My Dark Secret
I've learned that the chief spokesman for the seminary is responding to questions by saying SHE knows why she got the terminal appointment--as though there is some dark secret of "ungodliness" that I'm hiding. What a pile of dung! This is the same inflamatory charge that I have faced for 3 years. When I demanded to know in writing what this "ungodliness" was I received 2 sets of fabricated notes. (See side post: "Charges of Ungodliness" on main blog.)
Friday, September 29, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Testimonies From Emily and Mary
Two women adjunct professors have publicly testified to their good treatment at CTS. Emily spoke up at the Open Forum last week. She said my situation was a mystery to her. Her main point was how well she had been treated. Mary testified similarly in a letter to the editor in last night's paper. Let me make 3 points:
1. I speak for myself, not for women generally at CTS.
2. I am the only CTS full-time woman professor in history.
3. Even if there were 20 such women, my story stands on its own.
A Question: Why has neither of these women said, Despite my own good treatment, I want to re-read her story and talk with her and try to find out what is going on. My story is shocking. Neither said they believed it to be false.
Two women adjunct professors have publicly testified to their good treatment at CTS. Emily spoke up at the Open Forum last week. She said my situation was a mystery to her. Her main point was how well she had been treated. Mary testified similarly in a letter to the editor in last night's paper. Let me make 3 points:
1. I speak for myself, not for women generally at CTS.
2. I am the only CTS full-time woman professor in history.
3. Even if there were 20 such women, my story stands on its own.
A Question: Why has neither of these women said, Despite my own good treatment, I want to re-read her story and talk with her and try to find out what is going on. My story is shocking. Neither said they believed it to be false.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
COLLEAGUES RESPOND?
As we were getting ready to go to church this morning, husband John was wondering what colleagues might say when asked about my situation. I surmised that they would probably try to make it short—and that they probably wouldn’t defend the administration by saying: Truth be told, she actually was profoundly deficient. Rather, I imagine their best defense of the administration would be something like: It’s a terrible thing that she went public.
As we were getting ready to go to church this morning, husband John was wondering what colleagues might say when asked about my situation. I surmised that they would probably try to make it short—and that they probably wouldn’t defend the administration by saying: Truth be told, she actually was profoundly deficient. Rather, I imagine their best defense of the administration would be something like: It’s a terrible thing that she went public.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Reflections on Open Forum
The Open Forum last night met my hopes and expectations. The facilities were very accommodating and there was a roving mike that allowed for easy interaction. The questions were pointed and probing coming from a variety of perspectives. No one went away thinking this was a crowd of Tucker supporters. Indeed, the make-up of those who came was far more interesting and diverse than I could have expected. The CTS president's wife sat near the front appearing to be taking copious notes. The adademic dean's daughter asked a question and made a comment near the end that was painfully emotional and showed how this ordeal has deeply affected families. There were prominent CRC ministers and former ministers, ministers from the Methodist and Reformed churches, a CTS board officer and an alternate member (who was distressed that the board officers had been so secretive about the matter), a Grand Rapids PRESS reporter, a CTS student KERUX reporter, former CTS students, an adjunct professor (who testified to her good treatment at the seminary), a colleague from a Canadian sister school, a team leader from CRC headquarters, an elder and other folks from my home church, CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) members, and others with no discernable connections to organizations or churches.
The Open Forum last night met my hopes and expectations. The facilities were very accommodating and there was a roving mike that allowed for easy interaction. The questions were pointed and probing coming from a variety of perspectives. No one went away thinking this was a crowd of Tucker supporters. Indeed, the make-up of those who came was far more interesting and diverse than I could have expected. The CTS president's wife sat near the front appearing to be taking copious notes. The adademic dean's daughter asked a question and made a comment near the end that was painfully emotional and showed how this ordeal has deeply affected families. There were prominent CRC ministers and former ministers, ministers from the Methodist and Reformed churches, a CTS board officer and an alternate member (who was distressed that the board officers had been so secretive about the matter), a Grand Rapids PRESS reporter, a CTS student KERUX reporter, former CTS students, an adjunct professor (who testified to her good treatment at the seminary), a colleague from a Canadian sister school, a team leader from CRC headquarters, an elder and other folks from my home church, CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) members, and others with no discernable connections to organizations or churches.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
FAX fom Sid
Tonight a friend read a FAX from Sid Jansma, Jr. that sounded like same old, same old. He again mentioned the makeup of the CTS Ad Hoc Board Committee and the report itself. That report called for "redress" for me while leaving it up to "conciliation" to "mediate the differences." It is the Mediators Report that calls for very specific and significant redress. Will someone out there please ask Sid why he can talk about the Ad Hoc Committee Report, but pulls out his CONFIDENTIALITY card whenever the Mediators' Report is mentioned?
Tonight a friend read a FAX from Sid Jansma, Jr. that sounded like same old, same old. He again mentioned the makeup of the CTS Ad Hoc Board Committee and the report itself. That report called for "redress" for me while leaving it up to "conciliation" to "mediate the differences." It is the Mediators Report that calls for very specific and significant redress. Will someone out there please ask Sid why he can talk about the Ad Hoc Committee Report, but pulls out his CONFIDENTIALITY card whenever the Mediators' Report is mentioned?
CHIMES FRONT PAGE, 9-15-06
My story is complicated and I don't expect reporters to easily understand--especially student reporters. The article states that I was "denied tenure." My punishment was far more significant than that. I was given a terminal appointment and removed from tenure track.
The headline speaks of my resignation. I did not resign. I requested that my name be removed from the evaluation process, thus not applying for another appointment. Had I left before my terminal appointment was completed, it would be accurate to say I resigned. Why is this important? Because being removed from tenure track uniquely put me in the position of having to "apply" for another appointment. None of my full-time colleagues (all tenured or on tenure track) have this barrier. Put another way, I was turned into an "at-will employee." See Institute for Labor Studies & Research: Q/A: Is an employer required to explain why an at-will employee is being terminated? No. Employers terminating an at-will employee are not obligated to give any reasons for the termination. www.rilaborinstitute.org/employment_guide_2001/chapter_1.html.
These concepts are easily misunderstood, and any reporter makes such mistakes, as did the Grand Rapids PRESS and television media. BUT, CC reporters, not to get dear husband John's name right is unforgivable! (Just Kidding.) He taught at CC for more than 30 years---and played a very important role in the life of the school. His name is John WORST, not WORTH.
My story is complicated and I don't expect reporters to easily understand--especially student reporters. The article states that I was "denied tenure." My punishment was far more significant than that. I was given a terminal appointment and removed from tenure track.
The headline speaks of my resignation. I did not resign. I requested that my name be removed from the evaluation process, thus not applying for another appointment. Had I left before my terminal appointment was completed, it would be accurate to say I resigned. Why is this important? Because being removed from tenure track uniquely put me in the position of having to "apply" for another appointment. None of my full-time colleagues (all tenured or on tenure track) have this barrier. Put another way, I was turned into an "at-will employee." See Institute for Labor Studies & Research: Q/A: Is an employer required to explain why an at-will employee is being terminated? No. Employers terminating an at-will employee are not obligated to give any reasons for the termination. www.rilaborinstitute.org/employment_guide_2001/chapter_1.html.
These concepts are easily misunderstood, and any reporter makes such mistakes, as did the Grand Rapids PRESS and television media. BUT, CC reporters, not to get dear husband John's name right is unforgivable! (Just Kidding.) He taught at CC for more than 30 years---and played a very important role in the life of the school. His name is John WORST, not WORTH.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
OPEN FORUM WITH RUTH TUCKER
This is sponsored by the West Michigan chapter of CBE. Find out more at: www.cbegrandrapids.org
For a perceptive take on "confidentiality" matters regarding this case see what Jon Trott, an investigative journalist, writes: http://www.bluechristian.blogspot.com/
This is sponsored by the West Michigan chapter of CBE. Find out more at: www.cbegrandrapids.org
For a perceptive take on "confidentiality" matters regarding this case see what Jon Trott, an investigative journalist, writes: http://www.bluechristian.blogspot.com/
Friday, September 15, 2006
WHITECAPS WIN CHAMPIONSHIP!!!
We were sitting in the stands tonight (with son Carlton and granddaughter Kayla) watching the hometown team (in Comstock Park, 1 mile from our house) win the championship. Not exactly a nail-biter, but a great last game of the season for this class-A farm team for the Tigers (who also had a big win tonight).
We were sitting in the stands tonight (with son Carlton and granddaughter Kayla) watching the hometown team (in Comstock Park, 1 mile from our house) win the championship. Not exactly a nail-biter, but a great last game of the season for this class-A farm team for the Tigers (who also had a big win tonight).
TAKING CTS TO COURT
I was on the phone today with a CRC insider (with a significant "denominational" role). This individual ("II" for Independent Insider) claimed to be independent and implied neutrality regarding my case. II pressed me on the matter of taking CTS to court (playing the devil's advocate, I presume). II argued that by publishing my blog, only one side of the story was getting out--and that CTS was strapped by confidentiality restrictions. As I've said before, the administrators weren't restricted in front of the CTS Board committee or the mediators, and I would be pleased if they would agree to have both our sets of documents placed in public domain somewhwere.
It's hard to imagine that most insiders in the CRC would want this to go to court, especially after the mediators concluded that "if the seminary goes to court, it will probably lose, in part, because Ruth is well documented."
I have no intention of bringing a suit against the seminary. Why not? These are some of the reasons I gave the individual who questioned me:
1. My personality or emotional makeup: I just don't have it in me to go through a long drawn out court case. It is worth noting that 4 of my tenured colleagues, within the first days of finding out about my situation in January of 2003, said something like, If it were me I'd get an attorney and file suit. Maybe it's partly a gender thing, but that option was one I considered but did not carry out.
2. My beliefs: Many Christians speak strongly against taking a fellow Christian to court. I go a step further. I speak strongly against taking anyone to court--unless there are no other options. I think we already have a far too litigious society, and if it is possible to deal with matters outside court, I strongly encourage it. I have confidence, as I say in my blog, that one day there will be redress and an apology.
3. Time frame: Whether we're talking about state or federal court or CRC Judicial Code, there are time restrictions. My first terminal appointment came more than 3 years ago. It is entirely possible that some of my most significant documents (including the "smoking gun") could be kept out of court due to time factors.
4. Legal fees: Now unemployed, I would be hard pressed to hire even one attorney (at $250/hr. or more). The seminary has attorneys at its disposal and the administrators wouldn't be digging into their own pockets. I'm all too conscious of this. We were instructed that we were not to consult attorneys during our 8 weeks of mediation. It was a set up of 3 against one: the 3 administrators against me (and my documents). I didn't learn until late in the process that, despite the understanding, they were consulting their attorneys. I don't have a bevy of attorneys at my disposal whether in mediation or in a court case.
So for now, at least, don't hold your breath waiting for the court to be in session.
TWO SIDES OF THE COIN
"A coin has always two sides. Unfortunately, only one side is been shown. People and Institutions don't just make arbitrary decisions, there are always reasons." These are the first sentences from a message sent by an individual who works at CRC Publications in the Grand Rapids denominational headquarters. The last sentence exhibits neither logic nor good sense. People and Institutions DO just make arbitrary decisions WITHOUT good reasons. Are there examples of this? If we concentrate really hard, maybe we could come up with a timid answer like, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (in both parties). I agree with the writer's first sentence, but surely not the second. BOTH sides of the coin were shown to the Board Committee and the mediators. Both groups called for "redress." The mediators called for specific redress including retroactive pay to 2003. And the other side of the coin is shown in the blog--through references to administration documents alleging I'm so "deficient" that I was justly singled out for a terminal appointment.
I was on the phone today with a CRC insider (with a significant "denominational" role). This individual ("II" for Independent Insider) claimed to be independent and implied neutrality regarding my case. II pressed me on the matter of taking CTS to court (playing the devil's advocate, I presume). II argued that by publishing my blog, only one side of the story was getting out--and that CTS was strapped by confidentiality restrictions. As I've said before, the administrators weren't restricted in front of the CTS Board committee or the mediators, and I would be pleased if they would agree to have both our sets of documents placed in public domain somewhwere.
It's hard to imagine that most insiders in the CRC would want this to go to court, especially after the mediators concluded that "if the seminary goes to court, it will probably lose, in part, because Ruth is well documented."
I have no intention of bringing a suit against the seminary. Why not? These are some of the reasons I gave the individual who questioned me:
1. My personality or emotional makeup: I just don't have it in me to go through a long drawn out court case. It is worth noting that 4 of my tenured colleagues, within the first days of finding out about my situation in January of 2003, said something like, If it were me I'd get an attorney and file suit. Maybe it's partly a gender thing, but that option was one I considered but did not carry out.
2. My beliefs: Many Christians speak strongly against taking a fellow Christian to court. I go a step further. I speak strongly against taking anyone to court--unless there are no other options. I think we already have a far too litigious society, and if it is possible to deal with matters outside court, I strongly encourage it. I have confidence, as I say in my blog, that one day there will be redress and an apology.
3. Time frame: Whether we're talking about state or federal court or CRC Judicial Code, there are time restrictions. My first terminal appointment came more than 3 years ago. It is entirely possible that some of my most significant documents (including the "smoking gun") could be kept out of court due to time factors.
4. Legal fees: Now unemployed, I would be hard pressed to hire even one attorney (at $250/hr. or more). The seminary has attorneys at its disposal and the administrators wouldn't be digging into their own pockets. I'm all too conscious of this. We were instructed that we were not to consult attorneys during our 8 weeks of mediation. It was a set up of 3 against one: the 3 administrators against me (and my documents). I didn't learn until late in the process that, despite the understanding, they were consulting their attorneys. I don't have a bevy of attorneys at my disposal whether in mediation or in a court case.
So for now, at least, don't hold your breath waiting for the court to be in session.
TWO SIDES OF THE COIN
"A coin has always two sides. Unfortunately, only one side is been shown. People and Institutions don't just make arbitrary decisions, there are always reasons." These are the first sentences from a message sent by an individual who works at CRC Publications in the Grand Rapids denominational headquarters. The last sentence exhibits neither logic nor good sense. People and Institutions DO just make arbitrary decisions WITHOUT good reasons. Are there examples of this? If we concentrate really hard, maybe we could come up with a timid answer like, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (in both parties). I agree with the writer's first sentence, but surely not the second. BOTH sides of the coin were shown to the Board Committee and the mediators. Both groups called for "redress." The mediators called for specific redress including retroactive pay to 2003. And the other side of the coin is shown in the blog--through references to administration documents alleging I'm so "deficient" that I was justly singled out for a terminal appointment.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
SID THE STONEWALLER
Board President, Sid Jansma, Jr., has been the point-man for the CTS administration, responding to the Grand Rapids PRESS and appearing on TV News. His main point as a pointman is that this case is not one of sex discrimination. Of course, that surprises no one.
REPORTER: Mr. Jansma, was Tucker singled out and demoted (given a terminal appointment, removed from tenure track) because she's a woman? Is this a case of sex discrimination?
SID the STONEWALLER: Absolutely not. There is no evidence anywhere of gender bias. Such charges are totally unfounded. . . . . . .
REPORTER: Why, then, was she singled out and demoted?
S the S: I can't talk about that. It's confidential.
REPORTER: Was/Is she academically unqualified?
S the S: I'm sorry. I can't talk. This is confidential.
REPORTER: But you say it wasn't sex discrimination. You didn't pull your CONFIDENTIALITY CARD on that.
REPORTER: Was/Is she an incompetent teacher?
S the S: I can't speak on that. It's confidential.
REPORTER: Was/Is she guilty of "ungodly" conduct?
S the S: I just can't respond--confidentiality, you know.
REPORTER: But why, then, doesn't the matter of sex discrimination fall under the category of CONFIDENTIAL?
S the S: Sorry, that's confidential.
RUTH TUCKER: Sid, my dear Sid, I'm talking to you now. Are you listening? Stonewalling just isn't becoming of you. Yes, it fits the administrators' MO, but not yours. (Note to readers: Mr. Jansma is a very decent man. He was not president of the CTS board when I was given a terminal appointment in 2003. I do not blame him for what has happened to me.)
CALVIN SEMINARY: First Quiz of the Fall Quarter (and multiple choice, at that). But, only 1 question.
The reason for Ruth Tucker's removal from tenure track : a) sex discrimination; b) academically unqualified; c) incompetent teaching; d) ungodly conduct; e) can't play Dutch Bingo; f) none of the above.
A NOTE TO STUDENTS: This is an important quiz. Your assignment is to track down the correct answer.
Board President, Sid Jansma, Jr., has been the point-man for the CTS administration, responding to the Grand Rapids PRESS and appearing on TV News. His main point as a pointman is that this case is not one of sex discrimination. Of course, that surprises no one.
REPORTER: Mr. Jansma, was Tucker singled out and demoted (given a terminal appointment, removed from tenure track) because she's a woman? Is this a case of sex discrimination?
SID the STONEWALLER: Absolutely not. There is no evidence anywhere of gender bias. Such charges are totally unfounded. . . . . . .
REPORTER: Why, then, was she singled out and demoted?
S the S: I can't talk about that. It's confidential.
REPORTER: Was/Is she academically unqualified?
S the S: I'm sorry. I can't talk. This is confidential.
REPORTER: But you say it wasn't sex discrimination. You didn't pull your CONFIDENTIALITY CARD on that.
REPORTER: Was/Is she an incompetent teacher?
S the S: I can't speak on that. It's confidential.
REPORTER: Was/Is she guilty of "ungodly" conduct?
S the S: I just can't respond--confidentiality, you know.
REPORTER: But why, then, doesn't the matter of sex discrimination fall under the category of CONFIDENTIAL?
S the S: Sorry, that's confidential.
RUTH TUCKER: Sid, my dear Sid, I'm talking to you now. Are you listening? Stonewalling just isn't becoming of you. Yes, it fits the administrators' MO, but not yours. (Note to readers: Mr. Jansma is a very decent man. He was not president of the CTS board when I was given a terminal appointment in 2003. I do not blame him for what has happened to me.)
CALVIN SEMINARY: First Quiz of the Fall Quarter (and multiple choice, at that). But, only 1 question.
The reason for Ruth Tucker's removal from tenure track : a) sex discrimination; b) academically unqualified; c) incompetent teaching; d) ungodly conduct; e) can't play Dutch Bingo; f) none of the above.
A NOTE TO STUDENTS: This is an important quiz. Your assignment is to track down the correct answer.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
GRAND RAPIDS PRESS ARTICLE
As I say in the explanation of my blog, ("My Calvin Seminary Story"), I knew that a Grand Rapids PRESS reporter would be contacting me. That happened yesterday, and the article appeared in this morning's paper. Considering all the information to absorb and the very few hours to press time, the story was covered well.
I had expected that Board president Jansma (and Neal Plantinga) would deny my allegations. Yes, Sid Jansma, Jr. is right. An Ad Hoc Committee of the Board did review my case. This committee called for "redress" and conciliation to "mediate the differences." Mediators were hired. They called for specific redress, including my being appointed full professor "at this time" and "retroactive pay to 2003." This Mediators' Report is what I say the Board did not deal with. I have not been offered any form of "redress." To say that my being appointed full professor (in the future) is "on the table" is not "redress" by any standard. "Redress" relates to righting past wrongs.
Any appointment of me as full professor that was "on the table" was accompanied by a silencing clause--a statement written by the administrators and 2 board officers on October 19, 2005: "In order to move forward with these plans, the parties agree to not talk about the events that occurred before October 19, 2005. . . ." [Document # 85 in my notebook.] This would have been part of my being appointed full professor--that which was "on the table." I was not then nor am I now willing to sign a silencing agreement. They have wanted to silence me from the very beginning.
Regarding the statement, "one other woman has been added to the 22 full-time faculty." Yes, Kathy Smith, a recent grad, now has faculty status as the Director of Continuing Education. But she has not run the gauntlet; that is, she has not gone through the regular interview process that all full-faculty appointees must endure: interviews with one of the Divisions, the Full Faculty, the Board, and Synod.
As I say in the explanation of my blog, ("My Calvin Seminary Story"), I knew that a Grand Rapids PRESS reporter would be contacting me. That happened yesterday, and the article appeared in this morning's paper. Considering all the information to absorb and the very few hours to press time, the story was covered well.
I had expected that Board president Jansma (and Neal Plantinga) would deny my allegations. Yes, Sid Jansma, Jr. is right. An Ad Hoc Committee of the Board did review my case. This committee called for "redress" and conciliation to "mediate the differences." Mediators were hired. They called for specific redress, including my being appointed full professor "at this time" and "retroactive pay to 2003." This Mediators' Report is what I say the Board did not deal with. I have not been offered any form of "redress." To say that my being appointed full professor (in the future) is "on the table" is not "redress" by any standard. "Redress" relates to righting past wrongs.
Any appointment of me as full professor that was "on the table" was accompanied by a silencing clause--a statement written by the administrators and 2 board officers on October 19, 2005: "In order to move forward with these plans, the parties agree to not talk about the events that occurred before October 19, 2005. . . ." [Document # 85 in my notebook.] This would have been part of my being appointed full professor--that which was "on the table." I was not then nor am I now willing to sign a silencing agreement. They have wanted to silence me from the very beginning.
Regarding the statement, "one other woman has been added to the 22 full-time faculty." Yes, Kathy Smith, a recent grad, now has faculty status as the Director of Continuing Education. But she has not run the gauntlet; that is, she has not gone through the regular interview process that all full-faculty appointees must endure: interviews with one of the Divisions, the Full Faculty, the Board, and Synod.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
MY SEMINARY STORY, cont. . . .
Responses are coming in, more than I could have anticipated, and with amazing support and understanding. There has been one response that was less than supportive.
An administrator from another school wrote to a friend of mine: "CTS leaders probably have some ready answers to the assertions and allegations here, but they cannot voice them" [due to confidentiality restrictions]. The problem with that argument is that the CTS administrators had every opportunity to bring out their big guns against me during the Board Ad Hoc Committee review and during mediation. They did. All the accusations are in the documents, most of which are mentioned in my blog. Believe me, if they had anything more on me they would have used it, instead of making up stories about my failure to attend chapel.
This same man also wrote about my going public: "[I]n the end, it will hurt her. Any prospective employer has to be thinking: 'Here's trouble coming, trouble we don't need.'" He's right. In most cases this fear silences people. The fear of being blacklisted stops professionals dead in their tracks. (This is precisely what the CTS administration was counting on.) And, it silenced me. But dear husband John insisted that this story must be told. If I cannot find employment, so be it. Sometimes the truth is more important than employment.
Responses are coming in, more than I could have anticipated, and with amazing support and understanding. There has been one response that was less than supportive.
An administrator from another school wrote to a friend of mine: "CTS leaders probably have some ready answers to the assertions and allegations here, but they cannot voice them" [due to confidentiality restrictions]. The problem with that argument is that the CTS administrators had every opportunity to bring out their big guns against me during the Board Ad Hoc Committee review and during mediation. They did. All the accusations are in the documents, most of which are mentioned in my blog. Believe me, if they had anything more on me they would have used it, instead of making up stories about my failure to attend chapel.
This same man also wrote about my going public: "[I]n the end, it will hurt her. Any prospective employer has to be thinking: 'Here's trouble coming, trouble we don't need.'" He's right. In most cases this fear silences people. The fear of being blacklisted stops professionals dead in their tracks. (This is precisely what the CTS administration was counting on.) And, it silenced me. But dear husband John insisted that this story must be told. If I cannot find employment, so be it. Sometimes the truth is more important than employment.
Monday, September 04, 2006
"MY CALVIN SEMINARY STORY"
I launched a blog by that title early this morning--actually late last night.
THE SEVEN BRIDGES OF GRAND RAPIDS
First a comment about our morning. Husband John and I got up and took a 5-mile walk with Mayor George (a long-time neighbor in Ottawa Hills before we both moved away). That's Rev. Heartwell who is the only ordained minister among big city mayors. (Correct me, someone, if I'm wrong.) There were several thousand of us who joined in. We managed to keep near the front of the pack and came home feeling like we'd had some good exercise.
THE NEW BLOG
As I say in the sub-heading of my new blog, my seminary story is not something that could have been kept under wraps, especially with a Grand Rapids Press reporter onto me. But apart from that, I'm not sure I should even want it to be kept a secret. I suspect there are others--especially women--who have faced similar circumstances. Indeed, I'm hoping that some of you out there will share your war stories with me. Maybe there's a new book here. I've even contemplated a title: Zapped: Smart Women and the Struggle for Success.
If the site looks professional, there's a good reason for that. It's powered by TypePad, which costs a few dollars a year per site. But I never could have done it alone. A good friend volunteered to help me out as a contribution to the cause. She's the best in the business. In fact, she has her own consulting business and doesn't charge an arm and a leg. If you are interested in her services, check out her Blog Nanny site. There she gives some great tips and tells about herself and gives a contact email address.
My seminary site has an easy address: http://www.ruthtucker.net
My email: tuckerworst@comcast.net
I launched a blog by that title early this morning--actually late last night.
THE SEVEN BRIDGES OF GRAND RAPIDS
First a comment about our morning. Husband John and I got up and took a 5-mile walk with Mayor George (a long-time neighbor in Ottawa Hills before we both moved away). That's Rev. Heartwell who is the only ordained minister among big city mayors. (Correct me, someone, if I'm wrong.) There were several thousand of us who joined in. We managed to keep near the front of the pack and came home feeling like we'd had some good exercise.
THE NEW BLOG
As I say in the sub-heading of my new blog, my seminary story is not something that could have been kept under wraps, especially with a Grand Rapids Press reporter onto me. But apart from that, I'm not sure I should even want it to be kept a secret. I suspect there are others--especially women--who have faced similar circumstances. Indeed, I'm hoping that some of you out there will share your war stories with me. Maybe there's a new book here. I've even contemplated a title: Zapped: Smart Women and the Struggle for Success.
If the site looks professional, there's a good reason for that. It's powered by TypePad, which costs a few dollars a year per site. But I never could have done it alone. A good friend volunteered to help me out as a contribution to the cause. She's the best in the business. In fact, she has her own consulting business and doesn't charge an arm and a leg. If you are interested in her services, check out her Blog Nanny site. There she gives some great tips and tells about herself and gives a contact email address.
My seminary site has an easy address: http://www.ruthtucker.net
My email: tuckerworst@comcast.net
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Churches: "Fundamentalist" and "Liberal"
The Comstock Park UCC is close to our home on the river, and for the third time this summer we worshipped there this morning. It's a "left-behind" church by any standard (and certainly by the definition I use in my book by that title), but it's got a lot going for it. It would be hard to find a church more opposite from LaGrave Avenue Christian Reformed Church, where we are members. But I do find incredible similarities to Whitneyville Bible Church and two other Bible churches where I was connected for a dozen years.
Many people would imagine that the IFCA (Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America) would have little in common with the UCC (United Church of Christ). One is on the far right, the other on the far left. But little neighborhood churches have a way of breaking all the rules of easy classification.
The comparison between Whitneyville (of two-plus decades ago)and Comstock Park UCC was triggered by the chorus that is regularly sung before the sermon at both churches: "Open our eyes, Lord, we want to see Jesus. . . ." Hymns were similar too, including "Rock of Ages" and "Blest Be the Tie that Binds." So also the special music, "Like the Woman at the Well" and "He Touched Me." And the sermon, delivered in a very engaging style, was based on Mark 7:1-8, preached verse by verse--the standard preaching method of a Bible church.
The invocation was hardly what one might expect in a "liberal" UCC: "Almighty God, grant, we ask, a great outpouring of Your Holy Spirit upon Your people. Stir our hearts, O God, so as to cause a deep and widespread revival of living faith in Christ. Let this faith, O God, work by love,and bring forth fruits of the Spirit to Your glory and praise. Through Christ Jesus, we pray. Amen."
In many ways the community spirit and the friendliness was similar to Whitneyville Bible as well. We left with a giant red tomato, one of many brought in by a gardener and passed around during the coffee-time after the service. (I can't imagine leaving LaGrave on a Sunday morning with a tomato!)
There were, of course, a few differences. Though the church itself seems to have an equal gender mix, we were served the Lord's Supper by four women. It somehow seemed appropriate. Aren't women naturals at serving supper?
But apart from that it would be hard to tell whether the church was UCC or IFCA. So, don't be too quick to judge a church by its denominational tag. MADE IN THE UCC might not automatically mean a "liberal" fabric that cannot be washed without shrinking.
The Comstock Park UCC is close to our home on the river, and for the third time this summer we worshipped there this morning. It's a "left-behind" church by any standard (and certainly by the definition I use in my book by that title), but it's got a lot going for it. It would be hard to find a church more opposite from LaGrave Avenue Christian Reformed Church, where we are members. But I do find incredible similarities to Whitneyville Bible Church and two other Bible churches where I was connected for a dozen years.
Many people would imagine that the IFCA (Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America) would have little in common with the UCC (United Church of Christ). One is on the far right, the other on the far left. But little neighborhood churches have a way of breaking all the rules of easy classification.
The comparison between Whitneyville (of two-plus decades ago)and Comstock Park UCC was triggered by the chorus that is regularly sung before the sermon at both churches: "Open our eyes, Lord, we want to see Jesus. . . ." Hymns were similar too, including "Rock of Ages" and "Blest Be the Tie that Binds." So also the special music, "Like the Woman at the Well" and "He Touched Me." And the sermon, delivered in a very engaging style, was based on Mark 7:1-8, preached verse by verse--the standard preaching method of a Bible church.
The invocation was hardly what one might expect in a "liberal" UCC: "Almighty God, grant, we ask, a great outpouring of Your Holy Spirit upon Your people. Stir our hearts, O God, so as to cause a deep and widespread revival of living faith in Christ. Let this faith, O God, work by love,and bring forth fruits of the Spirit to Your glory and praise. Through Christ Jesus, we pray. Amen."
In many ways the community spirit and the friendliness was similar to Whitneyville Bible as well. We left with a giant red tomato, one of many brought in by a gardener and passed around during the coffee-time after the service. (I can't imagine leaving LaGrave on a Sunday morning with a tomato!)
There were, of course, a few differences. Though the church itself seems to have an equal gender mix, we were served the Lord's Supper by four women. It somehow seemed appropriate. Aren't women naturals at serving supper?
But apart from that it would be hard to tell whether the church was UCC or IFCA. So, don't be too quick to judge a church by its denominational tag. MADE IN THE UCC might not automatically mean a "liberal" fabric that cannot be washed without shrinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)