The second Town Hall meeting ended with an agreement that the changes in governance structure would be excluded from the vote on the recommendations of the report from Dr. Paul Borden, but that the recommendations for neighborhood evangelism and "diversity" in selection of church music would remain intact. Because of this agreement, the third Town Hall meeting went smoothly. After the third Town Hall meeting, it slowly surfaced that the pastoral staff had no intention of honoring this agreement. Our senior pastor Alan DeSilva began to privately whisper that we would have to vote on the entire set of recommendations as proposed. Why? Because, as we were told, our church had a contract with Borden and the report he provided to us was a part of that contract. (The report specified that it must be voted on in its entirety.) Pastor DeSilva’s argument was that if we didn't follow through with a vote on Borden’s entire set of recommendations, we could open ourselves up to a lawsuit.
As far as legal analysis goes, this was just ridiculous. This is just like saying that if you contract for a deck on the back of your home, and you don't use it, you could open yourself to a lawsuit from the builder. In a nutshell, if you contract for a deck, the builder performs the work, and you pay the builder the agreed-to price, the contract is completed and fulfilled. It is now your deck. You can have a birthday party on your deck, you can paint it green, or you can burn the whole thing to the ground. It's you deck to do with as you please. The same could be said of the Paul Borden Report. The church had work for which they had paid $6500. We were free to do with it as we pleased. But our pastor stuck to his "lawsuit” story, and held his vote on Sabbath, in the sanctuary, during the Divine Worship Hour on November 17, 2007. The result of the vote was a 60/40 split in favor of approving the report.
I started this series of posts with the intention of sticking to a description of events, and leaving the arguments and analysis for other posts, but in this instance I’m going to depart from that intention and spend the remainder of this post dissecting this infamous vote. There are so many ways in which it was horribly wrong, and much of our current appeals process involves these wrongs, so a listing thereof is imperative in order to understand what will follow in this narrative.
First, the vote was taken on a Sabbath. There are only two types of business that the Church Manual permits to be transacted during Sabbath worship services – membership changes and nominating committee reports. All other business is to be conducted at business meetings outside of the Sabbath hours. This vote should never have been held on a Sabbath, and there were members who declined to participate in the voting for that reason.
Second, there was insufficient notice given. Proper procedure is for announcements of pending actions such as this to be published in the bulletin for two weeks prior to the vote. We got only one verbal announcement the week before, which many missed.
Third, what was being voted on was not clearly spelled out. Many people missed the verbal announcement the week before, which (along with a second quick announcement on the morning of the vote) was the only time Pastor DeSilva publicly announced that the vote was on the entire Report. They believed that the structural change was not a part of the vote, consequently voting in favor of something they would otherwise have opposed. Even those who knew that the structural change was included didn’t know what that meant. In the last meeting where the details of the proposed new system were discussed, before it was agreed that the whole matter of structural change would be dropped, Pastor DeSilva had stated that there were still some adjustments to be made to properly describe the intention. No updated chart and/or written description were provided at the time of the vote to be the official description of the new system, and Pastor DeSilva has since treated that ambiguous vote as a blank check to not only make the new structure whatever he wanted it to be, but also to change or “interpret” it however it suited his purposes. (We’ll come back to this point later in The Epic.)
Fourth, opportunity was not provided for discussion of the matter, nor were formal minutes taken. The pastoral argument has been that this Sabbath vote was a legitimate business meeting of the church. However, there are certain hallmarks of business meetings which were notably absent in this situation – specifically that no opportunity was provided to discuss the motion within the meeting and no minutes of the meeting were kept. We submit that without these vital characteristics the event of Nov. 17, 2007 did NOT qualify as a legitimate business meeting of the Takoma Park SDA Church.
Finally, there was no way to verify whether the individuals voting were truly members of the congregation. The way the actual voting took place was that deacons with paper ballots wandered down the aisles and handed ballots to anyone whom they noticed raising their hands. The completed ballots were collected in the same manner. This system didn’t provide any means of verifying the membership of the voters. There were also members who complained afterward of having been overlooked by the deacons in the ballot distribution. With the vote having been split as closely as it was it is entirely possible that the outcome would have been different if more care had been taken in the process, but we’ll never know for sure. This is one of the inherent weaknesses of having taken this vote during Sabbath morning services. If it had been done outside of Sabbath hours as it should have been it would have been in a more controlled environment where the needed attention to the integrity of the process could have been given. For these reasons we believe that the vote taken was not legitimate.
Next: Shock and Bonding
Religious
Sunday, October 19, 2008
How does the new structure work?
How does the new structure work? Actually, it doesn't.
The Borden Report specified that the Takoma Park Church was to adopt a "staff-led structure," the details of which would be anounced by the Potomac Conference. What got presented, however, wasn't a "staff-led structure" in a strict sense of the term. A staff-led structure is a mega-church invention. Mega-churches are run by having all ministries led by paid employees. This staff deals with all church operations. All operational decisions for the church are made executively by the chief pastor. The only involvement of the lay members is in an "accountability board" which does the hiring, paying, and firing of these employees, and this board is typically in the back pocket of the pastor.
This is the system Paul Borden specified that we should have, but it's not exactly what we got.
The system recommended by Elder Ray Pichette as a representative of the Potomac Conference replaces the traditional Church Board with two other boards, the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board. The tasks of the Accountability Board (which were not spelled out in writing until well after the vote adopting this system) are to 1) develop and maintain a Church Operations Manual, 2) review the vision goals of the Church Ministry Board and hold the Senior Pastor accountable, 3) ministry audit (develop and maintain an instrument to evaluate each program for a missional focus), and 4) human relations (responsible for hiring of all paid personnel). The Accountability Board is composed of 7 members, one of which is the senior pastor. Pastor DeSilva only wanted 5 members, including himself, but he inadvertently left the door open for nominating committee to overrule him on that, which it did, and he was not pleased. The details of that story will be coming up in The Epic. The only qualification required of the lay Accountability Board members is that neither they nor any member of their immediate family be a member of the Church Ministries Board. This Board is chaired by one of its lay members, who is specifically selected for that task.
The duties of the Church Ministries Board are 1) worship planning, 2) responsible for developing a yearly calendar of events and celebrations, 3) develop Mission and Vision, 4) leadership development, 5) responsible for keeping the church missionally focused, and 6) develop long and short term vision goals. This board is composed of all the church leadership positions within the dashed lines on the organizational charts (see The Epic, Pt. 4). The senior pastor is the chairman of this Board, and is the only link between the two boards.
In terms of hierarchy, the senior pastor and Ministries Board are supposed to report to, and be held accountable by, the Accountability Board. According to the charts, the Accountability Board then reports to the Business Meeting. In other words, the next highest authority in the congregation after the Business Meeting is a group of six lay people who don't lead any ministry (and the senior pastor).
The difference between this new system and the one prescribed by the Church Manual is striking. According to the Manual, the authority directly below the Business Meeting is the Church Board. The duties of the Church Board include, but are not limited to, 1) spiritual nurture, 2) evangelism in all its phases, 3) maintainance of doctrinal purity, 4) upholding Christian standards, 5) recommending changes in church membership, 6) church finances, 7) protection and care of church properties, 8) coordination of church departments. You'll notice that none of these tasks appear in the lists of duties for our two new boards. It could be argued that some of the same intent is present, just stated differently, but even allowing for some interpretation in that regard there are still substantial gaps. And how are these gaps filled? By executive decision of the chief pastor, as is the intent of a staff-led structure.
This concentration of power with the pastoral staff, and particularly the senior pastor, is increased by the fact that the two new boards do not (and cannot) in reality function as they are described on paper. The Accountability Board doesn't funtion as it is supposed to for four reasons. First, it has no power with which to hold anyone accountable. In a true staff-led system it would be responsible for the hiring, paying, and firing of staff. In the Adventist church, pastors and hired, paid, and fired by the conference. The local church has no say in any of that, and therefore no leverage of any kind with which to hold the pastor accountable. It also has no leverage over any of the lay leaders, because they are volunteers, not paid employees. Second, the Acountability Board has no realistic power to hold the pastor accountable because the pastor is a member of that board! To expect that board to make impartial judgements of the job performance of someone who is a member of the board is like putting a defendent on their own jury and expecting an impartial verdict. It just doesn't work. Third, the Accountability Board has no power because its voice is the senior pastor. No other member of the board is permitted to report its activities to anyone. Going back to the previous analogy, not only is the defendant a member of the jury, he's the foreman! Fourth, the Accountability Board has no power because it does not meet. In the eight months it has been in existence it has only met once, when it approved a pastoral recommendation for a new business manager. In short, the Accountability Board accomplishes nothing other than being a rubber stamp for the pastoral agenda.
The Ministry Board doesn't work as it is supposed to because Pastor DeSilva won't let it. He maintains a stranglehold on both the agenda and the discussions in order to produce the outcome he desires. This board is used as a forum in which to announce decisions and plans already made by the pastoral staff, not as a venue for ministry leaders to dialogue and produce new ideas. The results have so far been dismal. Also, as with the Accountability Board, the senior pastor is the only person officially permitted to speak to anyone about the actions taken by the Ministry Board.
To summarize, this new structure tears the previous structure into little pieces which cannot effectively function on their own, leaving a wake of confusion and disorder. This state of disarray has allowed our senior pastor, as the only constant through this change, to step in and assume kingly power.
Religious
The Borden Report specified that the Takoma Park Church was to adopt a "staff-led structure," the details of which would be anounced by the Potomac Conference. What got presented, however, wasn't a "staff-led structure" in a strict sense of the term. A staff-led structure is a mega-church invention. Mega-churches are run by having all ministries led by paid employees. This staff deals with all church operations. All operational decisions for the church are made executively by the chief pastor. The only involvement of the lay members is in an "accountability board" which does the hiring, paying, and firing of these employees, and this board is typically in the back pocket of the pastor.
This is the system Paul Borden specified that we should have, but it's not exactly what we got.
The system recommended by Elder Ray Pichette as a representative of the Potomac Conference replaces the traditional Church Board with two other boards, the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board. The tasks of the Accountability Board (which were not spelled out in writing until well after the vote adopting this system) are to 1) develop and maintain a Church Operations Manual, 2) review the vision goals of the Church Ministry Board and hold the Senior Pastor accountable, 3) ministry audit (develop and maintain an instrument to evaluate each program for a missional focus), and 4) human relations (responsible for hiring of all paid personnel). The Accountability Board is composed of 7 members, one of which is the senior pastor. Pastor DeSilva only wanted 5 members, including himself, but he inadvertently left the door open for nominating committee to overrule him on that, which it did, and he was not pleased. The details of that story will be coming up in The Epic. The only qualification required of the lay Accountability Board members is that neither they nor any member of their immediate family be a member of the Church Ministries Board. This Board is chaired by one of its lay members, who is specifically selected for that task.
The duties of the Church Ministries Board are 1) worship planning, 2) responsible for developing a yearly calendar of events and celebrations, 3) develop Mission and Vision, 4) leadership development, 5) responsible for keeping the church missionally focused, and 6) develop long and short term vision goals. This board is composed of all the church leadership positions within the dashed lines on the organizational charts (see The Epic, Pt. 4). The senior pastor is the chairman of this Board, and is the only link between the two boards.
In terms of hierarchy, the senior pastor and Ministries Board are supposed to report to, and be held accountable by, the Accountability Board. According to the charts, the Accountability Board then reports to the Business Meeting. In other words, the next highest authority in the congregation after the Business Meeting is a group of six lay people who don't lead any ministry (and the senior pastor).
The difference between this new system and the one prescribed by the Church Manual is striking. According to the Manual, the authority directly below the Business Meeting is the Church Board. The duties of the Church Board include, but are not limited to, 1) spiritual nurture, 2) evangelism in all its phases, 3) maintainance of doctrinal purity, 4) upholding Christian standards, 5) recommending changes in church membership, 6) church finances, 7) protection and care of church properties, 8) coordination of church departments. You'll notice that none of these tasks appear in the lists of duties for our two new boards. It could be argued that some of the same intent is present, just stated differently, but even allowing for some interpretation in that regard there are still substantial gaps. And how are these gaps filled? By executive decision of the chief pastor, as is the intent of a staff-led structure.
This concentration of power with the pastoral staff, and particularly the senior pastor, is increased by the fact that the two new boards do not (and cannot) in reality function as they are described on paper. The Accountability Board doesn't funtion as it is supposed to for four reasons. First, it has no power with which to hold anyone accountable. In a true staff-led system it would be responsible for the hiring, paying, and firing of staff. In the Adventist church, pastors and hired, paid, and fired by the conference. The local church has no say in any of that, and therefore no leverage of any kind with which to hold the pastor accountable. It also has no leverage over any of the lay leaders, because they are volunteers, not paid employees. Second, the Acountability Board has no realistic power to hold the pastor accountable because the pastor is a member of that board! To expect that board to make impartial judgements of the job performance of someone who is a member of the board is like putting a defendent on their own jury and expecting an impartial verdict. It just doesn't work. Third, the Accountability Board has no power because its voice is the senior pastor. No other member of the board is permitted to report its activities to anyone. Going back to the previous analogy, not only is the defendant a member of the jury, he's the foreman! Fourth, the Accountability Board has no power because it does not meet. In the eight months it has been in existence it has only met once, when it approved a pastoral recommendation for a new business manager. In short, the Accountability Board accomplishes nothing other than being a rubber stamp for the pastoral agenda.
The Ministry Board doesn't work as it is supposed to because Pastor DeSilva won't let it. He maintains a stranglehold on both the agenda and the discussions in order to produce the outcome he desires. This board is used as a forum in which to announce decisions and plans already made by the pastoral staff, not as a venue for ministry leaders to dialogue and produce new ideas. The results have so far been dismal. Also, as with the Accountability Board, the senior pastor is the only person officially permitted to speak to anyone about the actions taken by the Ministry Board.
To summarize, this new structure tears the previous structure into little pieces which cannot effectively function on their own, leaving a wake of confusion and disorder. This state of disarray has allowed our senior pastor, as the only constant through this change, to step in and assume kingly power.
Religious
Saturday, October 18, 2008
This Would be Funny...
...if it weren't so sad. A 71 year old woman was arrested for not going along with her pastor's attempt to turn her church into a "Pupose Driven Church."
http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/comments/71_year_old_woman_arrested_at_church_whos_to_blame/
http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/comments/71_year_old_woman_arrested_at_church_whos_to_blame/
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Epic, Pt. 4
Dr. Paul Borden had come and gone, and in his wake left a disaster. Takoma Park Church was in a state of confusion. There were those that were concerned that about bringing in a consultant. There were those that were concerned about Dr. Borden, who is not ordained in our faith, preaching in our pulpit. Others thought aloud saying, "We have the Bible and the Testimonies for free, why do we have to pay $6000 for a consultant?"
The first Town Hall Meeting held to discuss the Borden Report was announced on Sabbath morning, Oct. 13, 2007, and took place that afternoon. It was here that we got our first look at the new structure being recommended, and where we were issued the first of what have turned out to be at least eight different versions of the new organizational chart. This chart and the accompanying explanation were presented by Pastor DeSilva and Dr. Ray Pichette. Included below is this first "organizational chart." I stress the term "organization chart." He insisted in calling these attempts at charts, "flow charts." Anyone who knows anything about systems analysis or organizational management and behavior will be quick to tell you that what appears below lacks sufficient substance to be called a "flow chart."
The first Takoma Park Church "Town Hall Meeting" was simply bizarre. The object of this well-attended meeting was somewhat confused. It was clear that the Senior Pastor and Dr. Raymond Pichette of the Potomac Conference came to sell us on accepting and adopting the Borden Report (posted on this blog), as well as accepting and adopting this organization chart. The vast majority of the people attending this meeting came for the specific purpose of trying to reason the clergy into abandoning this course. Others, of course, came to see a show. And a show they saw, indeed!
Those who had carefully read the report and had begun to research "Purpose Driven Church" models, which are synonymous with"Staff-Led Church" models, "Willow Creek Church" models, and the "Growing Healthy Churches Initiative" came armed with their Bibles, quotes from the Spirit of Prophesy, and copies of the SDA Church Manual, ready to explain in detail why this structure was wrong.
The meeting began with the usual opening prayer and introduction. Dr. Pichette was introduced as the Conference official. Judging by the stated purpose of the meeting, we thought we would go right to the matter at hand. Instead we received an almost 50 minute long sermon. Rather than following the Biblical admonition, exhorting us to "reason together," there was an overwhelming appeal to emotion. He used terms appropriate to organizational management and behavior, inappropriately. He said that the Takoma Park Church had "plateaued" and our church was dying. Dr. Pichette went on to say that if we did not turn things around, our church "...would become like one of the abandoned cathedrals in Europe." In his wrap up, Dr. Pichette read through the report and asked us to try this new system for three years, and if we didn't like it by the end of that time we could go back to "business as usual."
What he said was just all kinds of wrong. If Dr. Pichette insists on using organizational behavior lingo, then he should use the terms correctly, in the proper context, and provide the correct meaning of the terms for the audience. A cogent argument could be made that the Takoma Park Church and, indeed, the entire SDA Church, has "plateaued." So what? According to the academic literature, when an organization plateaus, all that means is that it has reached organizational maturity and that it has a bureaucratic system in place. In a nutshell, what that term mean is that an organization is no longer "organizing" is is now "organized." Organization, especially if one is doing God's work, is a good thing. God's work progresses best when there is organization. History has shown that a LOT of bad things tend to happen when people are engaged in doing "God's work" and there is no organization. In the case of the SDA Church, its system of organization is provided provided by the Bible and the SDA Church Manual. The Bible speaks to "good order and discipline." What Elder Pichette had proposed was sowing the wind. To be sure, in the intervening period, we have reaped the whirlwind.
The other piece of what he said was also wrong, again for a lot of reasons. It was wrong to try to use scare tactics (claiming that our church would die if this scheme wasn't voted into place) to move people to vote against their own interests, and that of our church. That was base, wicked, and foul. The fact that it was countenanced by our clergy speaks volumes about their collective character. But to have this kind of thing conducted in the Sanctuary, on the Sabbath day, was simply abominable. The bottom line here is evangelism. As has been said repeatedly, evangelism can happen without a change in structure.
As for empty cathedrals in Europe, I've been to Europe. Perhaps you have, too. If yes, you know that many of the cathedrals are in very active use. For those that aren't, there are a myriad of reasons for the vacancy. Some were damaged beyond repair in World War II. Others, because of age, and the prohibitive cost of repair, have become structurally unsound and as a consequence were condemned. If Elder Pichette wanted to use the analogy of empty cathedrals, it would have been more accurate and honest to explain why many of these cathedrals were empty.
After Elder Pichette completed his almost hour long "introduction," Pastor Alan Desilva, not to be outdone, also got up to speak for the better part of an hour. Finally, after almost two hours of cajoling, the floor was opened to the people.
It amazes me how little appreciation there is for the common man. All too often we "get it" when those in power don't. Several people got up, one after another, asking thought-filled, valid questions, none of which received the respect of a thought-filled, valid answer. One woman, a long time church member, approached the mic and addressed a question to Elder Pichette. She asked simply, "[Elder Pichette] what church do you attend?" Elder Pichette responded. She followed up, "Are they doing this change in church structure at your church?" It was truly instructional to watch the Elder stammer, and twist, and fumble, as he tried to writhe his way out of simply saying "no."
At this meeting the storm of objections to this proposed change in structure continued. Finally, Pastor DeSilva exclaimed in frustration, "All right. If you all don't want to do this [change in structure], fine. But we will do the evangelism, and diversity in music." No one objected. Everyone agreed. This is was the right thing to do. We all went home satisfied, until we found out that our pastoral staff had no intention of living up to this agreement.
The first Town Hall Meeting held to discuss the Borden Report was announced on Sabbath morning, Oct. 13, 2007, and took place that afternoon. It was here that we got our first look at the new structure being recommended, and where we were issued the first of what have turned out to be at least eight different versions of the new organizational chart. This chart and the accompanying explanation were presented by Pastor DeSilva and Dr. Ray Pichette. Included below is this first "organizational chart." I stress the term "organization chart." He insisted in calling these attempts at charts, "flow charts." Anyone who knows anything about systems analysis or organizational management and behavior will be quick to tell you that what appears below lacks sufficient substance to be called a "flow chart."
The first Takoma Park Church "Town Hall Meeting" was simply bizarre. The object of this well-attended meeting was somewhat confused. It was clear that the Senior Pastor and Dr. Raymond Pichette of the Potomac Conference came to sell us on accepting and adopting the Borden Report (posted on this blog), as well as accepting and adopting this organization chart. The vast majority of the people attending this meeting came for the specific purpose of trying to reason the clergy into abandoning this course. Others, of course, came to see a show. And a show they saw, indeed!
Those who had carefully read the report and had begun to research "Purpose Driven Church" models, which are synonymous with"Staff-Led Church" models, "Willow Creek Church" models, and the "Growing Healthy Churches Initiative" came armed with their Bibles, quotes from the Spirit of Prophesy, and copies of the SDA Church Manual, ready to explain in detail why this structure was wrong.
The meeting began with the usual opening prayer and introduction. Dr. Pichette was introduced as the Conference official. Judging by the stated purpose of the meeting, we thought we would go right to the matter at hand. Instead we received an almost 50 minute long sermon. Rather than following the Biblical admonition, exhorting us to "reason together," there was an overwhelming appeal to emotion. He used terms appropriate to organizational management and behavior, inappropriately. He said that the Takoma Park Church had "plateaued" and our church was dying. Dr. Pichette went on to say that if we did not turn things around, our church "...would become like one of the abandoned cathedrals in Europe." In his wrap up, Dr. Pichette read through the report and asked us to try this new system for three years, and if we didn't like it by the end of that time we could go back to "business as usual."
What he said was just all kinds of wrong. If Dr. Pichette insists on using organizational behavior lingo, then he should use the terms correctly, in the proper context, and provide the correct meaning of the terms for the audience. A cogent argument could be made that the Takoma Park Church and, indeed, the entire SDA Church, has "plateaued." So what? According to the academic literature, when an organization plateaus, all that means is that it has reached organizational maturity and that it has a bureaucratic system in place. In a nutshell, what that term mean is that an organization is no longer "organizing" is is now "organized." Organization, especially if one is doing God's work, is a good thing. God's work progresses best when there is organization. History has shown that a LOT of bad things tend to happen when people are engaged in doing "God's work" and there is no organization. In the case of the SDA Church, its system of organization is provided provided by the Bible and the SDA Church Manual. The Bible speaks to "good order and discipline." What Elder Pichette had proposed was sowing the wind. To be sure, in the intervening period, we have reaped the whirlwind.
The other piece of what he said was also wrong, again for a lot of reasons. It was wrong to try to use scare tactics (claiming that our church would die if this scheme wasn't voted into place) to move people to vote against their own interests, and that of our church. That was base, wicked, and foul. The fact that it was countenanced by our clergy speaks volumes about their collective character. But to have this kind of thing conducted in the Sanctuary, on the Sabbath day, was simply abominable. The bottom line here is evangelism. As has been said repeatedly, evangelism can happen without a change in structure.
As for empty cathedrals in Europe, I've been to Europe. Perhaps you have, too. If yes, you know that many of the cathedrals are in very active use. For those that aren't, there are a myriad of reasons for the vacancy. Some were damaged beyond repair in World War II. Others, because of age, and the prohibitive cost of repair, have become structurally unsound and as a consequence were condemned. If Elder Pichette wanted to use the analogy of empty cathedrals, it would have been more accurate and honest to explain why many of these cathedrals were empty.
After Elder Pichette completed his almost hour long "introduction," Pastor Alan Desilva, not to be outdone, also got up to speak for the better part of an hour. Finally, after almost two hours of cajoling, the floor was opened to the people.
It amazes me how little appreciation there is for the common man. All too often we "get it" when those in power don't. Several people got up, one after another, asking thought-filled, valid questions, none of which received the respect of a thought-filled, valid answer. One woman, a long time church member, approached the mic and addressed a question to Elder Pichette. She asked simply, "[Elder Pichette] what church do you attend?" Elder Pichette responded. She followed up, "Are they doing this change in church structure at your church?" It was truly instructional to watch the Elder stammer, and twist, and fumble, as he tried to writhe his way out of simply saying "no."
To be fair, one or two new church members, who really didn't know about the history of the SDA structure, spoke in support of a "call to change." One man was really afraid of the Takoma Park Church "turning into one of those empty cathedrals in Europe." However, the overwhelming number of church members objected to the change in structure based on the following, 1) as Adventists, we believe that our church structure came from God and that we tamper with it at our own peril; 2) The various incarnations of the "Church Growth Movement" model which was proposed for the Takoma Park Church has lead other SDA churches to move to worshiping on Sunday; 3) If the church wants to evangelize, then the church should evangelize. There is nothing in the current legitimate church structure, as outlined in the SDA Church Manual, that prevents evangelism.
The second Town Hall was combined with a Board and Business Meeting on Oct. 15. At at meeting a new, "refined" chart was presented. The changes handwritten on this chart were put there at Pastor DeSilva's direction as "corrections" which would be updated the next time a chart was issued:
At this meeting the storm of objections to this proposed change in structure continued. Finally, Pastor DeSilva exclaimed in frustration, "All right. If you all don't want to do this [change in structure], fine. But we will do the evangelism, and diversity in music." No one objected. Everyone agreed. This is was the right thing to do. We all went home satisfied, until we found out that our pastoral staff had no intention of living up to this agreement.Next: Bait and Switch
Religious
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 4
"O how Satan would rejoice if he could succeed in his efforts to get in among this people, and disorganize the work at a time when thorough organization is essential, and will be the greatest power to keep out spurious uprisings, and to refute claims not indorsed by the Word of God! We want to hold the lines evenly, that there shall be no breaking down of the system of organization and order that has been built up by wise, careful labor. License must not be given to disorderly elements that desire to control the work at this time" (Gospel Workers, p. 487).
"Danger in Following Blindly.--God's people of today are in danger of committing errors no less disastrous [than King Saul's]. We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile" (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p.1016).
"Danger in Following Blindly.--God's people of today are in danger of committing errors no less disastrous [than King Saul's]. We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile" (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p.1016).
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Epic, Pt. 3
September came, and so did Dr. Paul Borden. One Sabath, prior to his arrival, our senior pastor called for volunteers to meet with Dr. Borden and the pastoral staff. As hands went up, we noticed something odd. Those who were chosen were new, or fairly new members. There was nothing wrong with this, in and of itself, but how could these people speak to what was going on in our church? Further, none of the people chosen for interview even live in the vicinity of the Takoma Park. How accurately would they be able to answer any interview regarding the community? What kind of depth could they provide? None. As we were soon to learn, that was okay. You see, these people weren't supposed to provide any real answers. The questions were canned...just like the questions asked during the "Focus Groups" session. Questions asked were specifically designed to elicit the answers the questioners desired.
From an analysis standpoint, this approach was problematic. If the object of the exercise was to learn about the congregation, with its history, strengths, and weaknesses/difficulties, the logical people to talk to would be the long-term members. If, on the other hand, the object was to discover the needs of the unchurched in the area, the logical approach would be to conduct focus groups among the citizens of the greater Takoma Park community. However, being logical and doing the right thing were never the objective.
On Thursday, September 6, 2007, Dr. Borden spoke at a meeting called of all Takoma Park Church officers to discuss his findings. This was also strange because this meeting occured BEFORE he held the interviews the next day on Friday afternoon. He preached a sermon on September 8, 2007, and left us with the report that we have already posted, which he presented to the church on the afternoon of Sept. 8. We should note here that the report is actually signed by three individuals. The other two, Dr. Ray Pichette and Pastor Glen Altermatt, are Potomac Conference employees who apprenticed themselves to Paul Borden for the duration of his evaluation of Takoma Park so they could learn his processes and techniques in order to replicate them in other churches throughout the Potomac Conference.
While there are a number of things in the Borden Report that disturb us, the most significant is easily the third "prescription:" "Structure: It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure... The overview of the new structure will be presented to the congregation by the Potomac Conference on October 6, 2007." (For an explanation and analysis of the new structure which was ultimately recommended, see the upcoming post, "How does the new structure work?")
Next: The Town Hall Meetings
From an analysis standpoint, this approach was problematic. If the object of the exercise was to learn about the congregation, with its history, strengths, and weaknesses/difficulties, the logical people to talk to would be the long-term members. If, on the other hand, the object was to discover the needs of the unchurched in the area, the logical approach would be to conduct focus groups among the citizens of the greater Takoma Park community. However, being logical and doing the right thing were never the objective.
On Thursday, September 6, 2007, Dr. Borden spoke at a meeting called of all Takoma Park Church officers to discuss his findings. This was also strange because this meeting occured BEFORE he held the interviews the next day on Friday afternoon. He preached a sermon on September 8, 2007, and left us with the report that we have already posted, which he presented to the church on the afternoon of Sept. 8. We should note here that the report is actually signed by three individuals. The other two, Dr. Ray Pichette and Pastor Glen Altermatt, are Potomac Conference employees who apprenticed themselves to Paul Borden for the duration of his evaluation of Takoma Park so they could learn his processes and techniques in order to replicate them in other churches throughout the Potomac Conference.
While there are a number of things in the Borden Report that disturb us, the most significant is easily the third "prescription:" "Structure: It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure... The overview of the new structure will be presented to the congregation by the Potomac Conference on October 6, 2007." (For an explanation and analysis of the new structure which was ultimately recommended, see the upcoming post, "How does the new structure work?")
When questioned about the source of the specifics for this new structure in the following weeks and months, Pastor DeSilva's replies were always different. One time he said he developed this new structure. Another time, he said the conference developed it. Another time, cornered, he said that the Potomac Conference had tasked him with coming up with a chart for the change in structure. On yet another occasion, he said that he came up with the chart and he had to run it by Potomac Conference for approval. Who knew what the actual truth was?
Mark Twain wrote that one should always tell the truth. This way you never have to remember what you said.
Next: The Town Hall Meetings
Religious
Friday, October 10, 2008
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt.3
"I think I have laid out this matter many times before you, but I see no change in your actions. We want every responsible man to drop responsibilities upon others. Set others at work that will require them to plan and to use judgment. Do not educate them to rely upon your judgment. Young men must be trained up to be thinkers. My brethren, do not for a moment think that your way is perfection, and that those who are connected with you must be your shadows, must echo your words, repeat your ideas, and execute your plans" (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 302, 303).
"It was shown me that those who preside over our institutions should ever bear in mind that there is a chief director, who is the God of heaven. There should be strict honesty in all business transactions in every department of the work. There must be firmness in preserving order, but compassion, mercy, and forbearance should be mingled with the firmness. Justice has a twin sister, Love. These should stand side by side. The Bible should be our guide. There can be no greater deception than for a man to think that he can find a better guide, when in difficulty, than the word of God. The blessed word must be a lamp to our feet. Bible precepts must be carried into the everyday life" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, p. 559).
"Leaders should act as wise counselors, not exacting rulers.--Sometimes a man who has been placed in responsibility as a leader, gains the idea that he is in a position of supreme authority, and that all of his brethren, before making advance moves, must first come to him for permission to do that which they feel should be done. Such a man is in a dangerous position. He has lost sight of the work of a true leader among God's people. Instead of acting as a wise counselor, he assumes the prerogatives of an exacting ruler. God is dishonored by every such display of authority and self-exaltation. No man standing in his own strength is ever to be mind and judgment for another man whom the Lord is using in His work. No one is to lay down man-made rules and regulations to govern arbitrarily his fellow laborers who have a living experience in the truth" (Pastoral Ministry, p. 54).
"It was shown me that those who preside over our institutions should ever bear in mind that there is a chief director, who is the God of heaven. There should be strict honesty in all business transactions in every department of the work. There must be firmness in preserving order, but compassion, mercy, and forbearance should be mingled with the firmness. Justice has a twin sister, Love. These should stand side by side. The Bible should be our guide. There can be no greater deception than for a man to think that he can find a better guide, when in difficulty, than the word of God. The blessed word must be a lamp to our feet. Bible precepts must be carried into the everyday life" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, p. 559).
"Leaders should act as wise counselors, not exacting rulers.--Sometimes a man who has been placed in responsibility as a leader, gains the idea that he is in a position of supreme authority, and that all of his brethren, before making advance moves, must first come to him for permission to do that which they feel should be done. Such a man is in a dangerous position. He has lost sight of the work of a true leader among God's people. Instead of acting as a wise counselor, he assumes the prerogatives of an exacting ruler. God is dishonored by every such display of authority and self-exaltation. No man standing in his own strength is ever to be mind and judgment for another man whom the Lord is using in His work. No one is to lay down man-made rules and regulations to govern arbitrarily his fellow laborers who have a living experience in the truth" (Pastoral Ministry, p. 54).
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Structure vs. Evangelism
When the details of the plan for changing our congregational governance structure were presented, the argument that came with them was that our current structure wasn't conducive to evangelism, and therefore had to be revised. This argument has been key in the success of the pastoral staff in pushing through the change (along with apathy, ignorance, or mistaken information in a significant portion of the congregation, but that's another post), so I would like to examine it more closely.
The governance system our congregation was following before this change was, at least in name, the system found in the Church Manual. (I specify "in name" because even before this change there were ways in which our pastoral staff were not truly following it as they should, but that also is another post.) The Manual is written by the world church, to be followed exactly and in its entirety by the entire world church. In other words, the same system is implemented in every Adventist congregation worldwide. In some places there are great evangelistic efforts and rapid growth. In others, stagnation. What this tells us is that the Manual system does not inhibit evangelism; if it works, it works, and failure to evangelize must result from something else.
At this point some may ask, "Even if the Manual system doesn't inhibit evangelism, could a change in the system do more to advance it?" Liberty will soon be examining the origins, nuances, and general pros and cons of our new system in detail, so I won't get into this too deeply. The simple answer is that while there is a theoretical possibility that there could be ways of improving the Manual system to advance evangelism, what we have seen implemented at Takoma Park doesn't qualify as improvement. What's worse, it's at best a cosmetic change, and at worst a destruction of several fundamental premises of Adventism, including that the unfettered voice of the majority of believers is the authority by which the church is to be governed and that all believers are created equal in the site of God and responsible for knowing and deciding for themselves what the Bible instructs them to do, independant of the clergy.
This brings us to one last question. If the governance structure is not to blame for our failure to evangelize, what is? In this case, the fault lies squarely with us, both corporately and as individual members, because we couldn't be bothered to commit to it and follow through. That statement is uncomfortable for all of us, but also true.
No amount of changing our governance is going to make our hearts more committed to the gospel work. To say that we had to change the structure to do evangelism simply makes the structure the scapegoat for our own failings, so we don't have to face them.
Before I end this post, I would like to point out that those of us who oppose this governance change are not in any way opposed to evangelism. In fact, we wholeheartly support it. We just believe that the changes to our governance will ultimately do more to harm than help the cause of evangelism. Before we can reach out and bring others in to our church we must first be sure that we are truly living according to the beliefs we claim to follow as Adventists, or those who come in will walk right back out when they discover our duplicity.
Religious
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Epic, Pt. 2
As mentioned in an earlier post, our senior pastor, Alan DeSilva, came back to the Takoma Park Church Board, and told them that a consultant had been found and that he would cost $6000. Further, he said that this consultant had a long standing relationship with our new Conference President, Elder Bill Miller, and that he came with good references from him.
We asked what exactly the consultant would do. Pastor DeSilva told us in no uncertain terms that this consultant, should we elect to invite him to come, would study the church for a year. The Pastor said that during that year, Dr. Paul Borden would talk to every member of the church, come to our meetings, attend our worship services, and look at every part of our church operations from top to bottom. And at the end of that year, Dr. Borden would meet with the church and report on his findings.
Not bad for $6000, or so we thought. Our Pastor, we learned, had already spoken to some of the elders, as well as the Church Treasurer. Given the deal Takoma Park Church thought it was going to get, the Board voted in favor of bringing in the consultant.
At the June 2007 Church Board meeting we were told that there was a survey that we needed to complete, and that our Senior Pastor, aided by Associate Pastors Richard James and Gerry Fuentes, would conduct a "Focus Group," made up of church officers. This amazed some of us. We weren't completely sure what specific training, or experience, our Pastor had in population sampling techniques, but hey, let's give it chance.
The survey the church officers where asked to discuss and complete was "canned" at best. The questions were specifically designed to pull out "desired responses." This "Focus Group" meeting was conducted at an officers' potluck.
Liberty is looking for a copy of the survey. If it can be found, we will post that as well.
There was no July Board meeting. The August Board meeting had a sparse attendance -- not even enough people to constitute a quorum. We welcomed the new "Minster of Music," a former pastor at the Takoma Park Church, and received an update regarding our consultant. Our Senior Pastor announced, in a very reassuring tone, "The consultant, Dr. Borden, will be here for an initial meeting with our church leaders in September [2007], and he asked to speak before the church on the first Sabbath of September. He is also busy doing everything he can to study about the Seventh-day Adventist Church so he can be of help to us."
You could have heard a pin drop.
One of the church leaders asked, "Excuse me, but are we to understand that this consultant is not Adventist?"
Pastor DeSilva replied, "I'm not exactly sure what religion he is, to tell you the truth." We later discovered this answer was much less than truthful.
A local elder, still confounded asked, "He's not Adventist? And he'll be preaching in church on Sabbath?" Pastor DeSilva answered "Yes," but assured the woman that there would be no problem. He cited that there was a non-Adventist consultant who spoke before the General Conference. We never bothered to check into whether that statement was true or not. We didn't care.
None of us have anything against non-Adventists. Our issue was that we had been led to believe that the consultant was Adventist. This was not the time to tell us that he was not. Further, we began to worry, if this piece of information had been withheld, what else were we not being told?
Next: The Evaluation.
We asked what exactly the consultant would do. Pastor DeSilva told us in no uncertain terms that this consultant, should we elect to invite him to come, would study the church for a year. The Pastor said that during that year, Dr. Paul Borden would talk to every member of the church, come to our meetings, attend our worship services, and look at every part of our church operations from top to bottom. And at the end of that year, Dr. Borden would meet with the church and report on his findings.
Not bad for $6000, or so we thought. Our Pastor, we learned, had already spoken to some of the elders, as well as the Church Treasurer. Given the deal Takoma Park Church thought it was going to get, the Board voted in favor of bringing in the consultant.
At the June 2007 Church Board meeting we were told that there was a survey that we needed to complete, and that our Senior Pastor, aided by Associate Pastors Richard James and Gerry Fuentes, would conduct a "Focus Group," made up of church officers. This amazed some of us. We weren't completely sure what specific training, or experience, our Pastor had in population sampling techniques, but hey, let's give it chance.
The survey the church officers where asked to discuss and complete was "canned" at best. The questions were specifically designed to pull out "desired responses." This "Focus Group" meeting was conducted at an officers' potluck.
Liberty is looking for a copy of the survey. If it can be found, we will post that as well.
There was no July Board meeting. The August Board meeting had a sparse attendance -- not even enough people to constitute a quorum. We welcomed the new "Minster of Music," a former pastor at the Takoma Park Church, and received an update regarding our consultant. Our Senior Pastor announced, in a very reassuring tone, "The consultant, Dr. Borden, will be here for an initial meeting with our church leaders in September [2007], and he asked to speak before the church on the first Sabbath of September. He is also busy doing everything he can to study about the Seventh-day Adventist Church so he can be of help to us."
You could have heard a pin drop.
One of the church leaders asked, "Excuse me, but are we to understand that this consultant is not Adventist?"
Pastor DeSilva replied, "I'm not exactly sure what religion he is, to tell you the truth." We later discovered this answer was much less than truthful.
A local elder, still confounded asked, "He's not Adventist? And he'll be preaching in church on Sabbath?" Pastor DeSilva answered "Yes," but assured the woman that there would be no problem. He cited that there was a non-Adventist consultant who spoke before the General Conference. We never bothered to check into whether that statement was true or not. We didn't care.
None of us have anything against non-Adventists. Our issue was that we had been led to believe that the consultant was Adventist. This was not the time to tell us that he was not. Further, we began to worry, if this piece of information had been withheld, what else were we not being told?
Next: The Evaluation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)