An Open Letter to the Presbyterian Church (USA)

Many of you know of my experience. I was born, baptized, confirmed, and ordained in the United Presbyterian Church (USA) which in 1983 became the Presbyterian Church (USA).

I have served at various levels in 8 different congregations, 5 different presbyteries, as well as at the national level in the Worldwide Ministries Division.

I have held 4 different pastorates and served internationally in three different countries, with 6 different international partners, all three times serving as the PC(USA)’s delegate to the international partners’ respective General Assemblies.

At the Presbytery level I have served as a member of and/or moderator of the following committees: Mission and Stewardship Interpretation, Youth and Young Adult, Committee on Ministry, Committee on Preparation For Ministry, and Nominating Committee as well as on two different Presbytery’s General Councils. Likewise I have served on two different presbytery’s administrative committees to develop their respective gracious separation policies and later with Administrative Teams to walk three congregations through their discernment processes.

While I have not been asked for my opinion on the matters before any congregation at this time, I nevertheless feel compelled to share my perspective with you, based on the above mentioned experience.

Theological issues began to come to the forefront around 1967 when the, then, UPCUSA discarded the Westminster Confession of Faith as the sole definitive confession. Theological drift from the roots of Presbyterian and reformed theology has been, since that time, clearly evident to many. More recently (2010) a group arising out of the Presbyterians for Renewal group began formal discussions over the growing denominational disputes over theology and bureaucracy. In 2011 these were formalized and from that grew the most recent in a long line of splits within the Presbyterian tradition, the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO).

All of these denominational splits have reflected the concern to adhere to “the faith once and forever delivered to the saints” described in Jude 1:3. This is the same faith described in A.W.Tozer’s famous quote:

“There is a great decision that every denomination has to make sometime in the development of its history. Every church also has to make it either at its beginning or a little later—usually a little later. Eventually every board is faced with the decision has to keep making it, not by one great decision made once for all, but by a series of little decisions adding up to one great big one. Every pastor has to face it and keep renewing his decision on his knees before God. Finally, every church member, every evangelist, every Christian has to make this decision. It is a matter of judgment upon that denomination, that church, that board, that pastor, that leader and upon their descendants and spiritual children.

The question is this: Shall we modify the truth - in doctrine or in practice - to gain more adherents? Or shall we preserve the truth - in doctrine and in practice - and take the consequences?

I believe that this is where the Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations now stand in any and all current discussions regarding separation. The fact of the matter, contrary to what you may be hearing, is that it is the very denominations which have embraced the LGBTQIA++ agenda have dwindled in membership and in respect on the world stage. PC(USA)’s own membership numbers have fallen from a height of 4.5 million in the mid 1960’s to less than one million (projected numbers for 2025) due to the increasingly liberal agendas. The dissolution of the Worldwide Ministries Division of the denomination is a direct result of decreased support for the denomination not just in mission but across the board due to the hemorrhaging of members. And the losses will continue as the denomination continues to make clear its position and has adjudicated such in church courts: that the PC(USA) believes that the Bible is not the inspired, infallible Word of God, that Jesus is not the only way to salvation, that sexual sin is an acceptable practice within the church and amongst leaders of the church, and other such matters.

I have made it clear to those who have asked:

1. The PC(USA) congregations in Pennsylvania (and other states) do not hold the church in trust for the Presbyterian Church (USA) in spite of the denominational claims in the Book of Order. This has been adjudicated in courts in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and elsewhere and are attested to nationally by such nationally recognized property law firms as Taylor Porter https://www.taylorporter.com/practice-area/real-estate-property/church-property-law/ which defends congregations in these matters, in many cases pro bono. Congregations neither need to consult with their presbytery, nor pay to be released from such an obligation. Most PC(USA) congregations have never directly assented to such a trust, which the law requires be done to formalize such a trust. Such congregations as the Mt. Lebanon Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh have shown such to be the case, by simply walking away, from what was once the largest Presbytery in the PC(USA).

2. The LGBTQIA++ agenda is neither biblically defensible, nor is it morally acceptable. What scripture clearly condemns, believers are warned not to endorse. Virtually every denomination which has endorsed this agenda has seen it’s ranks decimated (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist Church, etc.) And  most denominations which have refused this agenda or which have split off from these denominations have seen growth numerically, missiologically, and financially (Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church, Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO), Anglican Realignment, etc. To compromise in order to receive the social acceptance of the community would destroy the very integrity of the witness to Christ within the community.

3. A recent visit with the Secretary General of the Presbyterian Church of East Africa, a 4.5 million member former partner with the PC(USA), shows the future for PC(USA)’s international relationships. The Sec'y Gen'l shared with me on our visit to his office in Nairobi (Feb, 2025), that the PC(USA) Los Ranchos Presbytery partnership committee informed him that the Presbyterian Church (USA) had severed their relationship with the PCEA due, in large part, to their refusal to adopt LGBTQIA++ standards and their refusal to act as a conduit for PC(USA) money to advance the LGBTQIA++ agenda on behalf of PC(USA) in Uganda. He showed me a letter formally informing him of this unilateral action.

4. My own relationship with the PC(USA) was severed in response to the PC(USA)’s declaration that my position on these matters was not in accord with the denominational stance and that they would seek to suspend me in ministry and to reeducate me (over a 2 year period of time) requiring my faith to align with the Book of Order over the Biblical standards.

In short, the PC(USA) which, for decades, billed itself as “big tent” ecumenical denomination has made it clear that disagreement with it’s standards on LGBTQIA++ issues will not be tolerated in its partners, nor in its leadership, from deacons and elders, to pastors and staff members. There are movements afoot in Amendments to the Constitution circulating in presbyteries to this effect even now. The handwriting is on the wall. The question is whether or not the leadership and membership of the congregation will side with the clear Biblical principles involved and entrust, by faith, the congregation’s future to the Lord, or will they jettison the Biblical principles for the sake of social acceptance.

In summary, I encourage Sessions to take note of their congregation’s input, but to ultimately defer to the biblical standards on these issues. Ultimately the souls of Presbyterian congregations are at stake and the Lord will not hold harmless or guiltless those who defy His word.

Those who love me will obey my commands. - Jesus

The Sweet Connection

 

So having pontificated, enumerated, elaborated, fulminated, explicated, elucidated, and otherwise commentated on my twisted understanding of the word "mission" I regress to the matter at hand.

Perhaps by now the reader has forgotten the quote of the day;

"There is a sweet connection and understanding 

that we don’t have with others."  

While it may sound a bit arrogant, there is a special connection between those who have engaged that international endeavor I refer to as mission.  It's an experience shared with complete strangers leading to:

• the ability to look at one's own culture in a far more objective fashion than those who have never spent extended times in other countries;

• the ability to appreciate, embrace, and laugh at strangeness while understanding the truly "strange one" is oneself;

•  the ability to appreciate true poverty being not just physical, economic or social, but spiritual; and
  

•  the ability to understand there really is no such thing as home this side of glory...

 just to name a few.

Missionaries look at life differently.  They do church differently.  They do life differently.  There is a strangeness to everything.  Convenience and comfort are seen to be the tragedy and the trap that they truly are.  Whining about the weather, or one's health, or politics, or one's neighbor is seen for what it is, petty.

And I think, in many cases, there is generated:

• an unquenchable longing within;
  

• a foreignness to every experience;

• a reassessment of the value of everything; and
  

• a desire to make a difference...

which won't be satiated this side of glory.

There is a glimmer in the eye when missionaries meet, particularly if they have been in service together, or in the same country, or field of work, or with the same or a similar organization.

It may be because we share experiences that few have.  It may be because we understand the confusion of life in general.  It may because we know the price so many pay for their faith in the countries in which we have served. I'm not sure exactly what it is. 

Whatever it is...

"There is a sweet connection and understanding 

that we don’t have with others." 

and a longing to make that connection as frequently as possible while knowing the connection to come will be even better, as we pray, Maranatha, Come Lord Jesus.

 

 

 

Suicide and trust issues...

The recent suicide of a young pastor in our area has become the focus of much prayer and deliberation by the congregations in our area.  The concern is:

"we as clergy and congregations are not doing as good a job of watching out for one another as we might..."We need to do better..."

The sense is that too many pastors feel isolated and unable to cope or to seek help.

The following is a personal reflection on this matter.

First, depression in ministry is a very real issue. Many pastors feel isolated, face a sanctuary pocketed with some individualistic, self-affirming, self-righteous congregants, and find little in the way of support.

Sometimes it can seem that every pew warming individual thinks they know better than the pastor what the pastor should be doing.  

Those people who shun witch doctors and home schooling, who seek out specialists for the heart conditions and lawyers for their legal issues, sometimes seem to think they know better than a trained professional cleric how the church should work. Those who cannot even state what their own denominational or congregational distinctives are, feel free to pontificate on what they believe ought to be seen as right and true in the church of Jesus Christ.  Those who can quote "Do not judge," most often haven't a clue what that means, or who talk about "love" but want to define for themselves what constitutes love...  

The reality of isolation also exists when pastors can't trust one another, when pastors are called on by the judicatory body (in my case the Presbytery) or by other staff to betray one another.  

In my case colleagues admitted, confidentially out of fear of retaliation, that they had been approached by other colleagues and Presbytery Staff to come alongside me to glean information about what may be happening in the congregation I served and to share that with others for admittedly nefarious reasons.  "Were the disagreements of a few parishioners, so disruptive to the congregation, that the pastor, with whom they disagreed, may be seen as fueling that disruption?"

Information, which was obtained by others in whom my confidence had been placed, was eventually used to carefully craft charges against me of disturbing the peace of the congregation... a charge which is apparently being used in several presbyteries (based on my conversation with four other PC(USA) colleagues, in four other presbyteries, who have had the same charges brought in the same fashion). It almost amounts to a theological cleansing of those who hold to the traditional fundamentals of the faith: the virgin birth of Christ, Christ’s vicarious atonement, Christ’s bodily resurrection, the reality of miracles, and the promise of Christ’s bodily return.  (It may be interesting to note for the reader that these "five fundamentals" were brought forth by the (then) northern branch of Presbyterianism as a reaction to the heresy of "modernism"). Read more here.

My personal sense is that it is not inappropriate for pastors to question whether or not other pastors are "there for them."  In my case, many I had come to trust, betrayed that trust, simply to curry favor with particular individuals who might advance their standing in the denomination.

As a result, both the integrity of that congregation and my personal reputation have been destroyed. The very structure that claimed to support the clergy is being used to destroy the ministries of those who dare to challenge the systemic failures of the structure.  

The deep and life threatening depression through which one may or may not successfully come can be the direct result of a betrayal of (so called) colleagues. 

As one former parishioner, John Shortridge, once counseled me, "be VERY careful whom you trust.  Take time to make friends. Test them. Guard your heart and your soul. And stay close to Jesus." I should have listened more carefully...

It's become my clarion call to those who dare to ask for my input:

"Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." [1Peter 5:8]

And that roaring lion can take the form of a denominational official, a colleague, a friend, or even a family member. 

Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. [Ephesians 5:15-16]

Remember it was Judas who betrayed Jesus...

The answer, which is always the case? Jesus Christ alone in whom we can have complete trust! For those who have walked this road and come through that valley the Truth is:

10 Years of Mission...

 

A Look Back in Pictures...

 

Taking a Haitus to Work on the House

 See my other blogs to the right  ----->     ----->     ----->     ----->   

Difficult Decisions to Receive

One of the responsibilities I carried during our time in W. Africa was reviewing funding proposals for a particular disaster assistance funding program. This "Hunger Program" connected with Church World Service (which also connected with One Great Hour of Sharing). And so, in western Ghana, with machetes in hand and boots on the feet the 6 km (3.7 miles) trek to the Cocoa farm out in the bush begins… The coop's farmers were trying to demonstrate their need for a $1000 grant to buy 35 pairs of rubber boots for women in the co-op.

You see, not infrequently, the women who do most of the physical labor, are found along the path having fallen under their loads or having slipped in the mud because they can’t afford the $30.00 for a pair of rubber boots, and in some cases they may have broken limbs and may have waited a day or more for someone to come. This is the life of a cocoa farmer.

Today, along the way we see signs of illegal timbering and a small (3’ black Cobra).

Neither is a welcome sight. One, however, is more acceptable.

The snake moves quickly away. The trees will take 30-40 years to replace.

And finally, the payoff. A well managed and healthy cocoa farm almost 4 miles into the bush.  It was the only land this co-op, of close to 100 people, could afford.

Most of the initial processing will also be done in the bush.

The pods are split open and the cocoa beans are dug out (much like seeding a pumpkin), wrapped in banana leaves, buried, and left to ferment for several days in the bush. Then they are unwrapped and dried.  When dried they are bagged and carried to town where they may only be sold to the government at prices controlled by the government.

In an attempt to minimize production costs and maximize the minimal profit that may be made, farming cooperatives spring up.

In this case when they heard that a white man was coming who was more interested in learning about their cocoa farms, than their former gold coast setting over 100 people walked and traveled by public transport up to 12 kilometers to see if it was true...

 

Even the Chief showed up...

...and if you're wondering, the request was denied.  This was one of the hardest parts of the job, reporting back to the co-ops (or any applicant) that their request was denied.  No reason was given it was just denied.  This has left a chip on my shoulder for some of these offerings, because as I reviewed (and I always did) the programs that were supported, it always seemed to be the more radical, liberal, "social justice" bent requests that saw the money flow.  And I, and others, were left informing the applicants that folks in the US couldn't afford $1000 to buy 30 pair of rubber boots...

 

Kenya, to Thailand, to Ghana

 

 

"Joy"

Copyright:

Artist: Tree63

Composer: John Ellis

Publisher: Hal Leonard

Great Challenges Yield Greater Blessings

 

Music Copyright:

"I Had a Farm in Africa"

from the Motion Picture "Out of Africa"

Composed by: JOHN BARRY

Arranged by: MICHAEL MARTINEZ

Universal Music Group

 

 

It's a trap!

It was an innocent enough question, or so I thought.  I was being interviewed by someone who would soon become my boss. We had been talking about cross-cultural issues, challenges, coping mechanisms, healthy boundaries, and other matters pertinent to living in a very different cultural context.  The question seemed a natural extension of that line of discussion.  "How are you at non-verbal communication?"

I answered frankly, that I felt I was reasonably well able to follow a lead, to read body language, and tone of voice to help interpret the person's communication. However, I anticipated that there would be increased challenges along those lines in a culture with which I was less "well-rehearsed or experienced."  And that seemed to be the end of the matter.  My future boss smiled and seemed to be particularly pleased with the answer. Duh!

It wasn't until things began to fall apart in our relationship that I began to understand that what was really being asked was "are you willing to read between the lines to discern what I am asking so that I don't have to actually come out and ask it?"

Now, on the surface even that may seem a reasonable request, but as most of my co-workers in the region at that time would attest, it was really nothing more than a cover to avoid responsibility.  The deeper implications were, can you discern what I am asking you to do without my actually asking you, so that when it blows up, I can deny ever having asked or even implied that you should do such a thing?  Are you willing to take the fall for my ineptness?  Will you guarantee me plausible deniability in everything I want you to do?  Will you insulate me from responsibility for my actions?  This person had built his career on plausible deniability.

Case in point, I was asked to team with two other missionaries to plan a missionary retreat for our region.  We took the responsibility well in hand and began the process.  I was warned by the others that there may be pushback as this director expected to be treated like visiting royalty.  

We found a very good deal at a resort at which the missionaries would all feel comfortable.  It was not a guest house nor was it a 5 star location. And it was within the budget we had been given.  As our plans progressed I stopped hearing from my director.  Later, at a gathering of the missionaries, one who had rarely been a part of our gatherings approached me and said that she was excited about having booked a certain rather fancy resort for our retreat.

When we talked further, she was honestly surprised I hadn't heard that the director had asked her to assume responsibility.  We were out of the picture.  She apparently was better at non-verbal communication and understood what was wanted.

The bash was so extravagant that no other region in the world was able to have a missionary retreat for the next three years.  It exceeded the budget by close to five times I later understood. But the boss got to stay in the Presidential Suite during the retreat. AND was able to say he wasn't aware of the costs that were being incurred since he had handed the responsibility over to one of the missionaries.  The missionary took her bruises and went on.

We lost 8 out of our 11 missionaries (in that region) in just 4 short years over just such matters. Few could live with any integrity when the ones with which we were called to work and witness lived on subsistence level salaries.  We were being asked to make promises we knew wouldn't be kept...told to ignore somethings that were being said...and not to communicate with anyone back at the denomination's USA head office, except the director.

Thus it was that we left the mission field for the first time, resigning after our first year, and being black-listed by our director, ensuring we would never return to the country we loved as long as he sat in that seat.  And we didn't...

So if someone at an interview asks you about how you are at non-verbal communication, you might want to push back a bit on the question and dig deeper into what is actually being asked in order to avoid a misadventure in mission. 

Mission Mis-Policy

Faith based mission programs are, quite simply,the sending forth of missionaries based on the promises of people to support them.  The security of the funding of such positions lies in the promises of those who have "pledged" their support. This style of missionary support is distinctly differ from what might be called charitable support based missions.  Whereas faith based missionaries are expected to raise their own support, a charitable support based missionary has the commitment of the sending agency behind it.  Many larger denominations have historically utilized this charitable support model. Congregations give a portion of their offerings to a higher judicatory body which then utilizes that money to support it's missionaries.  

In the first instance, the funding is driven by support of the individual's understanding of his or her calling.  In the second, the funding is driven by the sense that the denomination will determine the calling and hire (much like a business) the missionaries to carry out that calling. 

I belonged to one of the latter, charitable support based organizations.   And therein lies the introduction of a related, but essential issue in missionary work - The Mission/Missionary Policy.  These are the rules and regulations by which and through which missionaries are selected and sent.

Our policy had some very good elements.  But, like any business enterprise or any organizational structure for that matter, the policy was only as good as its implementation was able to yield good results. And so my story goes...

A group from one of the denominationally affiliated congregations in the USA had come to the mission field to see first hand what we were up to.  A part of my task in mission was to coordinate these "looky-looky" groups as I liked to call them.  The wanted to see their money at work. These groups could be of great assistance to the missionaries in helping to advance the cause of mission back in the USA.  But so too, they could be a tremendous burden on the work of those in the field working in fields such as the engineering of water filtration systems, serving as physicians and surgeons, teaching, etc. So as someone whose task it was to keep the congregations connected to the broader mission work of the denomination, it fell to me to help itinerate the groups, and I REALLY enjoyed telling the story, making the connections, and watching people's eyes grow big and their hearts grow wide as they discovered just how real and exciting the story of mission work was.  Lives were being changed in the field in which we worked and in the lives of those who came to see that work.

This particular group was so enamored of the work, they asked why we didn't produce some videos that could be used in the congregations back home.  I hemmed and hawed a bit about how the sending organization/denomination was trying their best to bring some equipment into the field to interview the missionaries and then produce something for broad use across the many congregations.

"No," one person said. "Why aren't you making a video of this?" "Why aren't you sending video's back?" My reply was simple. "We don't have the resources to purchase a camera." (This was pre smart phone days.) So of course the funding was made available.  When I checked our Missionary Policy Manual, I learned that this sort of provision was against our policy.  I check with the folks stateside at the sending office as was told that the local indigenous organization with which I worked needed to receive the funds and own/hold the equipment.  When I responded that that would be problem due to some rather nefarious issues with the partner regarding such matters, I was told that was none of my concern.  The money needed to be tracked and the partner was notified.  Eventually the funding came through the partner's head office, to the department to which I was assigned.  I was given the money and told to "go buy the camera." 

Dutifully, and hopefully, I did just that.  We managed to make a couple of videos, but was asked to turn the camera over to the Department Head for safe keeping and broader use by the department.  Not a problem...

After several months, we had  another group coming and I ask permission to use the camera only to be told it wasn't available.  When I inquired further, I was told it was none of my concern.  As I probed more deeply, through the lower level staff, who really always tended to be the most trustworthy members and the "getitdoners" I was told that the Department Head had given it to his son who used in on vacation and broke it. $1000 video camera gone, never to be seen again.

This is the challenge of mission. Balancing accountability, responsibility, transparency, and practicality.

 Unfortunately, in this, and so many other instances, a policy which reads well, which interprets "partnership" in an egalitarian manner, and makes the decision makers look good to their constituents, fails so miserably in practice.  

Seasoned missionaries with my organization rightly pointed out that the question should have never been asked of the policy issue. The gift should have been received, gratitude expressed, and the video camera purchased and kept; that it was none of the sending agency's/denomination's business.  But therein lies the other rub in these settings.  Principles.  How do we as people of principle and integrity, who believe in following guidelines, balance the need for this integrity with the on the ground realities...

It's not an easy question, but I do know, after 10 years of experience, that the missionaries who come down on the side of reality and practicality last long in the mission field amongst these charitable support based funding models of mission.

By the time I had realized this it was too late.  My constant questioning of the policies and the demonstration of their dysfunctional application, had earned me the status of persona non grata. It was known, in a sense, that I "had the goods"; that I was "not a player"; that I "dared to call out the policy failures", and even "the corruption" of the organization with which I worked.

My sense is that the more significant difference between these two models of mission funding is the reality that faith based missions is based on the integrity of the individual to do what they feel called of God to do, and that the charitable support based funding model is based on the need for the organization to maintain control, even when they haven't a clue as to what is actually happening. In this latter model there is an inherent patronizing attitude toward the missionary, an assumption that they are insufficiently equipped to make even marginally significant decisions. It ends in a micro management of the resources of the organization from a distant office which is too often out of synch with the particularities the missionary faces.  

This charitable support based model, in my particular case, has resulted in such increasing distrust that the missionary effort is largely a failure. Funding is no longer sufficient to retain a vibrant force.  The missionary force has been more than halved in just the past 15 or so years. Missionaries who were previously paid as couples are, in some cases, forced to live on single missionary salaries. Longer term missionaries were offered a buy out. 

It leads me to believe that many of the faith based, faith promise missions had it right all along.

Long-live faith based missions.

Non American Christian Faith Lessons

A recent exchange on Facebook about the worship like status afforded the Super Bowl, the contenders, and half-time performers by so many who also claim to worship the Savior reminded me of one of my first mission experiences on "this side of the pond."

Having spent a year in Kenya coordinating relationships between USA presbyterian congregations and Kenyan presbyterian congregations We returned to our beloved home in IL and set about trying to coordinate the relationships from this side.

Helping to develop the relationship between our local presbytery and one in Kenya, we invited several Kenyans to visit with us.  My job involved coordinating all aspects of that visit including the itineraries, interpretation, and providing counsel to both sides of the visiting teams - the hosts and the guests.

One of our guests, the Moderator of the partner presbytery and leader of the guest contingent was housed in a neighboring town.  That Sunday, just after worship I received the call.  The American host was upset that the Kenyan guest was steadfastly opposed to attending the region's Corn Festival.  When asked if he'd like to attend to see some of the culture, the guest asked what the Christian purpose of the event was? 

The response was given that it was not a particularly Christian event but a festival celebrating the crop that played such an important role in the region's economy and that a group from the church would be attending. The guest asked what the church group was going to do and was told, they'd be watching the parade and walking around looking at the booths.  The guest asked if they church group would be handing out evangelistic tracts or otherwise sharing their faith?  The response was no, it was just for fun.  And the guest declined wondering why the church would involve itself in such a thing without making some sort of witness.  The host was confused and a bit upset.  The host was committed to going and the guest was committed to not going and the  question arose as to whether or not the host could leave the guest alone...

The question was a multi-faceted one. At its core, however, there was a cultural disconnect between E. African concerns regarding the pantheistic aspect of agricultural religious movements (as witnessed in the Old Testament) and the western agronomistic focus on God's bounty.  But the response raises another question - why do we attend such events (as a congregational group) and not use it as a specific evangelical outreach.  I hear of church groups attending all sorts of sporting events, just for fun, going to theme parks just for fun, seeing movies as a group, just for fun.  There is no distribution of trracts, no purposeful witnessing, and I wonder, why not?  Why do we continue to compartmentalize our faith, limiting it to Sunday School, Worship, and Fellowship (and why do so many end up talking about nothing but worldly matters at Fellowship gatherings)...

Why is there any aspect of our lives wherein we do
not discuss, share, witness to our faith?  Because we might lose our jobs?  (Will not the Lord provide?)  Because we don't know how to witness?  (What is evangelism but one beggar telling another where to find food?)  I am left wonder if it is not a simple matter of not sufficiently trusting the Lord?

I headed out the door to the neighboring town and sat and talked with the host and the guest to try to ameliorate any bad feelings and any negative impact to the partnership.  It the end the guest gave in and went to the Festival.  I understand he was a bit "embarrassing" to the host church as everyone to whom he was introduced he asked if they know Jesus...  The heart of a true believer, cannot, will not be silenced. 

We have a lot to learn from non American Christians.  

And as a post script it's interesting to note that this international partner is now sending missionaries to sister America as a return favor.  They say "you once brought us the gospel, and now it seems you need it too."

The PCEA Womens Guild

 

One of the great joys of international mission work is being in on the development of something big.  To be able to watch the organization with which one is working reach the heights of their dreams. Such was the case when I snapped this picture in 1994 on a visit to our partners Hotel project in Mombassa, Kenya. 

My job as a projects coordinator was to assist the Projects Secretary, Mr. K. with oversight, review, resourcing, and encouragement of the over 200 projects formally sponsored, managed and/or supported by our partner denomination. 

Mrs. W. had the office next to mine and kept teasing me that I should see more of her denomination's Women's Project work since the women were the one's who spent "more time working and less time meeting and eating on the church's dime" (an oblique reference to the men in charge). And it was she who encouraged me to come to see the beginnings of this Hotel project. Their aim was to provide a hostel for children of Christians who would be attending university in Mombassa, a strongly Muslim enclave.

And so my office staff made the arrangements and I headed down on the train. Now I love trains, so this was going to be a biggee. The trains used were the old Pullman style with mahogany trim on the inside. The stewards still wore white gloves to serve dinners with china plates and silver plate flatware. It would be an overnight in second class accomodations meaning I would share my cabin with as many as three other persons.

I happily took my seat and laid my luggage down next to me. I was immediately greeted by a friendly gentlemen, a teacher who happened to be affiliated with the denomination with which I worked in country, and who was also headed to Mombassa for a teaching position at a primary school.  And then just before we left the station a second man joined us, quite talkative and interested in what this mzungu (white person) was doing in second class rather than first.  The teacher and I had some good conversation, with the soldier - over his first, second and third bottles of beer - before going to the dining car.

Following dinner, at which the soldier managed to put another three bottles to rest, we retired to our cabin which had been made ready for sleeping. And then the questions began, questions that stem from the depressed logic of a largely inebriated person trying to justify his own righteousness. You can fill in the blanks.  It was interesting, long, and sometimes disjointed but I was eventually rescued by the Teacher's request for silence that he might get some sleep.  Having consumed a few more bottles the soldier was ready to fade off.

Morning came and we pulled into the station in Mombassa and we were all off to our respective destinations.  As often was the case I was on my own to get to a destination for which I had no address, in a town to which I had never been, in a country in which I had lived for just a few short months.  It was a part of the excitement. This was a part of what I loved about my work.

The taxi driver was helpful as I tried to describe a new building project in a growing city and we eventually found our way to the project.  Upon arrival I was greeted with an absolutely delightful lunch which had been prepared purposefully based on word from Mrs. W. that I should be there before lunchtime.  Although Mrs. W. had planned on being there during my visit she was called away to another project which had reported having some difficulties.  Remember, this was in the days before email, and when telephone communication, at least in East Africa could still be quite spotty.  We still wrote letters.

But let's get back to the lunch for a minute.  

Ndizi na Nyama (Beef Stew)

Chapati (Flat Bread)

 

 

      sukumu wiki (lit. push the week - collard greens)

Kenyan women KNOW how to cook.  Whether its Kienyeji, Ugali, Kienyeji Mukimo, Githeri, Njahi, or any of the other "comfort foods" or something simple like a fresh fruit plate, a couple of samosas, or just a cup of chai (tea) with mandazi, Kenyans tend to eat well and to enjoy eating. The fellowship, the conversation, the exuberant joy is just a blessing.  Eating with Kenyan believers is always an event!

But I digress...the purpose was reviewing the progress that had been made to date on this hotel.  Mostly local funding, from individual Women's Guilds in Kenya, built as money had become available.

 

The progress they had made was a great source of pride. We toured the rooms and talked of the work yet to be done. Their dreams were well outlined and their excitement was abundantly obvious.  

I finished my interview, closed the notebook, we prayed and I returned to my hotel for the night before heading to the train station for my return trip. A trip which paled in comparison to the short but moving time I had spent with the Womens Guild members at the poject site. The years went on.  Our family eventually moved back to the states but I followed the project at a distance and was so elated when they finally opened their doors.  Today the hotel stands as a witness to perseverance, the women's commitment, and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 p.s...

And in a flash of inspiration, coincidence, or God-incidence I found this article about a building that was begun before we arrived in Kenya.  It's financier was a wealthy, crooked, political character. Unlike the Christian women's hotel projec, the Yaya Center West Wing building is still incomplete...https://biznakenya.com/yaya-west-wing-building/