or heart are being judged. Only God can make a tree and only God can judge a heart.

Narcissism, a divisive spirit, determining someone is out to destroy a church are things that can not possibly be known by any human being. If someone is lying about an elder, there is a specific issue that can be confronted. If someone is speaking the truth they should do it is love, but even what defines doing it in love is something no one can judge.

If someone was stalking someone, I would like to think that you, Sam, did not boot anyone, but that the final "boot" was done according to Matthew 18 with the alleged "stalker" being given an opportunity to give his side in front of the assembled church and that the "boot" came from the entire congregation.

[TerryD]

First, let me add my compliments to the chef here for the new menus and  material on gcxweb.org. This stuff will be tremendously helpful to people (parents particularly) who right now are nervously googling about their kids' involvement in a GCx college group. Even the very old stuff is remarkable in its consistency with what many of us observed in recent years and is important in identifying the DNA of this group.

The Mike Royal letter (link) from 1985 describes the beginnings an essential sectarianism, divisiveness and authoritarianism still alive and well in Great Commission and still a threat to the spiritual health of some young adults in particular. His assessment was realistic, I think:

While we do not have a heresy like "another Gospel," these are serious charges, and if true, constitute serious dangers for Christian young people, who unwittingly might attend Bible meetings on a secular university campus that would lead them to cut ties with families and home churches.

I've always thought that the most vulnerable to the appeal of high-control/high demand groups are young men; and I have some sympathy for young guys whose mix of idealism and neediness gets them drawn into the vortex of what amounts to, as much as anything else, a "cult of leadership." Frequently their young wives and families end up feeling the pressure and paying the higher price. Older, mature Christians can these days quite often exist in the normal fringes of these churches and remain largely unscathed.

One of the legacies for me has been a fascination with the whole category—"Galatian" churches, high control Christian groups in general. In following another one with many parallels to GCx, I came across this assessment of that group from a wise ex-member:

When my children call it a cult, I wince, and I don't want it to be so. And indeed there may be narrow stream of purity being produced, but the harm and the cost and the bondage to many is simply too unkind.

And sadly, among GCx people there is that stream of genuine, Godly people, many of whom I still know and love. Nevertheless, one feels compelled to point to the truth about the organization, its history and its dangers, and this website is now a more valuable resource than ever.

The other quote that came to mind in reading Royal's letter:

The man who craves disciples and wants followers is always more or less of a charlatan. The man of genuine worth and insight wants to be himself; and he wants others to be themselves, also. —Elbert Green Hubbard

[EverAStudent]

Narcissism, a divisive spirit, determining someone is out to destroy a church are things that can not possibly be known by any human being. If someone is lying about an elder, there is a specific issue that can be confronted. If someone is speaking the truth they should do it is love, but even what defines doing it in love is something no one can judge.

Quite correct, Linda.  I was once accused by our elders of having a divisive spirit because I brought my daughter to church.  

It came about like this: At one time, in consultation with the "national leaders" our elders unilaterally decided that our church's public worship services would now be off limits to children under five years old (coincidently the age of the senior elder's son).  Since the church was trying to build its college student base, they did not want young children distracting (or offending) the college students!  So the children of the flock were unwelcome.  Based on Luke 18, my wife and I continued to bring our "under age" daughter.  She was quite the hit with the college girls.  But the elders accused me (not my wife) of being factious, factious for obeying Luke 18.  sigh...  Shortly thereafter, the "national leaders" imposed 64 in 84, and I began to realize that this happened because of the wordly spirit of desperation regarding quotas and growth that was imposed by the "national leaders."  

Use of charges of faction are so easily leveled by a GC mind to silence those who are being wronged by leadership.  It is a weapon to mute the cries of the wounded.  I dare say, I have not yet talked with any GC leader, especially a "national leader," who understands what that passage actually mens when it talks of factious men.

[DrSam]

If you have a pedophile? Do you boot him/her? I would hope so and have them get help. Immorality that is unrepentant and arrogant, etc.? Or Aggressive narcissistic divisive spirit that is specifically designed and motivated to destroy the church?

When someone is involved in a specific sin that is an action (adultery, fornication, theft, murder) and is unrepentant, it is the duty of the church to discipline that person.

I have a lot of trouble transferring that idea to the "sins" where someone's motives or heart are being judged. Only God can make a tree and only God can judge a heart.

Narcissism, a divisive spirit, determining someone is out to destroy a church are things that can not possibly be known by any human being.

With all due respect, I totally disagree. I don't think you understand the signs of narcissism. See my article at PsychCentral: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/04/how-to-spot-a-narcissist/

In the case of a person hellbent and narcissistically determined to divide and destroy a church... the evidence is in the fruit of destruction of relationships in the church.


If someone is lying about an elder, there is a specific issue that can be confronted. If someone is speaking the truth they should do it is love, but even what defines doing it in love is something no one can judge.

Yes, I agree to a point. I think that actions and fruit are what you work with.[/size]

If someone was stalking someone, I would like to think that you, Sam, did not boot anyone, but that the final "boot" was done according to Matthew 18 with the alleged "stalker" being given an opportunity to give his side in front of the assembled church and that the "boot" came from the entire congregation.

I understand what you are saying and that may imply in some cases. The case I am referring is to a real case where a non-member came to a church for months and was stalking a lady he was obsessed with.

[Linda]

With all due respect, I totally disagree. I don't think you understand the signs of narcissism. See my article at PsychCentral: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/04/how-to-spot-a-narcissist/

In the case of a person hellbent and narcissisticly determined to divide and destroy a church... the evidence is in the fruit of destruction of relationships in the church.

This quote was attributed to me, but I didn't say it. I think Sam was commenting on my post.

There is no way any human being can make the judgment that someone is "hellbent and narcissisticly determined to divide". This was a major problem for GC leaders and seems to still be. You can judge actions for what they are. You can not judge the motives behind an action. You can speculate on the motives, but you can never know.

When you begin to judge motives, you get people being excommunicated for "faction" or, my personal favorite "party making" (I love a good party!) for saying things like "unity matters, but truth is more important". BT said this and since it differed from what McCotter believed, BT was judged as being factious and given the boot. Watch out for people who judge motives.

I understand what you are saying and that may imply in some cases. The case I am referring is to a real case where a non-member came to a church for months and was stalking a lady he was obsessed with.

Stalking is a frightening thing. Another frightening thing is elders out of control. My point is that the alleged stalker, deserved "his day in court" which for church members is being brought in front of the whole congregation. Why do people think this is a humiliating thing? Don't you think Bill Taylor would have liked to have a chance to present his case before the assembled group? What if (not saying it happened) someone made up a story about a guy stalking. Or, what if he just happened to be in the same hallway a few times. My point is, elders do not have biblical authority to kick people out. The congregation does. So, I hope in the case of the stalker, he was able to present his case in front of the group and the group gave him the boot. Not a person.

[DrSam]

With all due respect, I totally disagree. I don't think you understand the signs of narcissism. See my article at PsychCentral: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/04/how-to-spot-a-narcissist/

In the case of a person hellbent and narcissisticly determined to divide and destroy a church... the evidence is in the fruit of destruction of relationships in the church.

This quote was attributed to me, but I didn't say it. I think Sam was commenting on my post.

There is no way any human being can make the judgment that someone is "hellbent and narcissisticly determined to divide". This was a major problem for GC leaders and seems to still be. You can judge actions for what they are. You can not judge the motives behind an action. You can speculate on the motives, but you can never know.

I disagree with you. This is part of my profession. There is evidential information that needs to be found, which in surfaces or is in plain sight that can show the motives of the heart. There are words said. People hurt and separated. Evasion. Games of denial, etc., etc. How do you know the motives of your children? Intuition that is confirmable by facts and actions. Then you have eye witnesses...

When you begin to judge motives, you get people being excommunicated for "faction" or, my personal favorite "party making" (I love a good party!) for saying things like "unity matters, but truth is more important". BT said this and since it differed from what McCotter believed, BT was judged as being factious and given the boot. Watch out for people who judge motives.

I understand what you are saying and that may imply in some cases. The case I am referring is to a real case where a non-member came to a church for months and was stalking a lady he was obsessed with.

Stalking is a frightening thing. Another frightening thing is elders out of control. My point is that the alleged stalker, deserved "his day in court" which for church members is being brought in front of the whole congregation. Why do people think this is a humiliating thing? Don't you think Bill Taylor would have liked to have a chance to present his case before the assembled group? What if (not saying it happened) someone made up a story about a guy stalking. Or, what if he just happened to be in the same hallway a few times. My point is, elders do not have biblical authority to kick people out. The congregation does. So, I hope in the case of the stalker, he was able to present his case in front of the group and the group gave him the boot. Not a person.

I respect your view. If you hold to congregational rule then you have a point. If you hold to pastoral/elder rule then your view does not stand. I see elements in scripture of both.

Also, I differentiate the sins of slander from the sins of immorality and from generic sins. I personally believe there are different formulae in scripture to follow depending on what are the issues. You don't put a slanderer in front of a church to smoothly play the congregation. A good slanderer is like butter and can slide and talk sweet. Scripture alludes to that also. I would not use Matt. 18 for slanderers. Of course, this is a point of contention with Pile and Co. Just the theology with a different theology. I respect that but disagree. I don't think it is good exegesis.

[/color]

[Linda]

Sam,

ONCE AND FOR ALL, I DO NOT HOLD TO A CONGREGATIONAL VIEW BY THE GC DEFINITION WHICH IS NOT CONGREGATIONAL BY THE DEFINITION OF THE REST OF THE WORLD

I believe in elder rule.

The way the presbyterian (elder rule) goes in the presbyterian church is:

The congregation (everyone has a different gift and is needed) chooses the elders.

Because of this, elders are accountable to the local church.

Also, elders are part of the local presbytery. So, they are accountable up the chain as well as down. When you are dealing with human beings you need as much accountability as possible.

I believe that in the presbyterian church, removal would be by the board of elders. However, keep in mind that this board has been chosen by the gathered believers and are accountable to them, each other, the local presbytery, and God.

I have never heard of a church where the congregation votes on everything.

Congregational means that the local church is not part of a denomination.
It does not mean that the congregation votes for everything.
My GC church was a congregational church with self appointed elders.

I gotta run, but slander is saying something false about someone and thus harming them. Anyone can speak smoothy and deceive. More later.

[DrSam]

Sam,

ONCE AND FOR ALL, I DO NOT HOLD TO A CONGREGATIONAL VIEW BY THE GC DEFINITION WHICH IS NOT CONGREGATIONAL BY THE DEFINITION OF THE REST OF THE WORLD

Did I just sense a lightning bolt hit close to me? :lol:

[Linda]

I put it in red as my little way of saying "Merry Christmas!"

Seriously, I have a really hard time with the way that GC has redefined terms and perpetuate misinformation via the GCLI teaching. I have posted here numerous times about the way they are misinformed in the area of church government, yet can't seem to get my point across. I thought the all bold and red might do the trick. I guess not! Ha!

[saved]

I have never heard of a church where the congregation votes on everything.

The Southern Baptist Church we attended did.  Every month there was a congregational meeting, second Thursday (even when it fell on Valentine's Day).  They voted on everything.  It was a rubber stamp, really, but if you wanted to be an assistant Sunday School teacher, you were voted on.  Helper for VBS?  Voted on.  Whether or not to renovate the piano?  Buy or lease a fancy copy machine?  

It was awful.

And every month they'd have to pull teeth to get a quorum (unless something juicy was in the works).  It might have been easier to do if their quorum was reduced by recalculating their membership.  That is, if they had purged their rolls of members who had moved or gone to another church, but then their numbers would have looked bad to the regional and national people.

And yet, the pastor was spending money that the treasurer didn't think he should (inviting speakers, then taking them out to lunch with not only the two of them, but his entire, extended family as well, for example) and somehow that didn't need approved.  And once voted in, petty dictators occasionally arose in their area, hording and guarding their budget against incursions.  Ugh.

Everyone needs accountability.  And the more power one has, the more one needs real, substantial, extensive accountability from both above and below.

[Linda]

Many churches have quarterly business meetings where they vote on a number of things. The elder led churches that I have been a member of include Presbyterian, CMA, and Covenant. They all had quarterly business meetings for the entire congregation.

The congregation voted mostly on staff and the operating budget for the year. Also, this was the time for the election of elders and deacons. This included voting on the pastor's salary. Everyone knew and approved what he made and what his benefits were--this was done in all three churches I attended. The budget had been done by the elders, so the congregational vote was, as you say, mostly a rubber stamp, but a very important rubber stamp. It is not unusual, in my opinion, to have the congregation voting on staff positions and the overall budget. Nor, would it be unusual for them to meet to authorize a vote for a purchase that would be outside the planned budget.

For example, if the approved budget for "office supplies" was $1,000, there would not be a vote every time someone in the office needed to buy a ream of paper. There might be a vote if the computer died and they had to spend $2,000 to replace it.

The church you mentioned, however, sounds like an odd mix, since the pastor seemed to be able to do what he wanted.

My point is that even in this case where the congregation voted, it is not a congregational church. Congregational means an independent church, not part of a denomination. It does not mean a church where the congregation votes on everything.

A church can be an elder led congregational church. Evergreen Community Church is an elder led congregational church (or at least they claim to be independent--not part of a denomination and if that is true, they are congregational)