Beyond the Ballot Box: The Root Causes of PCC's Rebellion

Beyond the Ballot Box: The Root Causes of PCC’s Rebellion

The Moderator of the PCC has just concluded a one-month visit to the United States, during which the congregations that chose to host him endeavored to project an image of normalcy through extensive celebrations, dancing, and elaborate fanfare in honor of the “beloved” leader, appointed by God himself to serve his people.

However, beneath these outward displays of festivity, a church is in rebellion. In the Foreword to the “Manual for Elections in the PCC” in 2024, the Moderator himself laments, “It is sorrowful to mention that the consequences and the effects of the last elections are still felt in the Church today, in the form of mistrust, long-standing enmity, indifference to commitment and stewardship, resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion.”

This statement by the church’s leader portrays a rather bleak and troubling picture of the church’s current condition.

It is important to note that the Moderator is not describing a church he inherited from his predecessor, but a church he is about to hand over to his successor. We are talking about a church under his leadership for the past ten years. If any of his critics, the writer included, had characterized the church this way, he or his surrogates would have jumped on the statement to call them fake Presbyterians who must be destroyed.

We all agree with the second part of the statement, which says in the PCC today, there is “mistrust, long-standing enmity, indifference to commitment and stewardship, resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion.” Where we fundamentally disagree is in the first part, which attributes this dismal situation to “the consequences and the effects of the last elections.” Knowing that the elections are responsible for the current issues facing the church, what actions did he take to address the situation since the elections? For ten years, he focused on maintaining his public image, indulged in celebrations, fed fat on the sheep, and reveled in glory, all while neglecting the spiritual needs of the faithful.

During this period, what did we observe? The emergence of “resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion.” On the eve of his departure, realizing that history will hold him personally accountable for the destruction of the PCC, he is trying to shift the blame onto the results of an election. By implication, he is suggesting that because the elections that brought him to power were contentious, the losers were unhappy and thus aimed to sabotage his administration by being resentful and rebellious. This assertion is not only categorically false but also laughable.

To begin with, we should ask ourselves whether this was the first time elections in the PCC had been contentious. The answer is no. Elections have always been contentious. Whenever there is more than one candidate, there is inevitably contention and “scheming.” Many of us are old enough to remember the year when both the Moderator and Synod Clerk were elected from the same region. I need not mention names here; refer to your history books for verification. It is sufficient to say that much bitterness ensued, leading to the constitutional amendment stating that the Moderator and Synod Clerk could not both come from the same region. This is why, since then, leadership has alternated between the regions. We never witnessed “mistrust, long-standing enmity, indifference to commitment and stewardship, resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion” against the church under such circumstances because, following the elections, those elected focused on their duties and worked towards reconciliation.

This current situation is something new, something that has brought a lot of shame and dishonor to PCC Christians at home and abroad, and simply attributing it to the outcome of an electoral process would be dangerously naive. It shows either a lack of understanding of the root cause of the problem or a deliberate attempt to downplay the failures of an administration that, instead of uniting the people and bringing healing after a contentious election, resorted to arrogance, bullying, inflammatory rhetoric, punitive transfers, dismissals, etc. The “resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion” that we observe in the PCC today are the direct result of the actions of the administration, plain and simple.

Indeed, there is obvious resentment and organized resistance towards the Moderator’s leadership. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that out of the ten congregations, prayer cells, and groups scheduled to receive him in the U.S., five declined. Such refusal is a significant rebuke for an outgoing Moderator, highlighting the widespread dissatisfaction with his leadership.

Despite this rejection, the Moderator stayed in the U.S. for a month. If he was scheduled to visit ten groups and half of them declined, wouldn’t it have made sense for him to shorten his stay? To have been rejected on arrival means these groups and congregations were not consulted during the planning phase. Could it be that they were included in the schedule without their consent just to create the appearance of a busy itinerary, thereby justifying the length of stay and collecting the outstation allowance? Will he claim an outstation allowance for the days he spent unproductively? This behavior appears fraudulent, unethical, and dishonest. For how long has this scam been going on, and how much money has he siphoned from the church coffers through this scheme? This was his third visit to the U.S. in 2024, with a fourth planned for October, which confirms the financial motivations behind these frequent visits.

He was on a pastoral visit funded by the church. Not only did he extend the number of days to maximize the outstation allowance, but he also promoted a book at the exorbitant price of 300 dollars (about 180,000 FCFA) per copy. Can you imagine the Pope or any other church leader promoting a book while on a pastoral visit? This is rare because it creates the appearance of self-interest and commercialism, distracting from the mission’s spiritual and pastoral focus. The primary goal of a pastoral mission is to serve and support the congregation’s and community’s spiritual needs. Promoting personal projects undermines this purpose and leads to mistrust and skepticism among congregants. Additionally, an undue financial burden was placed on the congregations to support his lavish lifestyle and other perks associated with his visit. He is set to leave the US with a substantial financial haul, and calling it a pastoral visit is anathema.

Fellow Presbyterians, you elected a scammer to the Synod Office, someone who cared more about his own financial gain than the welfare of the church. This is why he allowed the church to fall into “mistrust, long-standing enmity, indifference to commitment and stewardship, resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion.” With Synod elections coming up in November, do not repeat the same mistake this time. If anyone who has worked with him and participated in this scheme is re-elected, then the PCC is doomed. Those in the Synod Office who have endorsed these bogus missions and enabled him over the years should be removed, and a new team should be brought in to repair the damage caused by a fraudulent administration. This is the only way to break the cycle of institutionalized fraud. Otherwise, they will continue to perpetuate such actions, setting a poor example for the church community and undermining its moral and ethical standards.

Notwithstanding the prolonged stay and the financial implications raising ethical questions, the deeper issue lies in understanding the root cause of the rejection he faced. Why would a group of Christians refuse to meet their supposedly “loving” Moderator? This resistance is not coming from a congregation like PCC Dallas, the San Antonio Prayer Cell, or the two newly established prayer cells in Beltsville, which the Moderator and his supporters have labeled as fake Presbyterians and, therefore, were excluded from the itinerary.

Rather, the resistance is from congregations, prayer cells, and groups that were considered “friendly” but refused to welcome him. When a leader cherry-picks congregations based on personal gain and targets others for destruction because they offer no perceived benefit, it is unsurprising that the PCC is experiencing widespread resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion. This dismal situation is not the outcome of an election but the direct consequence of his actions. He failed to unite the church and sowed the seeds of discord. He stifled dissent and cracked hard on his critics.

Let’s further illustrate this point by considering the impact of his leadership style on one particular department within the PCC. From 1961 to 2016, the Women’s Work Department had three National Secretaries: Mrs. Grace Eneme, Mrs. Elizabeth Gana, and Mrs. Beatrice Abong Ngeh. This ensured stability and growth. However, from 2016 to 2024, there have already been three National Secretaries for the Women’s Work Department. In his 2023

Presbyterian Church Day message, which he dubbed his farewell message, he said, “We ask for your forgiveness for our shortcomings, those done intentionally and those done unintentionally. By the same token, we forgive all who have hurt us. This is a spirit of rejuvenation, fellow Presbyterians, and it is the launch path for our handing over and transition. We call for a total reconciliation from all the four ends of the church.”

After preaching forgiveness and reconciliation, what did he do next? A few months later, he dismissed the National Secretary for the Women’s Work Department, who had held the position for less than a year. Even as he prepares to leave office, he cannot resist the urge to punish and silence his critics. This behavior seems to be an innate part of his nature. It is in his DNA. Now, after being poorly received in some U.S. congregations during this unsuccessful visit, he is leaving with a bruised ego and is going to try to set the church on fire before he finally hands over.

Listen to the following statement, which gives us a glimpse into his current mindset. In front of an audience of about ten people in Atlanta South on July 4, he declared to their applause, “The time is coming when legal measures will be taken on these fake Presbyterians to give back our parking rights, and we have gotten a parking right authorization here in America that we will use.”

Remember, in the PC Day message quoted above, he called “for a total reconciliation from all the four ends of the church.” Yet this statement conveys an image of an individual driven by anger and a desire for revenge, rather than a Pastor focused on a mission of spiritual leadership, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Here’s why:

The reference to “fake Presbyterians,” which creates an us-versus-them mentality within the church introduces a confrontational and divisive tone, which is more characteristic of an adversarial approach as opposed to a pastoral one. This is precisely the kind of labeling that has led to divisions and resentment in the church today.

The mention of taking legal measures and reclaiming parking rights through authorization suggests a focus on punitive action and retribution rather than pastoral care and resolution. He took a congregation in Douala to court. How well did that end? If he could not win a case in a lawless country, how does he intend to succeed in a country governed by laws? This behavior reflects a mule-like obstinacy, characterized by a stubborn refusal to adapt or change course despite past failures. His repeated reliance on legal actions, even when they have proven ineffective, demonstrates a rigid and inflexible approach to leadership, which is bad for the church.

The tone of the statement, particularly a phrase like “give back our parking rights,” reflects a sense of personal grievance and a desire for punishment, which is contrary to the pastoral role of shepherding and guiding the flock with compassion This is the kind of inflammatory language the Moderator has been spewing from the pulpit for the past ten years, resulting in “mistrust, long-standing enmity, indifference to commitment and stewardship, resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion.” Time and space do not allow for a more in-depth analysis of his sermons, but it is evident that the Rt. Rev. Moderator never had a true pastoral calling. His motivation for joining the ministry was solely for personal gain.

In the same sermon in Atlanta, he promised a “tsunami.” Therefore, PCC Christians, brace yourselves for the impact, as we are not dealing with a rational individual. If he valued rationality, the church would not be in rebellion today. We are dealing with someone who craves unchecked power, regardless of the destructive consequences. He is too dangerous for the church. His supporters are already claiming, “There is no PCC Atlanta North or PCC Atlanta South. There is just one PCC in this metropolis: PCC ATLANTA CONGREGATION.”

However, we all know that both congregations, Atlanta North and South, were inaugurated on the same day in 2017. Even if PCC Atlanta North were dissolved today, there is no guarantee that those members would simply join Atlanta South due to the presence of some abrasive individuals in the South. There are many PCC Christians in Atlanta, and the South could grow its congregation by recruiting from this pool instead of attempting to dismantle the North through targeted phone calls and negative influence.

Forgiveness and reconciliation may come from the Moderator’s lips, but he is still as vindictive as ever.

He is a leader who preaches virtue but practices vice, a leader who does not tolerate criticism and demands absolute loyalty, a characteristic of authoritarianism. A leader who emphasizes blind obedience and conformity, a leader who suppresses dissent, and discourages open communication, leading to a very unfavorable work environment.

What have been the consequences? Low morale, high turnover, stifled creativity, reduced collaboration, increased stress, erosion of trust, and reputational damage, which are all precursors to “mistrust, long-standing enmity, indifference to commitment and stewardship, resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion.” The

Moderator’s election has transformed a peaceful church into a rebellious one, making it the worst event in PCC’s history, with effects that will be felt for generations to come. There is nothing worse than a church plagued by long-standing enmity, resentment, and rebellion. Fellow Presbyterians, cry the beloved church!

We all followed the situation that unfolded in Beltsville, where the Moderator flew in overnight to intervene in a local election although in the election manual, he clearly stated, “Let the manual and criteria be applied as objectively and blindly as it is.”

His intervention was obviously not an objective and blind application of the framework. What did we observe as a result of that? The elections could no longer be seen as free and fair. This interference led to resentment, which resulted in the creation of two breakaway factions. There are 1,588 congregations in the PCC. Can we imagine the Moderator intervening in congregational issues? That would be insanity. Seriously!

On May 3, 2024, the Moderator wrote a letter condemning the Prayer Cell at Greenbelt Rd, Lanham, Maryland, declaring it unconstitutional because, in his words, “It is a divisive faction and a symbol of protest and rebellion.”

But wait a minute, what is unconstitutional? Is it the Moderator meddling in local elections, causing “resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion,” or the creation of the Prayer Cell?

First of all, a group of Christians must voluntarily decide to worship together. They start their prayer cell. If there is a nearby friendly congregation, they can ask for guidance. The important point to note here is that it must be voluntary. We cannot appoint people to a congregation or expect a hostile congregation to approve of, or even nurture, such a prayer cell. Corruption cannot nurture individuals who refuse to engage in corrupt practices. It simply cannot happen, and the PCC constitution does not support such behavior.

The breakaway signifies differences, but these differences are managerial, not doctrinal. The breakaway members are not preaching a doctrine that is antithetical to the Presbyterian faith. In other words, even though they have broken away, they still want to be Presbyterians and manage their congregation in total transparency and accountability, not under corrupt leadership. Corruption cannot be imposed on Christians, and people cannot be expelled from a church for refusing to embrace it. This distinction should be clear. What is wrong with having more than one

PCC congregation in Beltsville? Only a corrupt mind can see it as divisive. There are 23 PCC congregations in Bamenda town alone. How divisive is that?

The breakaway in Beltsville is the result of the Moderator’s direct interference, not the outcome of an electoral process. The Moderator’s actions fueled the rebellion.

A similar situation occurred here in Dallas, demonstrating again how the Moderator’s direct actions led to a rebellion. He fired our Pastor for no reason other than the fact that the Pastor was a stumbling block to his complete access to the congregation. He then appointed an incompetent Pastor, someone he described as “not being equal to the task of uniting the congregation and maintaining peace…and… not running the congregation as dictated by the constitution of the PCC.”

These two events built up resentment. During our meeting with the Moderator on March 1, 2023, we made it clear that we were not going to accept the new Pastor because everyone, including the Moderator, knew her shortcomings. We were vehement in our opposition.

Despite our objections, he sent his Care-Taker Committee (CTC) Coordinator to install the Pastor, proving he was not listening to us. Then, on May 07, 2023, a group of individuals appeared at our church to install the new Pastor. The session had a preliminary meeting with them before the service and made it abundantly clear that the installation was not going to take place. After a heated debate, the CTC coordinator agreed not to proceed with the installation. However, after delivering a watered-down sermon filled with insults, he broke his word and attempted to proceed with the installation. The provocation was too much; tensions mounted, and all the essential ingredients for a rebellion were in place. Therefore, it had to happen. What kind of Pastor would be dishonest even on the pulpit?

Nearly every congregation in the US has felt the destabilizing impact of the Moderator. In a letter to PCC Houston on May 5, 2024, he identified four individuals “who negotiated the lease that has resulted in a clouded $60,000 debt” and stated they “are not eligible to run as Elders or hold any other offices within the Congregation during this reorganization of the Church in Houston.”

The association of the debt with a lease suggests it could be related to unpaid rent or other breaches of the lease agreement, such as failing to pay for utilities or causing damage to the property. The term “clouded” indicates complications or issues with the debt, including overdue payments or disputes regarding the lease terms.

For a small congregation like PCC Houston, $60,000 is a significant amount of money, indicating that the problem has likely persisted for more than a year. Who is the unscrupulous landlord willing to let a delinquent tenant owe rent for a year? In the same letter, he advises the congregation to break their lease. Rt. Rev. Moderator, in the United States, tenants who cannot pay their rent are evicted. The landlord has a mortgage and other loans to repay and cannot afford to wait for a defaulting tenant to break the lease at their convenience. When a tenant becomes delinquent, the landlord may take steps to collect the owed rent, including sending notices, charging late fees, or starting the eviction process. The first step is to send the tenant a “Notice to Vacate.” After three days, if the rent still hasn’t been paid, the landlord can file for eviction. The entire eviction process can take about a month, not a year.

Without any documentation indicating late fees, with no ‘Notice to Vacate’ or a ‘Filing for Eviction,’ it is unclear how the Moderator determined that the huge debt of $60,000 is related to the lease.

Something doesn’t add up here. If the debt situation can be described as ‘clouded,’ then his actions are ‘muddy.’ From the look of things, the

landlord seems to be satisfied with the tenant, and this $60,000 debt might be a made-up sensational report aimed at removing certain individuals and replacing them with his cronies. This is his modus operandi. The same type of exaggerated reporting was used to justify the firing of Rev. Dr. Joe-set Aji-Mvo from PCC Dallas, but we were not fooled. It’s a sad situation for the church if we can no longer trust that what the Moderator writes or says is the truth.

The situation becomes even more absurd when considering that one of the individuals disqualified from running for a leadership position due to the problematic debt situation has been appointed as an adviser to the Care-Taker Committee (CTC). Do you see the contradiction here? Not being able to manage a congregation’s finances is “good” accounting practice, so let him carry that experience to the CTC and share it with other congregations. Yes, this is how the Rt. Rev. Moderator has run the PCC for ten years. Today, instead of blaming his incompetence for destroying the Church, he is trying to blame election results. This kind of cacophony is self-evident, and I don’t know why people are not seeing it.

The turmoil within the PCC extends far beyond contested election results. Rebellion is happening from Bamenda to Kumba, Douala, and the United States because of the Moderator’s actions. Look at what he has done to the Church in the US. He dismissed the CTC EXCO, which was headed by the Moderator Emeritus, the Very Rev. Dr. Festus Asana, and included Rev. Dr. Joe-Set Aji-Mvo, Barrister Charles Ndiforngu, Dr. Elonge, and Mr. Daniel Mukete. These are all highly respected individuals of integrity who were passionate about building the church in America. What was their crime? If there was any reason to fire these people, let him redeem himself and explain it to us.

Despite doing an excellent job, the Moderator saw no personal benefit. That is what mattered to him. To hell with the church.

Who did he appoint to replace them?

A CTC Coordinator who would be dishonest even on the pulpit. This is someone widely known for abandoning his congregation in Cameroon and fleeing to the U.S. in search of greener pastures.

A CTC Chairman who for years had boycotted the very CTC he was now called to
A pastor whom the Moderator himself would later describe as “not being equal to the task” and not adhering to the Constitution of the PCC. This is the same Pastor who has been vying to destroy PCC Dallas. We all remember that the entire CWF Zonal EXCO for diaspora USA was fired because they could not include her in their WhatsApp group.

A CTC Secretary who did not belong to a PCC congregation at the time of her What are the results today? A fractured church. A church in rebellion. Can we attribute this rebellion to the results of any election? No! That is why I said from the beginning that the assertion that the “resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion” happening in the PCC today are the results of an election is laughable. His actions are the direct cause of the rebellion. There is no sugar-coating it. We have to accept it and live with the consequences. Rt. Rev. Moderator, you destroyed the church in the United States. Own it! History is not going to judge you kindly.

In conclusion, asserting that the “resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion” within the PCC are merely the results of a contested election is a blatant falsehood. These tumultuous outcomes are directly attributable to the actions and authoritarian rule instituted by the Moderator. His interventions, from firing Pastors with opposing views, punitive transfers, and meddling in local elections to appointing incompetent and divisive leaders, have sown deep-seated discord and fractured the church’s unity.

Just as a doctor’s misdiagnosis overlooks the true cause of an illness and prevents effective treatment, attributing the PCC’s “resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion” to the election results ignores the deeper, more significant issues caused by the Moderator’s actions, preventing the church from addressing the real sources of its turmoil. The repercussions of his tenure are profound and far-reaching, ensuring that the damage inflicted upon the church will persist long after he has left office.

The PCC stands at a critical crossroads, and only by acknowledging the true source of its strife can it hope to begin the arduous journey toward healing and reconciliation. The responsibility for the current disarray lies squarely with the Moderator’s leadership, and it is crucial to recognize this if we, as a church, are to move forward effectively. To move beyond this period of mistrust, resentment, organized resistance, and rebellion, the church must prioritize transparency, accountability, and a genuine commitment to pastoral care and unity. Only then can the PCC restore its integrity and fulfill its evangelical mission through spiritual leadership.

Neba Bernard

PCC Dallas, USA July 17, 2024