Park Street Church 2014
“There are two kinds of people: those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there.” Indira Gandhi
- I did not speak to Ben Ray. I was told he wanted to be left out of this discussion, and I decided not to press the point. The information in this post is derived from other sources.
- I left a phone message asking Pastor Booker to provide evidence of his Oxford degrees. I said I would devote a post to this if his credentials are what he claims. I stand by my promise to do so. Indeed, this whole process would have been silly if he could have quickly confirmed his information. It would give me joy to do so.
Mark Booker’s CV as presented to PSC
This is purportedly what was presented to the Search Committee of PSC when Pastor Booker threw his hat into the ring. The following is a link to the entire Search Committee Report.
I have taken a screenshot of the section relevant to this post.
Pastor Mark Booker and the founding of the Church of the Cross versus Ben Ray, founder of the church community called Boston Anglican Mission.
Yesterday, I spoke at length with a person intimately involved in this Church’s founding. There are good reasons for this person to remain anonymous. They told me that Ben Ray was the one who started that Church in his own home back when it was called the Boston Anglican Mission in 2008. At the time, he was working on his MDiv from Gordon Conwell. The following is what was said in our conversation.
- Ben started the Church in his home, which increased in size. It was called the Boston Anglican Mission.
- It was becoming a success, and the Anglican group AMIA decided that it would need a pastor.
- Ben could not be a pastor since he had yet to complete his Master of Divinity, and they wanted someone with that degree for that position. (Did Mark Booker meet the qualification, given what we now know?)
- Ben was not ordained as of that time.
- Ben was only 25.
- The powers that be decided that they would call Mark Booker to lead that growing community.
- The Church became known as the Church of the Cross.
- Anonymous told me they were told that Mark Booker was working on his Ph.D. dissertation. They were unaware that he had “declined” to pursue the degree.
- Over time, Ben’s name disappeared from the history of the Church. Instead, Mark Booker would be known as the one who started this church plant.
- Ben Rey was fired.
Ben’s name disappears from Church of the Cross history, and Mark Booker now takes the title of “Church Planter (see above CV)”
One of my greatest joys as I write the blog is having long-term readers who want to check out the story. So, instead of me telling what was discovered, let me show the readers what long-time reader ‘Erp” found, which seems to indicate that Ben was removed from the story. I believe this corroborates the narrative of anonymous
An accusation has been made about the early history of the Church of the Cross and Booker. Using the wayback machine the history page as of January 2010
“We began in September 2008 with a vision to be a church community where we could follow Jesus and his kingdom vision, without reservation, and be a welcoming place for those who were investigating the person and work of Jesus. Our first formal gatherings, led by Ben Rey and a fellow seminarian, were evening prayer services in a home on Green Street in Jamaica Plain. These twice-a-month evening prayer services transitioned to twice-a-month communion services early in 2009 as the Rev. Mark Booker discerned, with the core team that God had assembled in Boston and the leadership of the Northeast Network (see Global & Local page), the call to move to Boston with his wife and three children to shepherd this community.
“During the first half of 2009, we continued building existing relationships and forming new ones through our formal worship gatherings but also through many informal gatherings, including a weekly women’s Bible study, visits to art shows, parties, BBQs, service projects, camping trips, and regular prayer gatherings.
“We began weekly worship services on September 13, 2009, and formed our first neighborhood groups in the fall of 2009. Our community and mission continues to be formed and shaped around regular worship, prayer and meeting together.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100123190736/http://www.cotcboston.org/History.html
The leadership page from the same time lists Booker and Rey (Rey just having completed his MDiv from Gordon-Conwell
Later pages no longer have Rey on leadership though the history still has him up to at least 2013.The next page in 2015 has
“We began in September 2008 with a vision to be a church community where we could follow Jesus and his kingdom vision, without reservation, and be a welcoming place for those who were investigating the person and work of Jesus. Our first formal gatherings, led by two seminarians, were evening prayer services in a home on Green Street in Jamaica Plain. These twice-a-month evening prayer services transitioned to twice-a-month communion services early in 2009 as the Rev. Mark Booker discerned, with the core team that God had assembled in Boston and the leadership of the regional network, the call to move to Boston with his wife and family to shepherd this community.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150125055445/http://www.cotcboston.org/history.html
The change might be nothing else than someone not knowing why Rey was explicitly mentioned (note the other seminarian was never named).
My anonymous friend sent me this blurb introducing Mark to PSC. Note their highlight…
So Ben’s name is gone, and Mark Booker is now the church planter, according to his CV and other materials. Maybe Booker is taking credit for changing the name from the Boston Anglican Mission to the Church of the Cross. But it seems to me that Ben, with the help of his friend Jamaal, did the hard work of starting it from scratch.
(I think it is essential for people to understand that nothing that hits the internet ever really disappears unless one uses some sophisticated measures to ensure deletion.)
Proof that Ben Rey started this Church and should be called the “church planter” of the Church of the CRoss.
I have heard from other individuals that Ben Rey was an exceptionally gifted church planter. Here is a thoughtful write-up entitled: ANOTHER CHURCH IN BOSTON IS BORN. Ben Rey, a former EGC staff member, is helping to launch a new church.
“Before I started worshipping in an Anglican church, I thought being Anglican just meant being white. What I came to realize was that there’s a huge social justice background in the Anglican church that can get lost,” Jamaal says. “ e rich liturgy and prayers are straight out of the Bible and have stood the test of time, and we wanted to make those our roots, but also see if we can change the face of what it means to be Anglican.”
Similarly, Ben was looking for ways to maintain his Anglican identity in an urban context, and felt that others were also looking for the kind of church he and Jamaal had been envisioning. “ rough conversations with non-Christians all over the city—in co eeshops, in the nonpro t world—I saw how many people were hungry for church and for liturgy but didn’t feel like there was anywhere they could go,” Ben says. In the next months, the two received the approval needed from the Right Reverend addeus Rockwell Barnum, Missionary Bishop of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, to start BAM. More people con rmed what Ben and Jamaal had envisioned, expressing that there was a denite need for a ministry like BAM.
By September, news of BAM had been passed around by word of mouth and through the Internet, and while Ben and Jamaal didn’t expect anyone to come to their rst meeting on September 7, they were surprised when 10 people—eight of whom they’d never met before—joined them that evening.
Throughout the fall of 2008, God continued to send people, with almost 30 attending BAM’s h meeting in November. So far, the group mainly consists of people between 20 and 35 years old with higher education degrees and from a church background (most, but not all, with an Anglican background). ere are a couple of families with kids less than ve years old.
In February 2009, the Church of the Resurrection made the following announcement.
The following flyer was shared with me. Ben Rey wrote it. He stayed on as an assistant pastor until Mark Booker fired him. If anyone has information about Jamaal, I would appreciate learning what happened with him.
At the end of this post, I have included an email written by a former Church of the Cross member to the leaders at PSC upon the hiring of Mark Booker. There is also the response of one of the leaders whose name has been deleted out of kindness. His response reminds me of Princess Catherine’s reaction to Prince Harry’s tell-all. “Recollections may vary.” I wonder, was this information shared with the congregation? Or is the Church now elder-led?
Christianity Today highlights some of the serious problems at PSC.
Daniel Silliman penned an eye-opening look at PSC in Park Street Divided: Congregation Asked to End Conflict with a Vote. I received a comment at TWW in which the individual claimed that seeking to see the pastor’s credentials was absurd. I was stymied. I have asked for the credentials of potential hires in my former role as a nurse supervisor. Can one imagine hiring a person to care for a critically ill person who didn’t have the training to do so? I view the role of the pastor as, among other things, dealing with the critical emotional and spiritual needs of those seeking help. Are spiritual and emotional needs any less vital to the one seeking solace? Recently, I asked my pastors to help me as I made end-of-life decisions for my mother. They skillfully helped me navigate the difficult questions that I needed to address. Of course I would want to know if my pastors had the training, including the understanding of Scripture and the faith, to help me and others. Is not the spirit as crucial as the physical? I know my current pastors’ backgrounds. Do you know yours?
PSC has been discussed on social media. I included this tweet by someone I don’t know.
Is PSC leaving congregationalism behind, seeking a guidance-based, elder-led model?
The conflict has also strained the congregational model of governance long prized at Park Street—and may have actually broken it.
“I hope this is a warning to congregational churches: You are vulnerable,” said one current staff member who spoke to CT on the condition that he not be named for fear he would lose his job. “You trust the senior minister will not take advantage of the authority of the position. But what happens when they do? I don’t think there are adequate checks and balances.”
Park Street once listed “congregationalism” as one of its three essential characteristics, along with Trinitarianism and evangelicalism. Members must “covenant to continue … in the congregational form of church government” to join.
I have seen elder-led churches all over the country. I have spoken to many people in such churches as far away as Scotland and Australia. It seems like the more power a group of people get, the more they enjoy it and begin to think they are brighter or more spiritual and gifted than those who aren’t elders. For example, how many mail deliverers and plumbers are elected to elder boards? Weren’t some of the original Apostles mere fishermen and probably uneducated? Instead, elders tend to be well-off businesspeople, attorneys, etc. and all are usually socially connected. Those folks may know how to run a company, but the Church is not a business. We need to stop treating it like one.
As one person said to CT:
“That sounded like what we wanted,” said one lay leader who started attending Park Street in the 1990s. “Not authoritarian. Not top-down. But something where we were a church family—the people help with the decision-making process and have more ownership.”
Did Booker’s Anglican background influence him to become more authoritarian?
“That’s what we asked for. That’s what we prayed for,” a church member told CT. “I think perhaps because of Mark’s Anglican background, he’s more authoritarian and more used to top-down decisions. It’s a bad fit for us, but we didn’t screen it out.”
…It wasn’t that unusual for Park Street to have a minister who wasn’t previously a congregationalist, though. Several previous pastors, including Ockenga, were Presbyterians. But some of those who worked closely with Booker say his approach to leadership was different.
“He came in and he had a need for control,” said one member of the church staff. “I think the accurate term is authoritarianism.”
Booker decided he would preach at all three weekly services. He put his name on a church devotional, even though he hadn’t written it. He marginalized the ministers with the most experience and pushed out associate minister Kris Perkins, who had worked for the church for 24 years. Booker presented the departure as Perkins’s idea, but it later came out he’d told Perkins he had to leave.
According to his critics, Booker made it clear that he could fire anyone who disagreed with him, creating a “culture of fear” as staff members worried about who might be next.
To be fair, some disagreed with this.
“I loved working with Mark Booker—as does the majority of the staff,” Caitlin Lubinski, former communications director, told CT. “He is grounded in the Word of God, has devoted his life to the ministry and sacrificial care of others, and is deeply thoughtful in how he goes about doing that.”
Reds Flag alert: Booker changed the decision-making process when he arrived.
My 15 years of experience have helped me in dealing with everything from church conflicts to abuse. When rapid changes are made, one can be sure there’s a new sheriff in town and things in the Church will go downhill. In many seminaries, professors teach that the first year should be a time of listening and learning. Few changes should be made quickly. There is one group that disagrees with this, and that is the hyper-authoritarian crowd, as seen in Together for the Gospel and the New Calvinists. They advise changing things quickly before people notice what is happening. They couch it in nice-sounding gospel language, however. Folks, no matter what happens, listen to this. If quick changes are happening, there will be serious problems. Follow what is happening to Chapel Hill Bible Church as a recent example.
Booker’s critics point out, however, that he started making changes to the church’s decision-making process almost as soon as he took charge. One of his first moves was to end a senior leadership team. Previously, longtime staff members including Michael Balboni, Kris Perkins, and Julian Linnell had worked together with the senior minister to navigate major ministry issues and the regular weekly schedule of events. Booker discontinued these meetings.
When the elder board doesn’t listen to the congregation, problems will immediately occur.
The senior minister then took the plan to the board of elders for approval. When the elders asked how the staff felt about the change, Booker said the staff supported it but wanted to make a few changes—“tweaks.”
“He didn’t accurately represent the views in the room,” a church leader said. “He has a vision for the church, and any discussion is opposition and any opposition is neutralized.”
The elders voted to approve the cancellation of the 4 p.m. service in May 2023. The decision caused an uproar—and raised heated questions about the process. About a month later, in June 2023, the elders reversed the decision.
Red Flags for PSC: At this time, there appear to be two deceptions in Mark Booker’s CV, as well as concerns about the job longevity of pastors/ministers who work under him.
- He has not released his credentials to the PSC membership.
- He claims to have planted the Church of the Cross in 2009. He might say that he was speaking about COC, not the BAM. If so, it would appear that he is playing a semantics game. At the minimum, it did not sound sufficiently grateful to Pastor Rey. Pastor Rey started it.
- Mark Booker appears to be comfortable with firing pastors, including those who have helped him in his career. He fired Pastor Rey, who started the Church that became the Church of the Cross. Then, he reportedly fired three pastors at PSC: Michael Balboni, Kris Perkins, and Kimberly Morrison. As a now outsider, I have to ask a difficult question. Does he perceive these pastors (and others) to be a threat to him in some fashion?
- Now, five ministers have said they do not affirm Booker’s leadership. Uh oh! Are they saying, “We all see a wolf dressed in shepherd’s clothes?”
- Why haven’t the concerns outlined in Michael Balboni’s letter been addressed? Was he just one more pastor that Pastor Booker wanted to fire? If I were there, I’d insist Pastor Booker and the elders explain this. That is what a church member who loves the Church does.
Finally…
- This vote is essential.
- Ask why you, a mere tithe-paying church member, can’t see Pastor Booker’s credentials.
- Ask why so many pastors have been fired, have left the Church or will not affirm they support Pastor Booker.
- Talk to the pastors who have been fired and hear what they have to say.
- Ask why there are current ministers who have expressed concern.
- Ask if any elders see the red flags. If not, why not?
- Don’t be dumb sheep. Ask intelligent questions. Keep those shepherds on their toes.
- If you are afraid to ask questions, ask why. Good pastors are transparent and patiently answer those questions. They don’t instill fear.
- Being submissive doesn’t mean you have to let your Church be turned inside out. Sometimes, you are called to be brave.
- Pray always.
Please feel free to comment on the blog or send me private questions (with confidentiality guaranteed) to dee@thewartburgwatch.com
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020
Subject: Mark BookerI’m not a PSC member anymore… but I still get some Park Street emails.I’ve been disturbed since I saw Mark Booker described as having planted the Church of the Cross.He didn’t. Church of the Cross started off as Boston Anglican Mission meeting in Ben Rey’s living room while he was in seminary at Gordon-Conwell’s Roxbury campus… I think Ben was working with a partner at least at the beginning and I don’t remember the partner’s name. Ben was in the right place at the right time and this filled a niche and it took off. They were looking for larger meeting spaces in short order and by the time Ben was about to graduate in 2009 the name shifted to Church of the Cross. Ben had been expecting to end up pastoring this himself, that’s generally how church planting works, but since it took off so well (attracting 60-80 people each week) the bishop (Thad Barnum? Thad Bynum? something like that) thought it was important to bring in a more experienced priest. That was Mark Booker.I am 100% positive of this. I saw it myself.So then Ben was Mark’s associate and then shortly after Benwas ordained a priest himself Mark pushed him out. I don’t know why Mark and Ben parted ways. Multiple sides to every story. There could be all sorts of reasons and at the end of the day that sort of thing is the rector’s job, however unpleasant. But it seemed a very messy situation.Mark came in at an early stage and under his leadership this new congregation has grown and become more established and is in solid shape 10 years later. That is a great thing. But when one person starts with a half dozen people in his living room and grows it to congregation size within a couple years and then another person comes in and takes it to the next level, to describe the second person as the “planter” seems just flatly wrong. That’s not how the word is used.And when he describes himself as having “planted” Church of the Cross, when someone else started it in his living room and Mark came in a couple years later when it was already a going concern, well to me that makes it more plausible that pushing out the person who started the church was problematic.Maybe you have all discussed this at length and I’m making way too much over some phrasing. Resumes are generally not the place to downgrade one’s accomplishments. And I’m sure everyone would rather gouge their eyes out with spoons than have yet another complication after all this time. But I thought I needed to say something and you were the right person to bring it to. Better now than next week.I really hope I’m wrong and this is the beginning of a great new chapter for Park Street. I know the last few years have been grueling.
Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2020
Subject: Re: Mark BookerGood to hear from you.Yes, we delved deeply into his relationship with Ben and the beginnings of CotC. We spoke with references (some who Mark gave and others we asked his permission to speak with) who talked of the initial beginnings of CotC and what happened to the relationship between Mark and Ben. I even spoke with Mark’s Bishop (Steven Breedlove) regarding Mark and the history of CotC.There are certainly different narratives around what happened that we became aware of. However, everyone we spoke with, especially those we asked Mark’s permission to speak with, stated that Mark handled himself honorably and tried very hard to bridge the gap that developed between Ben and he. Mark stated that looking back on those events he says he would probably have handled things differently, but at the time he tried to handle things in a way to bring unity, but it did not happen. And it was complicated by the fact that they lived very close to each other in Jamaica Plain.All members of the committee were satisfied with how Mark shared this story and with the stories of the references relating to those early years. Mark was deeply hurt by the events in 2009 as was Ben.Hopefully I will see you on Sunday.Blessings.
As they say in my neck of the woods “Something smells fishy”
The subcommittee of elders who investigated Michael’s spirtual abuse claim against Mark should not have done so. They do not know the first thing about what spiritual abuse is and is not. The Luna’s have written numerous detail letters about what spiritual abuse. The elders have failed to respond to them. That speaks volumes to what is really going on at psc
Wow, that last email exchange is awfully deceptive. The church representative acknowledges conflict, but not the allegation itself. This is also only days before the Feb 2 meeting where we voted for Mark, which in the bulletin noted that he planted CotC.
“Ben could not be a pastor since he had yet to complete his Master of Divinity, and they wanted someone with that degree for that position. (Did Mark Booker meet the qualification, given what we now know?)”
I suspect the actual requirements were for an ACNA/Anglican Mission recognized priest or failing that an MDiv who was ready for ordination. Booker was already a priest (ordained April 2006). A question might be whether he met the requirements for Anglican Mission ordination in 2006 (and what requirements did they have, note the ACNA did not yet exist in 2006).
Then there is “Master of Arts, Theology, first class” 2001-2003
We do have from 2003 from Oxford Theology
https://web.archive.org/web/20030818182134/http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/pg/pgcourse.shtml
“Another option for those who have already been awarded a first degree (in whatever subject) is to study the undergraduate Theology course as a ‘Senior Status’ student, completing the course in two years rather than the normal three. Although from the perspective of Oxford this is an undergradate[sic] course, potential students should note that the degree which eventually results from the course is an MA.”
Which is literally true, however, misleading. I wonder whether Oxford Theology was deceiving potential non-UK students about what exactly an Oxford MA is. However the students can then put that MA on their CVs and potentially mislead readers.
Note his Master of Studies in Theology is a fully legit masters under US understanding. The title of his thesis “The use of the fear of the lord in Paul and the background of the Jewish wisdom tradition” suggests a concentration in New Testament studies which nowadays would mean knowing Koine Greek well at least by the end (and almost certainly did back when he took the course). The bit about Jewish wisdom tradition might also suggest Hebrew.
I note he does seem to have been an excellent student. The Bellingrath fellowship seems to be a quite generous one offered only to the top students at Rhodes. However, being an excellent student doesn’t necessarily mean being an excellent pastor.
(The Bellingrath search also led me down the rabbit hole of finding out about the Bellingraths, a wealthy Alabama couple. Mrs Bellingrath who died in 1948 apparently had a reputation of quiet generosity with her money to those in need and her own servants while still preserving their pride. One small item was, despite being a devout Presbyterian, she sent flowers weekly to the local Catholic hospital to be placed in the rooms of those who had none from family or friends. Search on Bellingrath gardens for more info.)
If my memory serves me correctly, the history of Mars Hill church, with respect to its early days, also “changed” before Mars Hill imploded…
The primary issues are a combination of authoritarianism and deception/virtue. The authoritarianism was alarmingly addressed in the CT article. The deception/virtue was laid out in the Balboni memo. Dee is highlighting how Booker has done all this before in his prior church by kicking people out and lying, as demonstrated on his CV.
At this point, none of these issues have been addressed by Mark or the elders. The responses have been to discredit anyone who speaks out. I’m hearing Mark’s defenders discredit Daniel Silliman, who from what I can tell, he has zero at stake in simply writing about what he is observing. Now five of the most influential ministers in the church have spoken out, without specifying why. Those five have a lot to lose for speaking out, and the congregation will need to know the reasons for their public non-affirmation. They concluded that the VOCA report was another authoritarian maneuver in order to control the narrative to protect Mark.
The Balboni memo, the petitioner’s requests, the silence on the CV have been met with silence, power plays, and discrediting. But we are not receiving facts and they have not yet allowed public discussion.
Then last night, a majority of the church staff said that they supported Mark. The letter seems to have thrown in everyone possible, but the difference between the five ministers and Balboni is that most of those people who signed are not ministers. Most of them do not see how the sausage is being made. That leaves four ministers affirming Mark, two of whom are very junior. We should also note that this letter placed inordinate pressure on some of the staff, who could not risk signing, as they cannot afford to lose their jobs. So I sense that this placed staff in an impossible position of needing to choose publicly whose ‘side’ they are on. I’m sure many who signed are sincere. However, the social pressure to sign makes me sad for at least some who likely did so because they could not afford to lose their health insurance, etc.
It seems to me that the bottom-line is that Mark Booker is a highly divisive figure. Six ministers who have worked with him, who have a lot to lose themselves, have spoken against him. There is so much fog around him, even if many of us who are not directly involved cannot be sure how to evaluate all the facts, I cannot see how it is worth to continue to back him. On the other hand, there are now six ministers who have gone on record to allege a lack of confidence in Booker. The first brought direct charges of lying and abuses of power, which now 1000s of people around the country have read online, and the elders have to address these allegations openly and fairly. The other five have not explained why they cannot affirm Booker, but it is not hard to imagine, and now they have little choice but to openly explain.
I feel badly for the elders, who have tried to cover over these matters, but are now complicit because none have spoken out. After Mark leaves, I see no way forward without the entire board of elders stepping down and being removed.
It is ugly, sad, and distressing. We all need to pray that the Lord himself speaks and acts in a way that brings unity, against a shadowy figure who has divided the church, and against a group of elders who appear to have defended an abuser, perhaps with the desire to protect their institution, but at the cost of destroying victims. You cannot do that and expect God not to see.
Religious knowledge does not equal a heart for ministry. Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. Delivering an articulate sermon on Sunday does not pastor to folks through the week. Where the rubber meets the road, hurting people don’t care how much a pastor knows – they want to see how much he loves.
Has anyone seen the musical, “The Music Man” recently? Mark Booker is a spitting image of the confidence man Harold Hall.
How Long, Lord?,
Could you stick to using one name while posting? Each time you change your name, email, etc. it throws you comment into modertaion. That makes more work for us behind the scenes. I know you didn’t know, so don’t worry about it, but choose one name and stick to it. Thanks.
This is the mistake that many elders boards make. They believe they are qualified to judge spiritual abuse since, of course, they are elders and part of the spiritual elite. In so doing, they cause more pain in a church already in crisis. They need to call in a third-party real investigation to see what’s going on.
This was beautiful. Thanks, Erp.
Now that Mark’s performance is found on Google Page One, he will fight harder to keep his job since it is possible that he would have hard time finding another job. At the bare minimum, they will insist on seeing his credentials.
When all this started, Dee said she nearly jumped out of her pew and shouted “Amen” after hearing Mark Booker’s sermon, such was the effect it had on her. Fast forward a couple of weeks and a concerted TWW campaign begins to influence and possibly help some disgruntled members remove Mark Booker from the ministry at PSC. Questions are raised about his academic qualifications for the post (he’s not clever enough, like Mr Balboni, who preaches like he writes books – that is, not very good in my opinion. -Yes I made a point of listening to some of his sermons while his young fan club hung over the balcony!). Others suggest academic qualifications don’t guarantee a fruitful ministry.
You can’t have it both ways and even if you could, you have absolutely no right to interfere in the governance of a church of which you are not a member.
I looked at some of my notes – Mr Booker lived in Kansas 8years, Colorado Springs, attending non-denominational churches. He had an awakening in high school and attended Rhodes College, Memphis. He worked as a guide and then program director, white water rafting, for a few years. Then off to Oxford and obtained academic qualifications when Alistair McGrath and Michael Green were in residence. (Around the same time, acquaintances of mine took up professorships in the Theology department). Then back to Jackson where he was a teaching intern and deacon. Then to Church of the Resurrection, Capitol Hill, then to Boston circa 2009 before PSC in 2020. He saw PSC as a “big tent” church with room for diversity and said that post-covid, the church was operating at 50% and he explained why he’d stopped the 4pm service – to bring everyone together in the morning service. He saw the church as a place where the Gospel is preached and read; that it is a Community; that it is Mission oriented; where there is corporate worship and that it is “invitational and exemplary, not judgmental”.
It will be a shame if such a man is removed from this ministry because of the prejudicial actions of TWW in supporting a vocal minority with an agenda.
dee,
Let me add an example of what can happen to this. Years ago, I attended an Anglican church for a short time. While there, I saw the husband of my kid’s former teacher carrying a coffee pot past the children’s center. That was a problem. He had just gotten out of jail and had a many-year history of pedophilia. When I spoke to the pastor., he blew it off and became angry with us. We left, but I wrote about it when I started the blog @2009. I followed this for years, and he was finally thrown out of the church.
Fast forward to a couple of years ago. A staff person from that church approached me. He told me people were still asking about the pedophile as well as asking if the church was safe to attend.
The church had fired that pastor, finally. he had many other problems and caused many issues.
The internet is forever.
Rather than quote Rev Griffin again, here is what Spurgeon says
“ “But I certify you, brethren that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.” Galatians 1:11.
TO me it is a pitiful sight to see Paul defending himself as an apostle, and doing this, not against the gainsaying world, but against cold-hearted members of the church. They said that he was not truly an apostle, for he had not seen the Lord, and they uttered a great many other things derogatory to him. To maintain his claim to the apostleship, he was driven to commence his epistles with, “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ,” though his work was a self-evident proof of his call. If, after God has blessed us to the conversion of many, some of these should raise a question as to our call to the ministry, we may count it a fiery trial, but we shall not conclude that a strange thing has happened to us. There is much more room to question our call to the ministry than to cast a doubt upon Paul’s apostleship. This indignity, if it is put upon us, we can cheerfully bear for our Master’s sake. We need not wonder, dear brethren, if our ministry should be the subject of attack, because this has been the lot of those who have gone before us, and we should lack one great seal of our acceptance with God if we did not receive the unconscious homage of enmity which is always paid to the faithful by the ungodly world. When the devil is not trou- bled by us, he does not trouble us. If his kingdom is not shaken, he will not care about us or our work, but will let us enjoy inglorious ease. Be comforted by the experience of the apostle of the Gentiles; he is peculiarly our apostle, and we may regard his experience as a type of what we may expect while we la- bor among the Gentiles of our own day”
As we sumo fans are finding out this week. (Sumo is the ancient national sport of Japan. The modern national sport is baseball.) One of the up and coming rikishi (wrestler, and he was quite good) was asked to retire at age 22 after it became clear that he had been bullying his juniors in the beya (“sumo stable”). The harassment and beatings were bad; what was worse was that the oyakata (master / coach) of the beya probably knew about this but had not been living at the beya, which is kind of an expectation of oyakata. This particular oyakata, now named Miyagino, and formerly known as Hakuho, is the undeniable GOAT of Japanese sumo. He won 45 Emperor’s Cups over his years in sumo. But it doesn’t appear that his undeniable sumo wrestling talent is transferring over to coaching. The elders of the Japan Sumo Association demoted him to the lowest level of oyakata and have installed someone else to supervise the sumo at his beya.
(Not mentioned: Hakuho is Mongolian, but he is a naturalized Japanese citizen. However, the elders of the JSA HEAVILY resent him, and he knows it. He should have been walking upright and keeping his nose clean, but then this happens. As much as I loved Hakuho as a rikishi and yokozuna–top class sumo wrestler–I have to wonder if maybe he shouldn’t be in coaching. Just My Opinion as an outsider. Hopefully all can take some lessons out of the current controversy in an obscure sport. I know I have.)
Oh yeah, did anyone bother to call up the college in Oxford where Mark is supposed to have gotten his degree from? I remember an English Scientology picketing bud telling me a story back in the 1990s that it was possible to convert one’s BA to a MA after a few years upon payment of a fee and “Bob’s yer uncle.” He had to explain that to me–“it’s a done deal.” I still find that mind-boggling, but just mentioning that here: is it possible that’s what Mark did?
Your comment was not unexpected. Yes. I judged early on by listening to one sermon which had sounded somewhat familiar to me.
Unlike some, I am open to changing my limited point of view. So I did. I had someone on the inside reach out to me. This person liked both Mark Booker and Michael Balboni’s sermons. They didn’t know them, nor did they participate in church programs. They asked me to figure out what was going on as a personal favor.
I planned to write about the situation based on Pastor Booker’s letter at the end of the year. Given that I investigate things, I contacted the petition folks online. They did not respond to me, but others did. I am an advocate for those who have experienced hurt in their churches. Since you spend so much time reading here, that should be no surprise to you.
I have read, prayed, discussed, and come to a conclusion. It is not absurd to ask for someone’s credentials. I have always checked on those as I have traveled throughout the great evangelical wilderness. My CV and my husband’s CV mean something to me. Please check them out (I bet you may have already done so). Telling the truth and dealing transparently are values we hold dear. I am surprised that it seems relatively meaningless to you. Oh well. This is something I see frequently.
As for Dr Balboni’s sermons, my husband would disagree with you. He overheard me listening to a sermon while working. He was impressed and plans to submit his name to address a meeting of health professionals for next year. I haven’t told him if he is reading this, but I felt you should know how one highly trained professional viewed his sermon.
I know you do not appreciate the polity of a Congregational church. The Calvinist perspective (or Reformed or whatever you call it) loves control. I respect that, but I would never attend such a church. My Lutheran church, despite having only two elders the pastors, is one of the most inclusive churches I have ever attended. It is LCMS, so don’t blow a gasket.
I want Park Street to continue to be the Park Street that has been a shining light in the historical evangelical circles. I want it to hold on to its statements of faith. I want to see the congregation involved. There are many expressions of the faith, and Park Street has been one of the most influential churches throughout history. It is the place where I learned how to live out my Christian life. A little bit of that is seen here in this blog.
So understand: honesty, transparency, and a vital and loving church are my bottom line. I see very little of it at this time. I saw a tremendous amount of it when I was there. May it turn back to what it used to be.
Lowlandseer,
PS The dude seems to fire lots of pastors around him….
Sumoe???? Muslin who is also an official Daighter of Stan, you never fail to suprise me. Thanks for the comment.
“a fee and”Bob’s yer uncle???” LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Congregational polity is one of three major forms of local church governance. It is worth protecting by those who are committed to it. PSC is the people’s church under the lordship of Christ, and the pastors are shepherds of the flock—committed to feeding and protecting and leading. Shepherds do not rule the sheep.
“Guidance giving” leadership is a euphemism for centralized decision-making, with decisions made by one person and expected to be endorsed by others.
Quoting from the Christianity Today article, “People are supposed to submit to church leaders, but in a congregationalist church, the Lunas [former deacons] explained, submission is predicated on consent.
“The church has turned away from such practices,” they wrote, “with leadership expecting submission without providing for the real opportunity to first obtain consent.”
Sounds like a good summation, although it doesn’t sound like the “church” has turned away from those practices. It sounds more like the elders and Booker have.
That is exactly how Oxford (and Cambridge) MAs work and have done for a long, long time (note the fee nowadays is nominal, I’m not sure whether this is because it hasn’t changed in centuries and inflation took care of it or whether it always has been nominal). Getting the MA does come with a few privileges within the university though far fewer than there use to be (some of these privileges could be useful for PhD or other postgraduate students still studying at the university since they haven’t yet got a PhD with its associated privileges). Note other Oxbridge Masters degrees such as his Master of Studies degree do require actual work.
It is also possible he thought he was caught in a trap because of how one is suppose to represent the change in status from BA to MA at least according to New College (established 1379 so not that new), Oxford
“In Oxford (as in Cambridge), the status of Master of Arts is a mark of seniority within the University which may be conferred 21 terms after matriculation. Please note the Oxford MA is about reaching a new status within the University and not an upgrade of your BA or an additional qualification. It therefore has no subject or class, and the nominals ‘MA’ should be represented in place of, not in addition to, the ‘BA’ in the holder’s signature and on documents such as CVs.”
https://www.new.ox.ac.uk/oxford-ma-0
which seems to state that he has to list his MA instead of BA. A closer reading seems to indicate that if he does so he cannot list subject or class so
“Master of Arts, Theology, first class”
on his CV is the wrong form. It should be
“Bachelor of Arts, Theology, first class”
if he wants to indicate his subject and how well he did (the ‘first class’)
with maybe a note somewhere that the BA had a status change to MA in 2008 or whenever given that he has used the MA(oxon.) at times. I do note there is conflicting advice out there some of which could lead to him putting down what he did on his cv. What he hasn’t done is admit to the confusion caused.
Note btw that degrees are given by Oxford University; Queen’s College is where he lived and probably had his tutor in the subject though lectures and exams would be by the university.
The system is weird. For instance a Cambridge Bachelor of Divinity is a graduate degree (in other words you must already have a BA) and requires a “significant contribution” to the field.
https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2018/chapter07-section4.html#heading2-22
I’ve been having similar thoughts. Thinking in terms of a spectrum of leadership styles, one could speak of “consensus discerning” at the least authoritarian end of the spectrum, with “consensus seeking” and “consensus shaping” in the middle, and “consent manipulation” and “consent-forcing” toward the authoritarian end of the spectrum.
I’ve been in a number of congregations where the style approached “consent-forcing”, and it did not end well.
Re-imagining history, if the intent was to change the leadership style of a group that for a long time had explicitly been of congregational polity, it would have been most compatible with the spirit of the polity to propose this change to the congregation and proceed only if the change were approved by a majority of the membership. Perhaps an instance of “right decision, poor implementation”?
One of the advantages, IMO, of the styles at the “left” of the spectrum, is that they are more protective of the unity of the group, at the cost of slower decisions when the group consensus is unformed or otherwise is not clearly discernible.
—
TWW at one time had a frequent commenter who was, IIRC, knowledgeable about organizational dynamics. Where has he been? I hope he is well.
Booker was ordained and trained at the Church of the Resurrection – DC under Dan Clare, who continues to be under investigation for spiritual abuse. It’s an incredibly messy situation.
If a person started as a pastor under someone whose “leadership” hurt people, it stands to reason that person might use the same type of “leadership” elsewhere.
This was worth a repeat to make sure everyone is aware of this. Sadly, the Anglicans (US) seem to be going the way of authoritarianism and “rules” like “Submit to me without question.”
Mark Booker mentioned in 2011 description of toxic Anglican ‘ultra Reformed’ wing out of Washington, DC:
https://imonk.blog/2011/12/14/the-amia-leaves-rwanda-what-happened/#comment-174868
“Creeping authoritarianism” produces authoritarian creeps … who are not worthy of the title “Pastor”
How Long, Lord?,
Thank you. I completely agree with your perspective.
I’ve noticed that Park Street Booker loyalists complaining about the CT article and/or Dee’s blogposts are awfully thin on specifics.
Their pushback ranges from some version of “This is unfair coverage,” to “It’s unseemly to have our dirty laundry aired in public,” to “It’s complicated.”
dee,
IMHO, it’s a failure of the disciplinary system that allows authoritarianism to spread. Abuse of power is prohibited in the ACNA; however, getting any official discipline on such behavior is challenging.
It certainly appears that this is a long-standing pattern of Brooks, that, imo, could be characterized as “self-righteous creation of schism.”
I found the post itself instructive, but didn’t find Booker mentioned until I did a specific search for it.
Quoting from the Christianity Today article: “People are supposed to submit to church leaders, but in a congregationalist church, the Lunas [former deacons] explained, submission is predicated on consent.
“The church has turned away from such practices,” they wrote, “with leadership expecting submission without providing for the real opportunity to first obtain consent.” ”
and
“You trust the senior minister will not take advantage of the authority of the position. But what happens when they do? I don’t think there are adequate checks and balances.” [a staff member wishing to remain unnamed for fear of losing his job]
Though Booker has only been there 3 years, that is plenty of time to have worked behind the scenes to consolidate support. I hope it is not too late for PSC, but there are some patterns that could serve as warning to other churches.
Churches hiring new pastors should take steps beforehand to prevent a takeover by someone intending to “reform” your church polity. You cannot rely on the norms, trust, and goodwill that have been part of your congregation. You cannot rely on every candidate to be forthcoming with his intentions. (Park Street Church was quite a prize.) So put the guardrails in place beforehand. If you have come to rely on respect for certain norms, make sure those are instead spelled out in your constitution and bylaws. Get a written contract with the incoming pastor that specifies his agreement to your polity. Don’t just screen for that. Make him sign on the dotted line.
Most of the warning signs will take place behind the scenes, but congregants should be aware of the first *public* warning signs. If people you previously respected and thought well of resign from positions of leadership, that is a big red flag that the newcomer is consolidating his support base and getting rid of people who threaten his status as top dog. (3 John 9-11)
Every church hiring a new pastor should have leaders and congregants read books such as “When Narcissism Comes to Church” and “Bully Pulpit.” Too often, red flag behavior behind the scenes is explained away by “inexperience” and people “give grace” when they should be strengthening accountability because others don’t recognize the pattern until it’s too late.
In corporate America, there are top executives who got there by eliminating rivals along the way. It shouldn’t be that way in church.
Another poor decision by the elders to require them to do this. This is not how to deal with these matters in the Body of Christ. There is only one ‘side’ to be on … but Jesus doesn’t appear to be engaged in this drama – why would He be?
Pastor search committees can’t sort this out when candidates are not honest with them. The SBC has been taken over by the New Calvinists through stealth and deception … some pastoral candidates out and out lied to search committees in order to gain a pulpit for the glory of the new reformation.
Max,
Forced conformity / loyalty to Booker and PSC leadership is not the way of Jesus. Sad that this even has to be said.
It seems not to occur to anyone in current PSC leadership to do actual pastoring to the petitioners, to try to understand where they’re coming from, to listen & learn from them, etc.
True, and you certainly won’t detect deception if you’re not looking for it. Since most people trust pastors, they don’t have their radars turned However, most deceivers tend to give evasive answers if asked a direct question rather than outright lying. There is no 100% guarantee against being fooled by charm and “God talk.”
In PSC account, it appears the pastor search committee didn’t screen for a candidate’s belief in congregational polity. In the account Dee wrote some years back of Andy Davis’s takeover at 1st Baptist Church, he acknowledges in his later account that he knew there was a significant flaw in the polity of the church that I would have to address…” There is no indication that he let the church who was calling him know.
The possibility that you could be fooled is why it’s important for churches to get things clearly stated in a contract and in their constitution and bylaws.
Someone who has spent many hours with Mark sent me this.
Judge Mark by his actions, NOT by his words. Dozens of times I have heard Mark say “my heart is for….” and he says the right thing and he follows it by saying Biblically grounded Christ-like loving words. But there is consistent incongruence between Mark’s words and actions. So do not be deceived.
You will know them by their fruit … not their words.
The problem with deception is that you don’t know you are deceived because you are deceived.
Sadly, the authority and influence of Jesus is waning in the American church … the current situation at PSC is just one example of that. Authoritarians do not consult Jesus … they are on their own … guided by the flesh, not the Spirit.
I *love* sumo. It’s so quintessentially Japanese. It’s very detailed and precise and fussy for a sport that involves two hulking men facing off in a ring. But it can also be very chauvinist. The sumo elders have not been happy that for the last three decades, a slight majority of the top sumo wrestlers (yokozuna) were not native Japanese. (Out of 10, four were Mongolian and the other two were from Hawai’i and American Samoa.) Women are not permitted anywhere within the sumo hierarchy, although the wives of oyakata (coaches) are expected to handle the inner workings of the sumo stable.
I’m sad that sumo might be dying out, though, with fewer late teenagers entering into the professional ranks. Some are actually going to universities first, bulking up and getting degrees before attempting professional status. The harassment and hazing has been a problem for a long time. At least people aren’t throwing matches, at least that we know of. (Why yes, there was a match fixing scandal in the early ’10s.)
So happy to have surprised you yet again, Dee!
For the life of me, I still cannot understand why otherwise intelligent and rational adults will willingly put themselves under these totalitarian regimes, even if it’s just on Sunday and a Bible study or two.
Always watch what they do, (anyone); regardless of what they say.
Reality.
If there are any former PSCers out there, last call! Please come back tomorrow.
Those of us who have decided to take a stand against PSC’s leadership have been constantly maligned as slanders, gossipers, malicious actors, and worse; a “vocal minority with an agenda” as Lowlandseer of this forum has declared us to be. Help us show our leadership that the minority isn’t so minor.
And to you, Lowlandseer. Have a thought for those you accuse. I presume you are a Christian as well. Why do you hurls insults at your brothers and sisters in this way? We have never intended ill for anyone, and every petitioner I know has prayed for our leaders, despite their attempts at browbeating us into silence.
Deception is not a Christian virtue, but a prime tactic of the enemy.
Lording it over others (authoritarianism) is not a Christian ministry style.
Schism and lack of concern for the unity of the church is the opposite of what Jesus desires and prays for.
Whatever happens at today’s annual meeting at PSC, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Galatians 5:6)—and that is what everyone should commit themselves to moving forward.
I’m a former PSC member. I voted in MB. I left on good terms with a letter of transfer because I moved away, not because I was unhappy or forced out. I’m currently an elder at my new (current) church.
Thank you for your reporting. The info is helpful (albeit not always presented in the most helpful way).
If I was voting today, I would vote against MB and for the alternative slate of elders. I believe he is a wolf (I don’t say that lightly), but I also believe he would not be able to act alone without the aid of other corrupt leaders. There is far too much secrecy. (I myself never even heard of the Personnel Committee, though I was there for 10 years)
I additional Red Flags (though perhaps mentioned in other comments):
1. The response to he missing credentials is not that he actually has them. There is trickery in the wording used. “[The Elders]provided counsel to me and received a letter from my academic advisor confirming the nature and rigor of my studies and a report from the chair of the Senior Minister Search Committee attesting that they were not concerned about my academic credentials. ” No where does it say he has the credentials. What is said is that his advisor confirmed the nature and rigor of his studies (not the same thing) and that the elders are not concerned about the credentials (not the same as they were satisfied that he had actually obtained them).
2. There have been now at least 3 petitions from the congregation for more information that have all been denied on technical grounds without sound basis in the bylaws of the church. I find it hard to understand why members of a congressional church are unable to call a special meeting, three times denied.
3. I am also deeply disturbed that members of the staff were recently asked to sign a letter of support affirming Booker’s leadership. Five of them did not. It takes a lot of courage to refuse your direct employer, especially one that is firing and pushing out dissenters.
4. The Nominating Committee is unable to support a (current!) elder up for re-election and a former elder who has faithfully served the church. At minimum, I would expect them to be respectfully silent in their dissent unless they could clearly articulate the reasons for their dissent. Instead they are using the “trust us, we know better” argument that seems to be the new “guidance” model of leadership at PSC, which in fact does not guide at all; it dictates.
By their own actions and lack there off the leadership of PSC is doing everything it can to squash your voices. When voting today, remember the word “Congregational” as you are a congregational church.
If leadership at a church control the people of God, it is no longer congregational.
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying there is nothing people can do to prevent themselves from being deceived?
“When they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king … listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.” (1 Samuel 8)
“And He gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul” (Psalm 106:15)
We have what we have in the 21st century church because churchgoers want it that way … doesn’t matter if it is not God’s will. Thus, we do church without God when ‘we’ pick leaders who have a touch of charisma and a gift of gab, who encourage our flesh rather than nourish our spirit. The American pulpit is full of men who know not God as they ought … when we submit ourselves to them, our souls grow lean.
My mother has been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In all likelihood, my brother also has this as well. Both my mother and brother are deceptive; they say all the right things, they will tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear (“itching ears”). My mother claims that she is honest, but she tells half-truths and in those half-truths, she leaves out critical details, so that you will draw the conclusions she wants you to draw and not the conclusions you would draw had you been presented with all the facts. In business, my brother has thrown people under the bus who have caught onto his antics. Neither my mother nor my mother are particularly ‘self-aware’.
An important lesson you learn in a family such as mine is this: Talk is cheap. Judge people not by what they say, but what they do and how they act. Mark Booker has clearly demonstrated that he will say the right things, but his actions are dreadfully inconsistent with what he says. This is NOT someone who can be trusted.
Do the right thing, reject the Board of Elders candidates and put Mark Booker on indefinite leave, pending termination of his employment.
I left Park Street Church because I saw a remarkable and disturbing similarity between Mark Booker’s behavior and that of my mother’s (and brother’s). Like my brother, Mark Booker was too charismatic for his own good. With someone like Mark Booker’s personality characteristics, I know to proceed with caution. I have seen the mischief that people high in narcissism can cause when they hold positions of authority, of leadership. I have seen charismatic leaders destroy companies, churches, communities and countries. I’m from Berkshire County; I’ve seen more than my fair share of cult leaders whose personalities, behaviors and acts are eerily similar to Mark Booker. I have seen the tremendous damage that these leaders do to their members and the community at large.
It’s important to remember that not all charismatic leaders are high in narcissism or suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
It is critical for the church to be extremely careful when considering calling a charismatic minister to the pulpit. This means: carefully performing a CEO level Due Diligence background check, performed by a private investigative firm that offers this service AND requiring that the candidate undergo a multi-day day senior pastoral suitability evaluation conducted by a team of experts that includes extensive, science-based psychological testing (must not include debunked but still popular tests Myer-Briggs Type Inventory, projective tests such as the Rorschach, etc.). The Center for Career Development and Ministry (https://ccdmin.org/) is not the only local organization that provides these services, but it is known for being thorough. Given what has been unearthed regarding Mark Booker, I highly doubt that he would have passed a professionally performed Due Diligence background check OR a carefully performed suitability evaluation.
As a member, when Mark Booker was presented as a candidate for Senior Minister, I had a responsibility to perform my own Due Diligence evaluation of him. Neither Mark Booker, the Senior Minister Search Committee, nor the Board of Elders supplied membership with Mark Booker’s CV. I was unable to properly evaluate whether Mark Booker’s suitability to be Senior Minister of Park Street Church. I was unable to perform my own Due Diligence background check. Whenever this happens, I now wonder what the candidate is hiding. (In Mark Booker’s case, his CV contained lies and half-truths, as shown in this blog.) However, I was able to listen to Mark Booker’s sermons. I thought Mark Booker was a lightweight–his sermons, although correct, were rather shallow, especially when compared to Rev. Dr Hugenberger’s, Rev Dr Balboni’s, Rev. Dr Kim’s and most of the other ministers at Park Street Church. I questioned whether Mark Booker was a ‘servant leader’–which is the leadership Jesus himself practiced, a leadership style someone who has strong narcissistic tendencies finds nearly impossible to follow, whether he was committed to the congregationalist approach to church governance
I am sad that Mark Booker done a good job of creating dissention within Park Street Church.
I am from Berkshire County, I have seen more than my fair share of cut leaders. Mark Booker is a wannabe cult leader and confidence man who has found a rich target ripe for picking: Park Street Church. If Mark Booker and his supporters are allowed to remain in leadership positions, Park Street Church will survive, but only as a stop on the Freedom Trail.
Those who continue to support Mark Booker and his ilk, after all of what has come out, will have to answer for the mischief Mark Booker has already done and the mischief to come. I’m afraid that Mark Booker wants to be a cult leader–and if not turned out today, he’ll solidify his control over Park Street Church and it will become more cult like. If that’s what the congregation that still remains wants, that’s what they’ll get.
The only way to detect the counterfeit is to know the genuine. Church folks become ensnared by deceivers in the pulpit when they don’t humble themselves, pray, repent, and seek God as they ought. The average churchgoer doesn’t discipline themselves to study the Word personally, doesn’t pray for guidance of the Holy Spirit, and doesn’t rely on Jesus daily in everything they do. Such folks are easy targets for deception because they have not developed an ability within their spirit to detect it. When we are prayerless, we are powerless … we can’t see red flags when they are flapping in the wind, can’t discern enemies within the camp … thus, the counterfeit takes up residence.
“Both individually and institutionally, almost all transformations begin with truth-telling, first to ourselves and then to others. Truth-telling is an essential catalyst for change.” (Christa Brown)
https://baptistnews.com/article/hope-roots-in-truth-telling-and-grows-with-action/
Yes, once you’ve had to interact with someone who has narcissistic traits, you develop a radar for that. Someone can have narcissistic traits and do as much damage as someone with fullblown NPD. And as you’ve pointed out, you can’t determine that by what they say. (How many people thought the teaching of Ravi Zacharias was good?) Because the word of God has power in itself, a person can preach it and the effect is from God’s word, as it always is. But good preaching is not necessarily an indicator of character. “Not everyone who *says* Lord, Lord… but only the one who *does* the will of My Father” (Matt 7)
If you are reading this on February 25, please get on your knees and pray for Park Street Church. The congregation will meet after the service. Pray that God will reveal Himself as of old in a mighty way, that sin would be routed out, true repentance would occur, that Park Street Church might once again be restored to Faith and continue to be a beacon to the lost. This is my prayer.
Indeed! The American pulpit is replete with characters who are good preachers! A touch of charisma, gift of gab, and working knowledge of the Bible go a long way in fooling the pew. “Oh be careful little ears what you hear”
Yes! So many congregants don’t recognize that they have a responsibility to do this.
And those at PSC who are the petitioners will be labeled as the ones causing dissent. This is part of DARVO Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim & Offender.
If all that has come out about Mark Booker is true, and it sounds like it is, then congregants will be choosing today between Mark Booker and Park Street Church.
If they vote for the elders’ slate of candidates, Park Street Church will retain the name and the building, but will not be the same living entity, like Invasion of the Church Body Snatchers. Unless he commits some sexual sin in the future, this is likely the last chance to remove him. But even in that case, there will be a system in place that has been corrupted in its support of him.
Ah yes, the Confidence Game.
A wolf in shepherd’s garb?
Wolves in sheep’s clothing? Nah, the wolves have found it more prosperous to dress in shepherd’s clothing.
That’s why wolves run in packs
If so, then the PSC congregation will cease to experience the person of Jesus in their midst. He alone must be adored.
Did you see what Mark Booker and the elders did? Have a large class of kollege Kiddies join the church as members, just before a critical vote! Ballot stuffing!
Manipulation and domination are not fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Mark Booker is preaching a sermon chastising those who oppose his leadership, right before the members’ meeting. He doesn’t name names, but you know what he’s talking about. What a piece of work!
I predict problems for PSC if this sort of thing continues. It is no surprise to me. Too many churches pull this. sort of thing. They usually have long-term problems after that, like Chapel Hill Bible Church.
Sounds like he’s scared and angry.
Do members get to speak? Is there a time of open discussion or just a vote?
Oh brother, here we go again with “Touch not mine anointed” scare-peachin’ … right from the playbook.
This same thing happened at a New Calvinist takeover of a traditional (non-Calvinist) church near me. The vote to change congregational governance to elder-rule polity passed easily thanks to votes from fresh member recruits from a nearby college. Long-established members left to form another church, leaving behind the church and property they had paid for over the years to the NeoCal rebels. It’s happening all over the Southern Baptist Convention … stealth and deception are modus operandi of the new reformers.
A Former Member of PSC,
Ick. Call me old-fashioned, but confessing sin comes before repenting. And ministers are supposed to lead by example here.
“I’m not perfect” and “I need to grow” ≠ confessing sin & repenting of it.
Marks former co laborer,
100%
A Former Member of PSC,
Hopefully, people in the congregation recognize the tactics.
Just had to leave the Annual Meeting at Park Street Church. PSC as we know it has lost the lampstand…
This is a church deeply divided. I predict lots of pain in the near future. Things have not been resolve. Calling the Boston Police Dept to attend a meeting, as one person told me, is disturbing. Can someone confirm thins?
Watcher on the wall,
What a mess.
Christianity Today is present at the meeting. PSC looks deeply divided. Let’s see if the “powers that be” called and threatened them? They are still claiming that people were threatening Mark. IMO, Mark is the one that is threatening the health of PSC.
Dr. Rey from Chuch of the Cross attended at the annual meeting but was prevented to speak because he was not a member.
Ava Aaronson,
Yes. Mark was aided/protected by the Moderator (Jason) and some on the BoE.
I thought non members could have voice not vote. the vote to keep 67% and %33 no. Just got emailed this. No petition people were elected. Anglican Street church …
vote was 67 keep and 33 no.
janiceg,
Mark got what he wanted. A smaller church of “his people”.
Does anyone no if roberts rules prohibts non-members for speaking . I thought a friend of the church could have voice but not vote….or if it is the by-laws of psc
“Vocal minority” take heart … if you decide to leave PSC, Jesus will come looking for you.
900 members at PSC and only 100 showed up to vote?!! A vote to decide what to do with their pastor wasn’t that important to them?!!
“I hate to see complacency prevail in our lives when it’s so directly contrary to the teaching of Christ.” (Jimmy Carter)
Max
There were more than 100 members in attendance. 67% vs 33%.
Oh, that’s different. I stand corrected.
Max,
There were over 500 members voting.
Mar k Bookers numbers weren’t good even though he won. 173 against 350 for with some abstentions. Things are not looking good for PSC. Mark is not well loved. The rest didn’t even bother to come to vote. If my husband had 1/3 of his patients say he wasn’t a good doctor, Duke would not be pleased.
During my tenure with the SBC (70+ years), I was present at several meetings where pastoral candidates were voted on. It was common for a candidate to refuse to take the pastorate unless he received a 90+% vote … the feeling being that it would be disruptive to enter a church where 10% or more were not in favor of you coming … and a pastor’s heart would not want to cause division in the Body of Christ. Pastor search committees understood this and would not present a candidate for vote if they felt (for whatever reason) this would result in a vote of less than 90% of members approving the call.
I believe that Mark got somewhere around 95 to 98% of the vote confirming him back in 2020. I am not surprised 1/3 of the congregation changed its tune though. I am very concerned about the future of PSC especially with GR now as Moderator-Elect. This is a fellow who was rejected from the BoE only a few years ago.
dee,
Max,
That is incorrect. 543 votes were cast, 350 affirming Mark, 173 against and 20 abstentions
Grief over sin < Hope in Christ,
This. All of this. I keep thinking how brazen Mark has gotten and how willing he is to demonize congregants in order to remain in power. I guess since it’s round two he knows the ropes now. It’s sick. This is not a healthy church. As you said, no Congregational church would deny, on technical grounds, a special meeting to address Marks leadership unless it’s sick. Imagine producing 25 members three times only for Marks power to deny the church a conversation. It’s a cult of personality. BoE are also fed by their own power. Mark is great at divide and conquer. That’s a sick church. My only solace is that because of blogs like this and the CT article people will never not know about Mark’s character. If the church cares about surviving they will realize that this won’t attract new members after a simple google search.
PresentatPSC,
That’s what I think I said except I did not count the abstentions. Frankly, the fact there were only 543 people meant that many people didn’t bother to come and vote. I consider them even more abstentions. Think about it. Mark’s pastorate means so little to them they couldn’t even show up to help him out.
I predict a church with many problems in the coming year. I have seen this sort of thing before and it does not go well.
I listened to the entire meeting.
What would PSC have done if that was the vote in 2020 when Mr. Booker was being considered for the pastorate? Would he have been called? Would he have declined?
I got another confirmation that the church had one or more members of the Boston Police Department on hand to quell any uproar. I heard they escorted one lady out who came late and wanted to vote. I was told they didn’t let her. This will need to be confirmed as well. Police!!! At a church meeting.
Park Street, oh Park Street, how far you have fallen from your former glory.
dee,
Yes, Dee. There was a police man at the back of the sanctuary.
Striving,
Can you elaborate on why GR was rejected from the BoE a few years ago?
dee,
I can’t confirm if the police escorted the lady out but I know there was a lady who came late and wanted to join the meeting but was not able to.
Marks former co- laborer,
Mark Booker demonized CT’s article by calling it as lies. I hope CT reporter in attendance does a follow up piece on the unrepentant leadership and the moderator shut down congregational discourse by bending meeting rules. The members devoured each other without love.
Max,
If this had been the vote in 2020 when Mark Booker was presented as the candidate for Senior Minister, then he would not have been elected.
According to PSC’s bylaws (Article V.1.B https://www.parkstreet.org/about-us/bylaws/), 3/4ths of the elders have to approve the candidate for Senior Minister, followed by 3/4ths of the Leadership Council.
If the Senior Minister passes both of those 3/4ths vote thresholds, then 3/4ths of PSC members present at a Special Meeting must vote “yes” to elect the Senior Minister.
To all the current and former members of PSC who are heart-broken, I am so very sorry. Many of us on this blog know this type of pain. I’ve found Ezekiel 34 to be a comfort.
One thing you have been able to do is sound an alarm. People who apply for jobs will be able to see what they are getting into and new congregants who may have heard of PSC in the past and come to Boston will also know beforehand that it is not the same.
Some of the meanest people I know go to church. The church is not ‘the’ Church in far too many places. The police who were on duty there will probably never consider joining PSC!
This sad chapter of PSC history will forever be chronicled in cyberspace.
I suppose there’s nothing in the bylaws which address the vote that was just taken at PSC (?).
“If you bite and devour one another in partisan strife, be careful that you and your whole fellowship are not consumed by one another” (Galatians 5:15 AMPC)
dee,
Friends on this forum, thank you for your encouragement. I guess the news has come out about how awful the annual meeting went.
I just want to clarify one thing about those “college kiddies” joining as new members today. Most (not all) of them are actually members of Park Street International Fellowship (PSIF), whose members are primarily international students in Boston. Their pastor, Ray Kam, has been shamefully abused by leadership, and these young people became members so that they could have a voice in the proceedings. Far from ballot stuffing, these young people had the courage to stand up for what’s true and right. I know this because I, too, am a new member.
dee,
I am very thankful to you and this blog. I haven’t posted here much, but it was still a bright spot in a sea of darkness. You gave me the encouragement to keep going when I felt like abandoning PSC (and maybe setting the pews on fire on the way out).
We lost the struggle, and it really appears to me that the problem is not just the leadership. Our congregation has hearts of stone. Even faced with overwhelming evidence of terrible behavior by our senior pastor, the congregation is unmoved, or thinks it’s all baseless slander. It shames me to say that I called these people my brothers and sisters for so many years.
I don’t think I need to tell you dee, but keep doing what you’re doing. You’re awesome.
Stay home Sunday. Save 10%.
Fascinating to see this conversation on the academic degrees; it seems to be the Christian equivalent of the “birther movement,” in which folks with limited evidence accuse Obama of faking his birth nation, then made escalating demands for documentation with the same basic arguments (“It would be so easy to prove; the fact he’s not posting it means he must be lying!”).
Degrees clearly work a little differently in the UK. If you really think he’s lying, why not just contact Oxford to verify, as any employer would do in a routine background check? At this point, a subset of people are so convinced of the duplicitousness of Mark, I’m not sure they’d believe him if he handed them diplomas in person. Otherwise, how is implying he’s faked his CV not slander? Does it become okay if we pretend we’re “just asking questions,” Tucker Carlson-style?
Max,
I don’t think so. It was a non-binding vote, just to get the temperature of the congregation.
Worried and Anxious,
Remnant.
In the CT article, a former PSC minister said:
“In order for the congregational system to work, you’ve got to follow the bylaws. You can’t change the bylaws. You can’t have a parliamentarian, who is not mentioned in the bylaws, come up with new conditions. The bylaws of the church have checks and balances, but what good are they?”
100%. That’s part of why I left PSC in 2017. I thought that the way Jeff Schuliger got shoved violated PSC’s bylaws.
The vibe I got was that PSC leaders would decide that the bylaws would mean whatever they wanted the bylaws to mean.
I am seeing this same mentality in leadership now, which is why all 3 of the petitioners’ attempts to call for Special Meetings under the bylaws (Article VII.3.C http://www.parkstreet.org/about-us/bylaws/) have been rejected.
According to the parliamentarian, who ruled against Petitions 1 & 2 (and then resigned), PSC’s Charter is PSC’s basic governing document, and supersedes the bylaws.
It’s worth noting, however, that none of the petitioners have even been able to view PSC’s Charter.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the petitioners were given access to the Charter, and found their own attorney to decide how the Charter should be interpreted, that they could poke holes in the now-resigned parliamentarian’s interpretation.
Here’s the thing, though. Even if, say, the unviewable PSC Charter clearly puts all financial and legal control in the hands of the elders (without review & modification by the PSC congregation as stated in the bylaws), there still is nothing to stop the elders from deciding that they should hold these Special Meetings, because it is RIGHT for them to do so.
“We don’t want to and you can’t make us” isn’t a compelling, Christlike reason – under any church charter or bylaws.
Petition 1 requested a Special Meeting for an open Q & A with Personnel Committee, elders, and former/current ministers & staff. The parliamentarian rejected this, because apparently you can’t force PSC leaders to answer questions.
PSC leaders: you shouldn’t have to be FORCED!! This is known as doing ministry.
For example, after PSC’s head of counseling resigned (due to #ChurchToo behavior) in May or June of 2018, interim minister Phil Thorne and the elders had an open Q and A with the congregation. People could ask whatever questions they wanted, until they were done. Tough questions were asked and answered. The air was cleared. People moved on.
Folks, this is how it’s done.
(I have a feeling that GRACE recommended that Phil Thorne & the elders should do an open Q & A. I met with Thorne in the spring of 2018 and urged him to bring in GRACE to advise, investigate, etc. as needed, which he & the elders eventually did.)
Petition 2 called for an independent investigation into Mark Booker’s alleged spiritual abuse. The parliamentarian ruled that you congregants can’t make elders spend $ on this.
You shouldn’t HAVE to!! Elders should do this, because it’s right to do so.
And what’s more, they know better. They shelled out ($100K?) to hire the Telios law firm to investigate the Minister of City Engagement’s alleged spiritual abuse, only a year ago.
But they flat out refuse to commission a thorough, objective, 3rd party investigation into Mark Booker.
So that’s how PSC has become as divisive as it now is, in recent times.
PSC leaders, if you’re unhappy about Dee and CT’s coverage, you may want to try looking in the mirror.
The solutions here aren’t that complicated. They’re just costly. And you don’t want to do what it costs to have a healthy church. It’s much more fun to malign the petitioners as this shadowy, divisive group that only needs to shut up and get with the program.
If only you could see how much the petitioners really love PSC. If only you could minister to them (by listening to, learning from & heeding their advice) instead of (essentially) brushing off their concerns, saying, might makes right & we’re in control here.
If only you would recognize that Mark Booker is not the only one hurting here. Booker (& his family – I do feel for them) was the only hurting person even acknowledged in the Moderator’s email to the PSC congregation on Saturday. He doesn’t even see how much the petitioners are hurting, or the Balbonis are hurting – much less what Mark Booker & the elders have done to cause such pain.
You can’t confess sin that you refuse to even see.
So don’t talk to PSC about repentance and healing until you do.
I am not yet a member of Park Street, though I’ve attended for almost two years. I appreciate the flashlight you’re shining into the shadows, Dee.
One thing that struck me at the morning service yesterday: the extraordinary reading of the Old Testament passage by a female lay reader.
In the sanctuary, the microphone was turned up very high. You can hear on the recording, a moment after she starts, the sound tech turns the livestream volume way down. But in person, the strident reading of OT judgement boomed out. Real anger was in that reading.
The reader paused at the end, looked intently around at the congregation, and concluded, “This is the Word of the Lord.” There was absolute condemnation in her tone. I suppose she was speaking against those daring to question God’s annointed.
“… Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’ This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.”
It was appalling to experience in person. In fact, I’ve never experienced anything like it in a church.
I don’t want to strain out a gnat and leave a camel. This was only one point of the proceedings, but, wow.
Every organization eventually takes on the personality of its leadership. Hearts of stone are formed where the authority of man is substituted for the authority of Jesus. Refreshing in the presence of the Lord does not happen where the Lord is not present.
Situations like this ‘should’ result in a changed heart among church leaders. Only time will tell if Mr. Booker is more humble and loving … or more arrogant and abusive.
Smart money’s on the second.
It’s a Church.
Max,
It would be hard to tell (and of course none of us is equipped to read another’s heart as God is). I do really pray this for Booker and for current PSC leadership.
But I also know that it is very typical & easy for abusers to feign repentance and godliness.
Also, because of the CT article and the CT reporter at the Annual Meeting yesterday, Booker and PSC leaders are going to be a whole lot more careful in their next steps. They know they’re being watched, and will want to make sure that they don’t look like authoritarian jerks in print.
That is all to the good here, but it’s not the same thing as a change of heart.
Alisa Leave,
Elizabeth Klein,
I have some thoughts about the meeting and the results of thee meeting. I listened in to the whole process. I plan to poke fun at the proceedings while at the same time being dead serious. This is not over yet. There are other things that can be done if folks are willing.
I have been watching The Chosen.I look at the portrayal of Jesus that I thin is spot on. So much love. So little love in this process. The needed the Boston Police to stand guard…
Look at the NSDAP for an example.
“The Fuehrer is the Party and the Party is The Fuehrer.”
Only until PSC retains an Online Reputation Management Consultant firm.
Tweaking the Internet so every search engine scrubs anything derogatory and moves all the Puff Pieces to the top of the search results. Costs big bucks, but that’s what Tithes are for.
In Christianese, “A True Remnant who hath not bowed the knee to Ba’al.”
Like knocking and dragging the Projects on Election Day.
Or the Independent Pollwatchers for Hire led by Al Capone in the Cicero city elections of 1924.
Or that scene from Deadwood where the Calvary rode in from a nearby Army Post, all registered to vote, and all voted as they were ordered.
dee,
Yeah, the police there is wild!!!
Didn’t Mark Driscoll pull stuff like that, and liked feeling persecuted a bit too much?
Alisa Leave,
That is chilling. I heard (up here on TWW yesterday) that Booker used yesterday’s sermon as an opportunity to preach against his critics.
Just imagine if someone (say Balboni or one of the threatened PSC ministers) had instead preached on Ezekiel 34?
“Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? … You have ruled them harshly and brutally.”
“Not to Love The Fuehrer is a Great Disgrace!
So HEIL! HEIL! In The Fuehrer’s Face!”
— Spike Jones and his City Slickers, 1942 (Donald Duck starred in the music video)
Look for “fruit” … altered behavior from Mr. Booker, visible actions which demonstrate he has indeed changed. But today, after winning the vote last night, his attitude might still be “Repent? Repent of what?!” Does anyone really win in church confrontations?
“Produce fruit that is consistent with repentance!” (Matthew 3:8)
I have a feeling that the Lord Jesus proclaimed that over this sad situation a long time ago.
Which is how I got vaccinated against all the Christian Counterfeits in Christian(TM) Fiction, Christian(TM) Movies, and Christian(TM) Fill-in-the-Blank.
That also vaccinated me against written Porn, as when I first encountered it, I read it for a story like I’d read in SF & Fantasy, and found none – just Money Shot Fanservice scene after Money Shot Fanservice scene.
Unless “Conregational” means the same thing as “Democratic” in the official name of a Third World Dictatorship. (The more adjectives about Democracy in a country’s official name, the nastier a Dictatorship it is.)
DARVO usually fools the multitude, typically about 67% 🙂
Yep, DARVO works for a season … until the potato becomes too hot to handle. We haven’t heard the last about Mr. Booker. I sure hope PSC survives all this … to once again proclaim Jesus over Boston.
As I continue to read this sad saga, I cointinue to be reminded of the famous quote attributed to Martin Luther: “The just will live by faith”…
It took me many years to understand this, and I probably only have a superficial understanding.. given I did not live during Martin Luthers time…
BUT, so much of this “issues” on TWW deal not just with abuse, but the related issue of “Spiritual power/Spiritual Authority”, or the lack of it…..
While not as old as MAX, I have involved with evangleticalism/fundamentalism, and now a Presbyterianism, for over 55 years…. and it seems that the “struggle” over “Spiritual authority” is just as live now as it was in Martin Luther’s day…
If the members whose contributions fund the existence and operation of PSC are not allowed to familiarize themselves with the documented specifics of the rules that regulate the governance and operation of the entity they are funding, …
that strikes me as a large red flag. It seems to imply that there are things that the leadership do not want the membership to know.
Samuel Conner,
It is an example of incredible arrogance…… give me your money, but no, you can see how we operate.. yea, that is Exactly how Christ told us to be “Christ like”…..
It does indeed take a whole church, but it may help to think of the congregation as mixed. Some do not understand what is going on. The default will be to trust their leaders. They have primarily heard from only one side. The guy in the pulpit, the elders’ video message, etc. The voice of the other side has largely been blocked. (Did everyone get Balboni’s letter?) Those who are not online may not have found this blog or the CT article.
Brad Sargent aka futuristguy used to comment on this blog frequently. He came up with a really useful graphic for understanding how many parts work together in a sick system to support the sickness.
Here is a link to the graphic and an article on his website.
https://futuristguysfieldguides.wordpress.com/1-1-field-guide-1/section-03/chapter-08/
There was a large contingent of what he labels the “loyal opposition at Park Street Church, but not everyone else is equally culpable.
Max,
Who are you in relation to Park Street Church exactly, as you seem to be a troll stirring a pot of negativity according to your comments. Have you ever attended park street church?
Well, here’s the deal as I see it … the struggle at PSC is/was over authority, not ‘spiritual’ authority. It’s clear from the way this was handled that Jesus has little to no authority and influence at PSC. Church leaders approached this in the flesh with my way or the highway. The meeting and vote had little to do with hearing the congregational voice in the matter. A true pastor would have looked at that vote and grieved that he had lost the confidence of one third of the congregation and resigned on the spot rather than cause further division. Instead the pastor and elders are probably thinking “We won” when, in fact, everybody lost.
Can anyone associated with PSC seriously look at what just transpired and say “Jesus was above all” in that meeting last night?
(‘Jesus Above All’ is PSC’s tagline)
Some folks continue to come across as arrogant even when they are trying their best to be humble and contrite. The poor things, it just ain’t in them to be any other way.
Max,
Not a chance. I listened to the whole thing.
Questions.,
Max has not be at PSC but he has had relevant experience in other churches. I would suggest listening to Max. I do. He’s been there and has done that and will have done what will happen with PSC in the days to come.
Eyewitness,
Brad is a good friend. I’ll let him know about your comment.
I’m related to the greater Body of Christ; there is only one Church, after all. I’ve been doing institutional church for the better part of a century. I’ve seen the sad saga at PSC unfold in multiple churches. I’ve been through the valley of church experience, gaining insight into what ails PSC. It’s hard to be positive when such negative things happen to God’s people … I don’t stir pots unless they need to be stirred … I would never touch the anointed unless they need to be touched. Perhaps stirring pots is my calling, I’ve never thought about it that way. PSC is in a leadership crisis; all the red flags are there – it’s an unhealthy leadership pattern I’ve seen numerous times. What I see, I can’t un-see … what I know, I can’t un-know; it’s in my knower.
Directly related or not, I wish the best for you and the PSC Body of Christ in the days ahead. May God give you leaders after His heart.
100%. And what a tragedy for Park St. Church.
Jeffrey Chalmers,
PS..typo…
…..give me your money, but no, you can “NOT” see how we operate.. yea, that is Exactly how Christ told us to be “Christ like”…..
I was beign sarcatic… the leaders of PSC are about as opposite of how Christ said we should operate as you can get… I see NO “servent leadership” at PSC; despite what Philippians 2:5-11 says…
This reminded me of the guidebook for ‘church reform’ that Mark Dever provides to aspiring 9Marksists who attend his training camp at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Among the documents included in the “Weekender Notebook” is a manipulative screed he wrote to congregants early in his pastorate, after they’d rejected all the men he’d nominated for Eldership:
Mark Dever: “Is it arrogant of me to nominate the same five again?…I do not understand this to be a matter of arrogance, but of integrity.”
“Why vote on the same thing again?…Because we need elders…Because there must be a new election, therefore men must again be nominated. But the one [me] who must nominate has not changed…God has led me again to the same people.”
“We must let leaders lead…When I was a member at Eden [Roy Clements’ church, Cambridge, England], I voted with the eldership, unless I had expressly biblical reasons for not doing so.”
“I have certainly been frustrated by not being more trusted”
“Each member of the church should consider if they are making it easier or harder for the staff to do what God has called them here to do.”
“[This is] a confidence vote on my pastorate.”
[He insists that members meet individually with him if they intend to vote “no” again]
Dever’s antics worked…he got his way:
(one month later) “Elder nominations passed on second try”
Christianity Today has published its piece about yesterday’s meeting and vote: https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2024/february/park-street-vote-affirm-mark-booker.html
Dee, thank you for your coverage of the upheaval at Park Street Church. As someone watching from afar (anear? about a dozen miles north), I have tried not to treat my gut response to all of the coverage I’ve read as if it is a fair and well-reasoned verdict on my part. I’m just an outsider who has attended Park Street on past occasions and who has fondness for her. When I do my best to keep an open mind, these concerns remain:
-Churches with congregational polity need to guard that polity jealously. Even when a congregation’s current minister is aces, the next might not be. Since the lead pastor in a congregational church is not subject to any episcopacy or larger denominational authority, as the highest human authority in that congregational church, the congregation is a necessary check against a lot of problems (including and beyond the development of a cult of personality or a pastor with autocratic tendencies).
-From what I’ve read, Park Street’s active membership (not attendance) is around 900 to 1,000 members. If that’s in the right ballpark, then yesterday’s “affirmation” vote [recorded as 350 in favor/173 opposed/20 abstaining] was no affirmation. Far too many active members sat this one out, to consider it one. I hope Pastor Booker and the Board of Elders consider that prayerfully.
-Pastor Booker should be an open book about his credentials and how he obtained them.
-Michael Balboni deserves a full hearing.
-If Ben Rey was actually in attendance, wanted to speak, and the by-laws permit contribution from non-members, he should have been allowed to speak.
-PSC needs our prayer.
So much for congregational governance! Manipulation, intimidation and domination are not fruit of the Holy Spirit.
“The extended meeting was contentious and occasionally chaotic. People shouted at the moderator to allow members more or less time and leeway to speak. There were conflicts over parliamentary procedure and the proper way to count standing votes … One member objected to the nonbinding vote, calling it “meaningless” …” (CT article)
“Some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together” (Acts 9:32)
According to the bylaws, Mark Booker, in order to be called, required a 2/3 positive vote by the members in attendance at the Members’ meeting. A spoilt / destroyed ballot is treated as a NO vote. If he failed, in the 2020 vote, to get 2/3 positive vote, he wouldn’t have been called. Knowing this pack of fools that PSC calls elders, I’m sure that they would have come-up with a reason to call for a re-vote, whether it was allowable in the church by-laws or not.
I chose to vote NO via spoiling my ballot.
I took my duties as a voting member of the congregation seriously. This meant that I needed to perform my own Due Diligence, which included a background check and a random review of his sermons.
I found Mark Booker to be too charismatic for his own good. Based on my life’s experiences, I knew that people who are very charismatic are also likely (but not always) to be very narcissistic and are likely to inflate their qualifications. Mark Booker did not have a LinkedIn account, nor was his CV posted on the church’s web site. I was unable to verify his background, which was good enough reason to vote NO. I listened to Mark Booker’s sermons. I found his sermons to be theologically correct, but shallow. The sermon he preached on forgiveness to the congregation as a candidate for Senior Minister, demonstrated that he lacked maturity and a sophisticated understanding of this topic. People who were victims of systematic abuse, torture, rape, life altering assault could have easily found Mark Booker’s sermon to be hurtful. He failed to mention that there are people we are not Biblically required to forgive: Reprobates. I’m sure he didn’t mention Matthew 18 15-20. (I had to lead a Bible study on this topic at a different church… and believe me, the Bible has a very nuanced and sophisticated take on it. I spent hours with my pastor, because the more we studied together, the more complex this topic became, especially when it comes to reprobates. See Luke17:3 Ministries.)
Of course, he could have declined the call, after all he was the pastor of the first church he pulled a nasty takeover move, Church of the Cross.
A Former Member of PSC,
Given what you have written, your commenter name fits.
New post on PSC in two hours.
Absolutely yes, to all of the above. From a former, 20-year PSC member.
Like The HUMBLE One from Sovereign Grace/People of Destiny?
Oh yeah! I forgot about him (not) … ole C.J. even wrote a book on humility telling everyone how humble he is!
Regarding the credential requirements in the Anglican world:
Credentials, specifically, a Masters degree is not necessarily required in the ACNA for priests. There is at least one other option often available to ordinands that doesn’t require it. I have a priest friend who doesn’t have a masters degree and took this option. However, Booker was ordained in AMiA originally, which was notoriously loose in their requirements.
Micah, good things to note. The issue with Booker isn’t only whether he has the credentials required for his position, but also whether he has the credentials he has claimed to have on his CV and in interviews —and whether he has accurately represented those credentials.
The statement from leaders about his credentials was worded carefully to avoid saying that Booker in fact has the degrees he claims, only that the leaders are satisfied with his training.
Alice Reads Here,
“-If Ben Rey was actually in attendance, wanted to speak, and the by-laws permit contribution from non-members, he should have been allowed to speak.
-PSC needs our prayer.”
Elizabeth Klein,
“…that none of the petitioners have even been able to view PSC’s Charter.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the petitioners were given access to the Charter, and found their own attorney to decide how the Charter should be interpreted, that they could poke holes in the now-resigned parliamentarian’s interpretation.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
with so many alleged instances of violating the bylaws
and denying members access to even seeing the charter (the governing document they are unwittingly bound to),
when does an attorney factor in?
when does the concept of illegal factor in?
as I understand it, bylaws are a legally binding agreement, even for nonprofits.
Like most churches, Park Street Church was built on sacrifices of others who have gone before – they deserve an advocate.
Lowlandseer,
Excellent quote from the always excellent Spurgeon (an Arminian Calvinist).
The status of the Oxford degree and the 4 o’clock service question are the headline issues.
The much advertised pursuing of a doctorate was non existent for reasons that have not been stated as clearly as the “fact” that it had been advertised.
A slapdash attitude to his and others’ personal history that might be foreign to the more soberminded strain of presbyterians to whom congregationals occasionally look to staff their positions.
Profs Green and McGrath are factional leaders and not likely to appeal to committed congregationals. We need to look at the long term tendencies within PSC as to who will gravitate onto its p.s.c, their outlook, rationale, mindset and motivations.
Discrediting the founder of his former congregation after an adventurous career in whitewater rafting is an extremely serious piece of dishonesty.
In church P there was a lay assistant minister Mr AD, a very steady man, who transferred to a very serious position abroad Q, and after several years in that looked after a very small congregation R (in a town near to P). Meantime the pastor of church P, Rev MB, had gone off the rails in his personal life amidst a very large congregation of flighty and not solid mindset (10 years after I got fed up with the chaos *) (and they are still like that 20 years later).
At church R, a senior, ordained pastor Rev GO, was appointed by a faction the church is affiliated to, with Mr AD staying on as assistant. A fairly large and flighty congregation gathered around senior leadership team senior leaders Mrs & Mrs S, treasurer / group leaders leader Mr K, amplifying pastor Mr H and womens’ leader Mrs H. After – and even before – Mr AD left to seek ordination full-time, neither Rev GO nor the others, nor “normal” (flighty) congregation members would acknowledge Mr AD’s role in keeping the flame alive there.
I remembered Mr AD from his time at church P as well as for a period after my arrival at church R (I had meantime had a different route through other churches). None of the leaders would explain to me when I asked them, why they wouldn’t acknowledge Mr AD. I fled the chaos at church R 8 months before Rev GO was suspended. Reportedly the melt-in-mouth Mrs & Mrs S have disappeared but the others I listed are still at it – I’ve not dared yet to check whether they are firmer minded by now or what the new boss Rev E who had to be airdropped into the now smallish church, is like.
Please note that multiple affiliations which are now de rigueur throughout all denominations and which snag all answerability whatsoever, are top down false ecumenism. An honest p.s.c would have been alert to the slant of Profs Green and McGrath (which would be thought to suit some churches) or perhaps a dishonest one would, too.
* A point Dee reminded me of, for you to ponder LLS, is how at church P “George” used to block the door and do really horrible things to everybody’s hands. I became frightened to attend. 15 years later someone from there admitted George had been got rid of because there “had been complaints” other than mine. I am meant to notice things, to add to and not subtract from others’ gifts.
How many other things have been going on at PSC and a horrified and bewildered congregation don’t speak up in the narrow template that the bosses will listen to / not rebuff?
I suggest Mark Booker was oblivious about his academic qualifications. There are points to make about the 4 o’clock business which may boil down to a wish by some to limit the benefits in the church.
What about those elders who neglected the church with their manoeuvring since before Mark and are now playing the “how mean of you to have a go at poor Mark” card? Do sincere congregants know who those are?
At several of my other churches melodrama was kept on the boil in plain sight amid talk of “a leaner church”. I know churches mostly as places of mute desperation. In my biggest row in the world press, seven factions didn’t include me.
I’ve been wondering about this.
At the little OPC I attended for the better part of a decade, there were two governing documents, the by-laws of the legally incorporated non-profit that was the corporate “clothing” of the church, and the “Book of Church Order”, that laid out in exhaustive detail how things were to be done in terms of the religious functions of the congregation. The BCO was what regulated the activities of the pastor and elders on a day-to-day basis. Both documents were accessible to the membership.
I speculate that the PSC Charter might be analogous to a “Book of Church Order”.
The by-laws will regulate the function of the non-profit corporation and might be quite limited in scope (annual meeting, election of officers, etc.). If they explicitly mention and defer to other regulating documents, that might provide some basis for the Parliamentarian’s assertions.
I am in agreement.
Religion is not taxed here in America, and it seems that by extension, they (Churches) are also exempt from the transparency laws that the rest of us must abide by.
This has to end.
A Former Member of PSC,
Defamation based on physical appearance. A very flawed and superficial approach to demeaning someone’s character and not even remotely Christian.
With liveried flunkies blowing long trumpets before him to announce hoe HUMBLE He Is.
I might also add that misrepresenting various factual elements is commonplace in Mark’s “Anglican background.”
i.e. Whether he padded his resume.
Remember Ergun Caner?
Like the statement was written by liability attorneys?
The same Holy Spirit who for the past eight years has consistently mistaken Donald Trump for Jesus Christ?
I look for those carrying Holy Hand Grenades in their pockets and pull the pins.”
— some long-ago interview that went small-scale viral
Whaat’s wrong? I used “I statements”. I expressed my opinion. I found Mark Booker’s preaching and teaching to be Biblically correct, but shallow and superficial, especially when compared to the preaching and teaching of other Park Street Church ministers such as Drs Hugenberger, Balboni, Kim, Perkins, etc. Because Mark Booker failed to post his CV, I was not able to perform my own Due Diligence background check–I would vote NO based solely on this. I found Mark Booker to be very charismatic–consistent with the opinions of others. I have extensive experience interacting with people who are very narcissistic, who were diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder by mental health professionals. I am very cautious around someone who is very charismatic, because this personality characteristic is commonly seen in someone who is excessively narcissistic, whether or not they suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder or not. My experience is that these are NOT safe people to be around. I am especially cautious when someone is both very charismatic and appears to be humble at the same time. This combination is commonly seen in someone who is a covert narcissist–and these are some of the most destructive leaders, even worse than classic, overt narcissists. It can take years before people realize what’s going on–while the damage done mounts.
I wish my initial assessment of Mark Booker’s character was in error. Unfortunately, Mark Booker has proven to be even more destructive as a leader than I originally thought.
Ummm, I found this humorous and not at all defaming. Don’t you ever say, “Ya know, he reminds me of the guy who plays Raymond Reddington on Blacklist or something like that? Surely you do? If not, well, you are different than most humans.
ark Booker reminds me of my former pastor at the SBC church where all those teen boys were molested. He seemed like a good old Southern “aw shucks” kind of guy. He was likable as long as you let him perform every Sunday and didn’t ask any questions. That persona worked well until there was a crisis, and then the “aw shucks” game didn’t work.