(Updated 5 Jan 2006)

Why, oh why did the elders take away the advantage of having an independent mediator, Rolly Lang continue a fair resolution of the differences with the Pendergasts? Why did they insist that his role change to moderator? Did they not trust his judgement after he found against them in stage one? The Pendergasts were quite happy to abide by his judgment for a full and open resolution of the differences including refund of expenses incurred by them. An unpaid bill for over $12,000 due to the Pendergasts still remains.

As it would turn out later Kevin Phillips admitted that all the original charges against the Pendergasts were falsely made up by him, his fellow elders and pastors at their meeting on 18th September 2003. This admission was made infront of Rolly Lang in his moderator role in September 2004. See notes of meeting

Surely somebody at South Calgary Community Church should mad enough about this abuse of leadership powers to insist on all the elders involved in this sad affair standing down pending an independent enquiry. Of course who remains at South Calgary Community Church, with sufficient courage to insist on an open and independent investigation into the clear abuse by elders, pastors. ministry leaders and the North American Baptist Conference. Praise God for allowing the story "Holy Terror" to run in Western Standard and now in Christian Week for the abuse exposed to the world.

This notice was published on two consecutive Sundays. The last paragraph was not part of the legal agreement and added without the Pendergasts approval. It is unkown who is the author of this additional paragraph. The Pendergasts and Jim Grady asked for it to be withdrawn for the second printing but this request was denied. Others would comment this was unethical. The statement was not even true at that stage because the legal suit had not been withdrawn - it awaited the confirmation that other parts of the agreement would be carried out by the Elders. Some were never carried out relative to the Pendergast's old home group.

The pastor, elders and ministry leaders would use the Pendergast's resort to legal means as a weapon to deflect blame away from their own errors. Leaders would tell others in the church and outside that the Pendergasts has sued a previous church to add fuel to their actions. This was a complete lie. When the leaders and denomination were confronted with this lie spread by Pastor Wallace they simply refused to comment or act. The fact that the church spent almost double the legal fees ($38,000) than the Pendergasts suggests their reliance on legal rather than scriptual means to settle this conflict.

Barry wrote to Diane Young, an Elder and comptroller for Samaritans' Purse. For 3 years Barry had worked with Samariatn's Purse as the lead architect for the new Canadian Headquarters for Samaritan's Purse/ Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Diane did not respond nor did she or Samaritan's Purse management respond to requests to discuss the possibility of a conflict of interest with Diane signing checks for Barry as a consultant architect for the new SP?BGEA Canadian Headquarters and making judgements on his spiritual state.

Others wrote to Kevins Phillips requesting he withdraw the additional statement but the request was ignored. Barry asked Elder Craig Edwards directly to remove the statement but to no effect.

A similar situation awaited the Pendergasts in June 2004 when the minutes of the 2003 Annual General Meeting showed a prejudical statement concerning the legal suit. A request made by Barry directly to Elder Craig Edwards at the June 2004 Annual General Meeting to issue a joint statement of progress made was refused.

From: Barry Pendergast <barrypendergast@shaw.ca>
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:35:51 AM Canada/Mountain
To: Diane Young (E-mail) <DYoung@samaritan.org>
Subject: A Correction

Private & Confidential

Diane
I am making a personal plea to you as a fellow Christian. As fellow professionals we also have certain rules of ethical behavior and conduct we must follow in all our activities.

I don’t know who chose to add the italicized comments about the our suing the church in the Elders apology in the bulletin on Sunday, but I certainly feel that the added paragraph was unfair and unethical in its representation of the situation. We have talked with several people to confirm our impressions and there is no doubt that what was written implies that the we are to blame for the majority of what has transpired between us and the Elders. You and I had a discussion on October 5th last year at the Cove that included the matter of using a third party to assist helping resolve the situation. We made many pleas to the elders for using a third party mediator. Only after being publicly defamed in our absence did we ask serve you and the other elders an affidavit requesting a fair and impartial hearing.

Our agreement between the Elders and the Pendergasts did not include the added paragraph. Therefore, to be entirely fair, I believe that you need to insist that we be allowed to write a brief statement giving their perspective on the matter.

I will look forward to your reply.
Barry

This was one of two letters sent to the elders but they refused to change the Appology Notice. Interestingly Kent Blanton's mother-in-law a judge in Texas found the added statement unethical