Is it acceptable to make church business decisions on Sabbath? As we described in the Epic, Pt. 47, Pastor DeSilva made the argument that it was acceptable to hold the vote on the vision statement on Sabbath during the worship service because it was no different than voting on a nominating committee report. This assertion merits some exploration, as does his companion argument that votes on Sabbath are better because there are more people to participate in the vote.
First we will look at the process for electing church officers and the portions of this business which are conducted on Sabbath. Election business is conducted differently from any other local business in the SDA church because it is business about people. As is seen regularly in contests for public office, the electoral process has the potential to become ugly very quickly. The Adventist system seeks to avoid this ugliness by taking the “competitive element” out of the process. This is done by delegating the primary decision making power of the business meeting to a small group known as the nominating committee.
The process begins with the creation of a committee usually known as the “large committee.” This group is formed either by taking verbal nominations from the floor on a Sabbath morning or including nomination blanks in the church’s bulletin on which each member can write several names. Under the latter method the forms are then collected and the results tabulated at a later time. This is the method used most frequently in North America. Once the large committee is formed its job is to nominate the nominating committee. They prepare a list of names which is then voted up or down in its entirety by the congregation. Unless there is some significant reason why a proposed name is unfit to serve the list is approved. Once the nominating committee is established it begins the work of nominating officers for the various positions in the church.
“With earnest prayer for guidance the committee should begin its work of preparing to submit to the church a list of names of officers and assistants comprised of members in regular standing on the roll of the church making the appointments. These will be placed in nomination for office and presented to the church at a Sabbath service or at a specially called business meeting of the church” (Church Manual, p.155).
This presentation of the list of proposed officers takes place over two Sabbaths. On the first Sabbath the list is presented, usually in written form. On the second Sabbath the list is voted up or down in its entirety. The delay of a week gives members an opportunity to make a discreet objection to the nominating committee if they believe that any of the proposed officers are unfit to serve. In such a case the nominating committee hears the objection, considers the evidence, and decides whether to make a substitution on the list. All of the nominating committee’s deliberations are considered confidential.
Membership transfers are also transacted with a first and second reading on separate Sabbaths in order to allow discreet objections, but no other type of business is conducted in this manner. Everything else is decided directly by the congregation in business meeting. In a properly conducted business meeting any member in regular standing (as opposed to being under discipline) may make a motion which, if seconded, is then discussed and voted on. Any motion not acted upon by either a vote or being tabled during the meeting in which it is made dies at the end of that meeting.
There are several significant differences between the process for choosing church officers and the way all other business decisions of the congregation are handled. First, the existence and function of the nominating committee constitute a delegating of the direct control over business decisions which is usually exercised by the business meeting. Second, with this delegated power the nominating committee is permitted to use its own discretion on whether or not to act on member input/objections which under the normal business meeting model would take the form of discussion and/or motions which could not be ignored. Finally, nominating committee reports are the only form of business besides membership transfers which the Church Manual specifically permits on Sabbath, and even then it allows the congregation to decide to conduct this business outside of the Sabbath hours.
“The report of this committee may be presented at the Sabbath service or at a specially called business meeting of the church” (Church Manual, p.157).
Now we get to Pastor DeSilva’s contention. His line of logic was that just as the nominating committee does its work outside of the Sabbath hours and brings the results to the church to be voted on on Sabbath, so the congregation was doing its work on the vision statement outside of the Sabbath and bringing the matter to a vote on Sabbath, and that separating the discussion from the vote made the vote acceptable Sabbath behavior. This logic breaks down instantly when one considers that the vision statement was three times discussed on Sabbath afternoons, thereby bringing the “work” into the Sabbath hours, but there are other more serious problems with this logic. While it fails to adhere to the nominating committee process in the way that Pastor DeSilva suggested, it is actually too close to the nominating committee process in other ways. The first of these is that it was created by a small group (of one), not by the congregation. The second is that the discussion meetings had no power. They were very clearly laid out as discussion only. Members of the congregation could talk until they were blue in the face and not make one wit of difference in the content of the vision statement because no motions, amendments, or votes were permitted in these meetings. Just as in the nominating process, the members’ role was purely observational—all actual decisions/changes occurred at the discretion of the small group (which in this case was the senior pastor).
And why is all of this a problem? There are two reasons. First, the church is supposed to operate on the basis of representative governance in which initiative and final power rests with the congregation in business meeting. (For an explanation of why the church is run this way, see the earlier post, “The Lord’s Anointed, Pt. 2.”) The nominating committee process is spelled out as an exception to this policy for specific reasons and a limited purpose. It is not meant to be taken as a pattern for other types of business.
Second, there is the concern that conducting business on the Sabbath—even if it is church business—violates God’s directive to keep the Sabbath holy. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has never created a rulebook on what is or is not acceptable on the Sabbath, preferring instead to leave such decisions to each individual’s conscience. The worldwide church does, however, place great emphasis on the need to take great care in preserving the holiness of the day. The following statement is made by the Church Manual in reference to the practice of distributing literature to the congregation on Sabbath, “Methods that are objectionable and that would tend to divert the attention of the congregation from true worship and reverence should be avoided on the Sabbath” (p.89). Even in a matter as innocuous as literature distribution, then, there is need for caution that the sanctity of the Sabbath and the worship experience not be violated! How much more cautious should we be about out-and-out business and voting on the Sabbath? Let’s refer back to the nominating committee process once more. As we have already quoted, even in that process where the Manual specifically permits the business to take place on Sabbath there is also provision for the business to take place outside of Sabbath hours if the congregation finds that to be preferable.
The principle behind this is to respect the sensitivities some members may have in this regard and not offend by requiring that they do something they find objectionable in order to participate in the decisions of the church. This principle is the same one Paul described in 1 Corinthians 8:9-12 when he was giving counsel on whether or not to eat meat which had been offered to idols, “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak… When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.” So in the matter of conducting business on Sabbath, even if the pastor genuinely believed that such action did not constitute a violation of the Sabbath’s holiness he should have respected the concerns of those who believed that it did and moved the vote to some other day of the week. Yet he would not, choosing instead to “wound their weak conscience.”
Finally, we come to the reason why Pastor DeSilva refused to move the vote. His argument was that votes on Sabbath are better because there are more people to participate in the vote. This sounds good on the surface, but it deserves some closer scrutiny. Yes, there are more members present during Sabbath morning services than at business meetings on other days of the week. Why is that? Too many other commitments? Lack of interest? Lack of faith in the process? Whatever the reasons the result is the same: a less-educated voting body. When it came to the discussions on the vision statement Pastor DeSilva claimed that many people saw no need to come because they agreed with it. So? The point of holding discussions is to exchange viewpoints. Someone who agreed with it might change their mind after hearing the objections of someone else just as someone who disagreed might come to support it upon hearing the perspective of someone who did. Of course, it is also possible that a position held before the meeting would only be strengthened for hearing the discussion, but even if that were true it would be a stronger, better-rounded opinion for having participated. The point is that participation in the “preliminaries” of the process makes better voters. So Pastor DeSilva’s argument boils down to one of quantity over quality. Yes, more people are “involved” if votes are held on Sabbath morning rather than at any other time, but is that involvement really beneficial to the final decision if the additional individuals haven’t taken the time to thoroughly educate themselves on the subject at hand?
The bottom line is that Pastor DeSilva held the vote on the vision statement on Sabbath because he wanted to, not because of procedural precedent indicating that it was the better thing to do.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 49
As the time for the vote on the vision statement grew near the Group was still gravely concerned about the prospect of a Sabbath vote with no discussion. A member of the Group called Elder Bediako and asked that he intercede for us with Pastor DeSilva to get the meeting moved. The response was that he would consider it. During the announcements Sabbath morning January 31, 2009 we were told that after consulting with Elder Bediako Pastor DeSilva had decided to move the vote to a business meeting to be held directly after the service instead of having it during the service itself. (We learned afterward that Elder Bediako had tried to convince Pastor DeSilva to move the vote to some other day, but after more than an hour of discussion the most he could convince Pastor DeSilva to do was to have the vote after the service.)
The meeting began at 12:40, and Pastor DeSilva declared that the meeting would be done by 1pm. At that meeting a motion was made to table the vote until the vision statement had been reviewed by the finance committee. Pastor DeSilva hemmed and hawed and squirmed and commented on this motion in such a way as to cast the idea in an unfavorable light, all under the guise of explaining a motion to table. When he finally got around to taking the vote the motion failed. Elder Bediako then got up to speak. He made a brief statement about preferring that the meeting not have been on Sabbath, and the importance of following proper process and procedure, and then expounded on the importance of the need for our congregation to do mission. When he got done it was four minutes to one.
Pastor DeSilva looked around for one last hand to recognize. There were far more hands in the air than could be recognized in the remaining time, but Sister L managed to catch his attention. She moved to amend the vision statement to state that it would not be binding regarding any financial expenditure until that specific expenditure had been approved by the finance committee and a duly called business meeting. The concern that the Group was attempting to address through this amendment was the possibility that Pastor DeSilva would use the vote approving the conceptual vision as full authorization for his favorite projects and not take the expenditures through the usual approval channels because they were "already approved." Pastor DeSilva refused to accept the motion, claiming that it was redundant to policy. Sister L asserted that if it were redundant there would be neither harm nor inconvenience in allowing it in order to ease worried minds. He still refused to allow action on the motion. Another speaker was recognized. When that speaker was done several Group members sought to be recognized on a point of order. (The point of order being that a chairman doesn’t have the right to refuse to recognize a duly made motion). Seeing this, Pastor DeSilva graciously decided to allow the motion made by Sister L to proceed. It failed. The vote on the vision statement was then taken and it passed.
Pastor DeSilva then asked Elder Bediako to close the meeting with prayer. When Elder Bediako got up he declared how pleased he was that the vision had passed. After the meeting several members of the Group clustered around him discussing what had just happened. There was a general sentiment that Elder Bediako had just done our efforts to restore proper governance significant harm by getting up and declaring what appeared to be such wholehearted support for the pastors and their plans. His response was "Oh no, no. You remember what I said at our meeting. I said we have to follow proper process and procedure."
Unfortunately, most members did not interpret Elder Bediako’s statement about proper process and procedure to be a statement in opposition to the change in structure. They took it as support for the new system of governance, particularly in the context of his gushing enthusiasm for the vision statement.
Next: The Meeting
Religious
The meeting began at 12:40, and Pastor DeSilva declared that the meeting would be done by 1pm. At that meeting a motion was made to table the vote until the vision statement had been reviewed by the finance committee. Pastor DeSilva hemmed and hawed and squirmed and commented on this motion in such a way as to cast the idea in an unfavorable light, all under the guise of explaining a motion to table. When he finally got around to taking the vote the motion failed. Elder Bediako then got up to speak. He made a brief statement about preferring that the meeting not have been on Sabbath, and the importance of following proper process and procedure, and then expounded on the importance of the need for our congregation to do mission. When he got done it was four minutes to one.
Pastor DeSilva looked around for one last hand to recognize. There were far more hands in the air than could be recognized in the remaining time, but Sister L managed to catch his attention. She moved to amend the vision statement to state that it would not be binding regarding any financial expenditure until that specific expenditure had been approved by the finance committee and a duly called business meeting. The concern that the Group was attempting to address through this amendment was the possibility that Pastor DeSilva would use the vote approving the conceptual vision as full authorization for his favorite projects and not take the expenditures through the usual approval channels because they were "already approved." Pastor DeSilva refused to accept the motion, claiming that it was redundant to policy. Sister L asserted that if it were redundant there would be neither harm nor inconvenience in allowing it in order to ease worried minds. He still refused to allow action on the motion. Another speaker was recognized. When that speaker was done several Group members sought to be recognized on a point of order. (The point of order being that a chairman doesn’t have the right to refuse to recognize a duly made motion). Seeing this, Pastor DeSilva graciously decided to allow the motion made by Sister L to proceed. It failed. The vote on the vision statement was then taken and it passed.
Pastor DeSilva then asked Elder Bediako to close the meeting with prayer. When Elder Bediako got up he declared how pleased he was that the vision had passed. After the meeting several members of the Group clustered around him discussing what had just happened. There was a general sentiment that Elder Bediako had just done our efforts to restore proper governance significant harm by getting up and declaring what appeared to be such wholehearted support for the pastors and their plans. His response was "Oh no, no. You remember what I said at our meeting. I said we have to follow proper process and procedure."
Unfortunately, most members did not interpret Elder Bediako’s statement about proper process and procedure to be a statement in opposition to the change in structure. They took it as support for the new system of governance, particularly in the context of his gushing enthusiasm for the vision statement.
Next: The Meeting
Religious
Monday, December 21, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 18
"There must be no pretense in the lives of those who have so sacred and solemn a message as we have been given to bear. The world is watching Seventh-day Adventists, because it knows something of their beliefs and of the high standard they have; and when it sees those who do not live up to their profession, it points at them with scorn. God's people should now make mighty intercession to him for help. It is the privilege of every believer, first to talk with God, and then, as God's mouthpiece, to talk with others. In order that we may have something to impart, we must daily receive light and blessing. Men and women who commune with God, who have an abiding Christ, who co-operate with holy angels, are needed at this time. The cause needs those who have power to draw with Christ, power to express the love of God. With wonderful, ennobling grace the Lord sanctifies the humble petitioner, giving him power to perform the most difficult duties. All that is undertaken is done as to the Lord, and this elevates and sanctifies the lowliest calling. It invests with new dignity every word and act, and links the humblest worker, the poorest of God's servants, with the highest of the angels in the heavenly courts" (Review and Herald, December 8, 1910 par. 6).
"The highest evidence of nobility in a Christian is self-control. He who can stand unmoved amid a storm of abuse is one of God's heroes" (Reflecting Christ, p. 292).
"The highest evidence of nobility in a Christian is self-control. He who can stand unmoved amid a storm of abuse is one of God's heroes" (Reflecting Christ, p. 292).
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 48
On January 19, 2009 a meeting took place between the Group and Elder Bediako, at his request. Elder Bediako is a member of the Takoma Park SDA Church and the Executive Secretary of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. The meeting took place at Elder B’s home, which was so packed for the occasion that people were sitting on the fireplace hearth for lack of other space. Elder Bediako was provided with a summary of the Group’s efforts to date. The floor was then opened for individual statements. Many took the opportunity to describe troubling behavior they had observed from the pastoral staff in the last few years. These testimonies described behavior such as Pastor DeSilva and the business manager misinforming the congregation on financial matters (particularly in regards to the loan for the a/c repair), Pastor DeSilva pressuring potential baptismal candidates, and expressions of jealousy from Pastor DeSilva that an associate pastor should be asked to perform the funerals of prominent members instead of him.
One individual questioned Elder Bediako about his position on the change in governance structure. (Even after the letter from Elder Bediako had circulated Pastor DeSilva continued to claim that he had Elder Bediako’s support. He claimed to have met privately with Elder Bediako after he had written the letter and been told that the Group had misinterpreted it. Mrs. DeSilva, likewise, claimed to have spoken directly with Elder Bediako and been told that he supported the new governance.) The Group wished to clear up this confusion once and for all, and was eager to hear his answer. His response was quite telling.
“The General Conference was 80 years at Takoma Park. When we left, nobody noticed. We were in our own circle—we didn’t go out. The need to reach the community, nobody will oppose it. I’m 100% in favor of that. I personally believe it should not be done only by Takoma Park. Sligo [SDA Church] is also in Takoma Park. The hospital, WAH, is there. The college is also there. Personally, I wish we were working together to really reach that community.
“I’ve met with Alan twice. If you were to see his outline, his diagram, I’ve made a lot of changes on it. And when he came to my office I took and made suggestions. …I’ve made corrections. Miller called me, and I said, ‘According to my suggestions, I would be 100% behind it because that’s Church Manual.’ He understands all that.
“My outfit is the one in charge of the Church Manual. I’m saying that Secretariat, of which I’m the head of it, is in charge of the Church Manual. If there are to be any changes, it comes through us, and we’ll work it out. Now, would I tear up and change what we have agreed upon? And that’s why Parmenter wrote that letter. I say, he’s the one responsible for that, he’s the secretary for the world Church Manual Committee, and I have approved it. For him [Pastor DeSilva] to say that I’m in favor of that, yes I’m in favor of that, according to my suggestions…
“The General Conference president doesn’t have that power [to unilaterally change the Church Manual]! …The Adventist Church is not like the pope—he speaks, and no one questions. To make that change it has to go to GC Session.
“The Church Board should appoint all other subcommittees, and should report to the church. Unfortunately, some of our ministers are going outside to learn how the church should grow. Even the church growth specialists are beginning to say that what has worked on the outside will not work in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, because our church is different.”
At the end of the meeting Elder Bediako expressed astonishment and disbelief that the Potomac Conference was allowing all of these things to happen at Takoma Park unchecked and acknowledged that the Group’s efforts were not about some personal agenda, but rather God’s agenda.
Next: Voting the Vision
Religious
One individual questioned Elder Bediako about his position on the change in governance structure. (Even after the letter from Elder Bediako had circulated Pastor DeSilva continued to claim that he had Elder Bediako’s support. He claimed to have met privately with Elder Bediako after he had written the letter and been told that the Group had misinterpreted it. Mrs. DeSilva, likewise, claimed to have spoken directly with Elder Bediako and been told that he supported the new governance.) The Group wished to clear up this confusion once and for all, and was eager to hear his answer. His response was quite telling.
“The General Conference was 80 years at Takoma Park. When we left, nobody noticed. We were in our own circle—we didn’t go out. The need to reach the community, nobody will oppose it. I’m 100% in favor of that. I personally believe it should not be done only by Takoma Park. Sligo [SDA Church] is also in Takoma Park. The hospital, WAH, is there. The college is also there. Personally, I wish we were working together to really reach that community.
“I’ve met with Alan twice. If you were to see his outline, his diagram, I’ve made a lot of changes on it. And when he came to my office I took and made suggestions. …I’ve made corrections. Miller called me, and I said, ‘According to my suggestions, I would be 100% behind it because that’s Church Manual.’ He understands all that.
“My outfit is the one in charge of the Church Manual. I’m saying that Secretariat, of which I’m the head of it, is in charge of the Church Manual. If there are to be any changes, it comes through us, and we’ll work it out. Now, would I tear up and change what we have agreed upon? And that’s why Parmenter wrote that letter. I say, he’s the one responsible for that, he’s the secretary for the world Church Manual Committee, and I have approved it. For him [Pastor DeSilva] to say that I’m in favor of that, yes I’m in favor of that, according to my suggestions…
“The General Conference president doesn’t have that power [to unilaterally change the Church Manual]! …The Adventist Church is not like the pope—he speaks, and no one questions. To make that change it has to go to GC Session.
“The Church Board should appoint all other subcommittees, and should report to the church. Unfortunately, some of our ministers are going outside to learn how the church should grow. Even the church growth specialists are beginning to say that what has worked on the outside will not work in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, because our church is different.”
At the end of the meeting Elder Bediako expressed astonishment and disbelief that the Potomac Conference was allowing all of these things to happen at Takoma Park unchecked and acknowledged that the Group’s efforts were not about some personal agenda, but rather God’s agenda.
Next: Voting the Vision
Religious
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 47
At an elders' meeting the next morning (January 18, 2009) there was great discussion regarding the appropriateness of the proposed vote regarding the vision Pastor DeSilva presented, both because of the lack of discussion opportunities and the because of the vote being scheduled on the Sabbath. Eventually the elders brought to a vote the matter of whether or not the decision should be made on Sabbath. Five elders voted in favor of the vote being on Sabbath, four opposed, and one abstained. It was agreed that the vote would not occur until January 31, and that two additional discussion meetings would be held, one on the afternoon of the 24th and the other the following Wednesday evening.
The first Wednesday night meeting was held as scheduled, attended by only seven people. The Sabbath afternoon meeting drew a larger crowd, though still not large. Pastor DeSilva began by stating that the meeting was only going to last an hour. He spent the first 35 minutes rereading the vision statement and talking about it.
When the floor was finally opened to comment the communications director stood up to speak to some of the substantial expenditure items. She explained that since the ministries board meeting on the 17th, she had done some research on exactly what it would cost to set up the envisioned videography program. Her numbers were based on discussions with other SDA churches with video recording programs like the one Pastor DeSilva proposed. The likely figure was $1.5 million. When the communications director finished the chair of the finance committee jumped up to speak and, without any substantiating numbers of his own, said there was no way it was going to cost that much. Pastor DeSilva echoed the belief (again without any documentation).
Six other people spoke (two of which were asking for unity among the church members, three who were likewise concerned by the document, and one in support) and then Pastor DeSilva declared that the meeting had to end because the hour was up. There was some protest at this because others wished to speak who had not been recognized, and two more were allowed to speak before the meeting was formally closed.
The second Wednesday night meeting included a protracted discussion on the appropriateness of business votes on Sabbath, but Pastor DeSilva would not change his mind about the vote taking place on the Sabbath morning during the Divine Service. He contended that to vote on the vision statement on Sabbath was no different than voting on a nominating committee report on Sabbath. This issue will be explored in a separate post.
Next: The Straight Story
Religious
The first Wednesday night meeting was held as scheduled, attended by only seven people. The Sabbath afternoon meeting drew a larger crowd, though still not large. Pastor DeSilva began by stating that the meeting was only going to last an hour. He spent the first 35 minutes rereading the vision statement and talking about it.
When the floor was finally opened to comment the communications director stood up to speak to some of the substantial expenditure items. She explained that since the ministries board meeting on the 17th, she had done some research on exactly what it would cost to set up the envisioned videography program. Her numbers were based on discussions with other SDA churches with video recording programs like the one Pastor DeSilva proposed. The likely figure was $1.5 million. When the communications director finished the chair of the finance committee jumped up to speak and, without any substantiating numbers of his own, said there was no way it was going to cost that much. Pastor DeSilva echoed the belief (again without any documentation).
Six other people spoke (two of which were asking for unity among the church members, three who were likewise concerned by the document, and one in support) and then Pastor DeSilva declared that the meeting had to end because the hour was up. There was some protest at this because others wished to speak who had not been recognized, and two more were allowed to speak before the meeting was formally closed.
The second Wednesday night meeting included a protracted discussion on the appropriateness of business votes on Sabbath, but Pastor DeSilva would not change his mind about the vote taking place on the Sabbath morning during the Divine Service. He contended that to vote on the vision statement on Sabbath was no different than voting on a nominating committee report on Sabbath. This issue will be explored in a separate post.
Next: The Straight Story
Religious
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 46
The following announcement appeared in the Takoma Park bulletin on Sabbath morning, January 17, 2009, "The Church Ministry Board has completed their work on the Mission, Vision and Core Values statements. You should receive a copy before you leave today. Please review them carefully. Pastor DeSilva will be at church Wednesday, January 21st from 6:00 to 7:00 pm for any clarification you may have. Next Sabbath, January 24th during the service, we will take a vote without discussion."
Remember, on the previous Sabbath afternoon Pastor DeSilva had said that the "vision" would be discussed and voted on by the ministry board at its February meeting before being presented to the church for a vote. It is worth noting that the proposed meetings were only for "clarification," not objection or amendment. Also, Pastor DeSilva was once again choosing to schedule business decisions on Sabbath, just as he did with the vote to adopt the Borden Report and change our governance structure.
During the announcements that morning Pastor DeSilva stated that he had intended to distribute printed copies of his vision statement that morning, but in looking at the printed copies had noticed that they were "not the correct version," so he didn't want them distributed. They had, however, been made available to the people that attended first service. He also said that the vote might be postponed a week so that the corrections could be made and the corrected copies distributed but he wasn't quite sure how we were going to make it all work. At the end of his sermon that morning he read through the entire written vision statement, which was about four pages long.
When Pastor DeSilva concluded his reading he invited the congregation to bow their heads for prayer. He had only gotten as far as "Our Father" when he was interrupted by a member not associated with the Group who seemed to have objections to the vision statement. The man had risen from his seat and stood in front of the podium trying to make his point to Pastor DeSilva. Much of what the gentleman said was unintelligible in the audience, but one of the statements that could be made out was to the effect that the vision was Pastor DeSilva's, not God's.
Needless to say, this outburst during prayer brought a change in the mood of the service. Pastor DeSilva was trying to maintain his pastoral persona, but everyone could see his anger rising as he tried to quiet the man. His final exclamation of "Submit yourself!" silenced the gentleman long enough for the pastor to finish the prayer, but then the man started up again. At this Pastor DeSilva and the other gentleman on the platform came down and tried to physically calm the objector as Pastor DeSilva called for the closing hymn. The platform party was joined by the head elder, head deacon, and several others who tried to forcibly escort the man out of the sanctuary. The man turned his attention to the congregation, grabbed a hold of the back of the front pew, and continued to try to speak. Eventually the group of men overpowered him and he was led out of the sanctuary.
Next: Talk
Religious
Remember, on the previous Sabbath afternoon Pastor DeSilva had said that the "vision" would be discussed and voted on by the ministry board at its February meeting before being presented to the church for a vote. It is worth noting that the proposed meetings were only for "clarification," not objection or amendment. Also, Pastor DeSilva was once again choosing to schedule business decisions on Sabbath, just as he did with the vote to adopt the Borden Report and change our governance structure.
During the announcements that morning Pastor DeSilva stated that he had intended to distribute printed copies of his vision statement that morning, but in looking at the printed copies had noticed that they were "not the correct version," so he didn't want them distributed. They had, however, been made available to the people that attended first service. He also said that the vote might be postponed a week so that the corrections could be made and the corrected copies distributed but he wasn't quite sure how we were going to make it all work. At the end of his sermon that morning he read through the entire written vision statement, which was about four pages long.
When Pastor DeSilva concluded his reading he invited the congregation to bow their heads for prayer. He had only gotten as far as "Our Father" when he was interrupted by a member not associated with the Group who seemed to have objections to the vision statement. The man had risen from his seat and stood in front of the podium trying to make his point to Pastor DeSilva. Much of what the gentleman said was unintelligible in the audience, but one of the statements that could be made out was to the effect that the vision was Pastor DeSilva's, not God's.
Needless to say, this outburst during prayer brought a change in the mood of the service. Pastor DeSilva was trying to maintain his pastoral persona, but everyone could see his anger rising as he tried to quiet the man. His final exclamation of "Submit yourself!" silenced the gentleman long enough for the pastor to finish the prayer, but then the man started up again. At this Pastor DeSilva and the other gentleman on the platform came down and tried to physically calm the objector as Pastor DeSilva called for the closing hymn. The platform party was joined by the head elder, head deacon, and several others who tried to forcibly escort the man out of the sanctuary. The man turned his attention to the congregation, grabbed a hold of the back of the front pew, and continued to try to speak. Eventually the group of men overpowered him and he was led out of the sanctuary.
Next: Talk
Religious
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 45
A special Ministries Board meeting was held on Sabbath afternoon, January 10, 2009, after a potluck for its members and their families. The purpose of this meeting was to create new mission and vision statements for the church.
This meeting had six segments. In the first segment Pastor DeSilva offered an explanation of what a mission statement is supposed to be. One of the prime criteria listed was that it ought to be short enough to fit on a T-shirt. The second segment consisted of the board members being broken up into groups by tables to come up with mission statement suggestions. The recommendations were then collected, discussed, edited, and voted on in the third segment. "We seek to know Christ and lead our community into a relationship with Him" was the mission statement that was ultimately chosen. After the third segment was finished Pastor DeSilva announced a five minute break, at which time many board members left. This was not especially surprising since it was getting close to 4 pm and many had family members with them, including small children.
The fourth segment featured Pastor James (the youth pastor at that time) describing the properties of a vision statement. Pastor James’ presentation dealt with the spiritual components that should be included in a church’s vision statement. He did not discuss how the vision statement should grow out of the mission statement. He then told us that the ministries board would not be working on the vision statement. Pastor DeSilva would be solely responsible for the creation of the vision statement.
Then Pastor DeSilva got up for the fifth segment to "cast the vision." This was to be a five year plan. He stated as he began that this vision was not yet in a written form, and that the office manager (who serves as recording secretary) would be writing it down as he presented it and that the written version would be reviewed at the next ministries board meeting. Some of the vision Pastor DeSilva presented was reasonable, doable, and even admirable, but it also included some high priced items, including beginning to produce DVDs of our services, live web streaming, and the introduction of two giant screens at the front of the sanctuary. (We presently do not have the technology or specialized expertise to accomplish any of those goals, so substantial financial expenditure would be required to develop the infrastructure and train personnel.)
When Pastor DeSilva finished "casting" his vision for the church, he invited questions from the ministries board. One of the first hands up in this final segment of the meeting was that of the communications leader. She expressed concern about the financial requirements of the vision that pertained to her department (which oversees all things electronic in the sanctuary) and questioned whether all of this technology investment was truly beneficial to the church or just a form of "keeping up with the Joneses." She also expressed disappointment that Pastor DeSilva had not shown her the courtesy of discussing these plans with her before bringing them to the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva responded to this that he had not spoken to anyone about anything he presented in the vision before presenting it to the ministries board just then.
The communications leader did not challenge this assertion in the meeting but she remarked to members of the Group afterward that she knew this statement to be a lie on two counts. First, several weeks before as she was leaving the church after closing up a/v operations for that Sabbath she paused in the entry just outside the sanctuary to listen to a conversation in the sanctuary because it seemed to pertain to her department. What she heard was Pastor DeSilva describing to someone the technological additions he wanted to make to the sanctuary. As she described it what she overheard that day was exactly the same pitch made by Pastor DeSilva in the ministries board meeting, almost word-for-word. Second, she stated that during the potluck on the afternoon of the meeting another department head had remarked to her that Pastor DeSilva had discussed potential plans for that department with that department head. In short, Pastor DeSilva had not only discussed plans for other departments with their department heads, but had also discussed his plans for the communications department with individuals other than the communications leader, so his assertion in the meeting that he had spoken to no one about the content of the vision in advance of its presentation was incorrect.
Next: Change of Plan
Religious
This meeting had six segments. In the first segment Pastor DeSilva offered an explanation of what a mission statement is supposed to be. One of the prime criteria listed was that it ought to be short enough to fit on a T-shirt. The second segment consisted of the board members being broken up into groups by tables to come up with mission statement suggestions. The recommendations were then collected, discussed, edited, and voted on in the third segment. "We seek to know Christ and lead our community into a relationship with Him" was the mission statement that was ultimately chosen. After the third segment was finished Pastor DeSilva announced a five minute break, at which time many board members left. This was not especially surprising since it was getting close to 4 pm and many had family members with them, including small children.
The fourth segment featured Pastor James (the youth pastor at that time) describing the properties of a vision statement. Pastor James’ presentation dealt with the spiritual components that should be included in a church’s vision statement. He did not discuss how the vision statement should grow out of the mission statement. He then told us that the ministries board would not be working on the vision statement. Pastor DeSilva would be solely responsible for the creation of the vision statement.
Then Pastor DeSilva got up for the fifth segment to "cast the vision." This was to be a five year plan. He stated as he began that this vision was not yet in a written form, and that the office manager (who serves as recording secretary) would be writing it down as he presented it and that the written version would be reviewed at the next ministries board meeting. Some of the vision Pastor DeSilva presented was reasonable, doable, and even admirable, but it also included some high priced items, including beginning to produce DVDs of our services, live web streaming, and the introduction of two giant screens at the front of the sanctuary. (We presently do not have the technology or specialized expertise to accomplish any of those goals, so substantial financial expenditure would be required to develop the infrastructure and train personnel.)
When Pastor DeSilva finished "casting" his vision for the church, he invited questions from the ministries board. One of the first hands up in this final segment of the meeting was that of the communications leader. She expressed concern about the financial requirements of the vision that pertained to her department (which oversees all things electronic in the sanctuary) and questioned whether all of this technology investment was truly beneficial to the church or just a form of "keeping up with the Joneses." She also expressed disappointment that Pastor DeSilva had not shown her the courtesy of discussing these plans with her before bringing them to the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva responded to this that he had not spoken to anyone about anything he presented in the vision before presenting it to the ministries board just then.
The communications leader did not challenge this assertion in the meeting but she remarked to members of the Group afterward that she knew this statement to be a lie on two counts. First, several weeks before as she was leaving the church after closing up a/v operations for that Sabbath she paused in the entry just outside the sanctuary to listen to a conversation in the sanctuary because it seemed to pertain to her department. What she heard was Pastor DeSilva describing to someone the technological additions he wanted to make to the sanctuary. As she described it what she overheard that day was exactly the same pitch made by Pastor DeSilva in the ministries board meeting, almost word-for-word. Second, she stated that during the potluck on the afternoon of the meeting another department head had remarked to her that Pastor DeSilva had discussed potential plans for that department with that department head. In short, Pastor DeSilva had not only discussed plans for other departments with their department heads, but had also discussed his plans for the communications department with individuals other than the communications leader, so his assertion in the meeting that he had spoken to no one about the content of the vision in advance of its presentation was incorrect.
Next: Change of Plan
Religious
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Lord's Anointed, Pt. 3
“And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, ‘Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!’” (Rev. 22:8, 9).
This series began with a consideration of the concept that laity “cannot touch the Lord’s anointed.” In this final post of this series we come full circle to look at the dangers of this mindset.
The first and most obvious danger is that it confuses the messenger with the message. God’s message is holy and perfect. His messengers, presumably, strive for holiness and seek to set a good example for others, but no one is going to fully achieve that goal this side of heaven. Even the sinless angels shied away from being equated with the messages they carried to humans, as seen in the text above.
“Again: those who do accept the truth naturally expect that the one who presents it to them is right in his ideas of general principles and of what constitutes Christian character. When associated with him, they incline to do as he does. If his practices are wrong, they almost imperceptibly become partakers of the evil. His defects are reproduced in their religious experience. Often, through their love and reverence for him, some objectionable feature of his character is even copied by them as a virtue. If the one who is thus misrepresenting Christ could know what harm has been wrought by the faults of character which he has excused and cherished, he would be filled with horror” (Review and Herald, April 12, 1892, par. 5).
The best defense against this danger, quite simply, is to not put the messenger “up on a pedestal.”
The next danger is that this mindset encourages people to let the pastor do their thinking for them. To bring this home to the situation at Takoma Park, a member of the Ministries Board was once asked why she did not speak up to correct the pastor when he misrepresented the results of a meeting of the committee she represented. Her response was, “I’m going to do what the pastor wants.” The committee had decided something very different than what the pastor claimed, but this individual thought that the pastor’s opinion was more important than that of the committee, and accepted it without question.
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).
God doesn’t accept a borrowed relationship with Him. He insists that each of His followers seek Him and know Him for themselves. This includes thinking through matters for themselves rather than blindly accepting the opinion of the pastor. It is, fundamentally, a difference in the level of knowing. A child can know that it isn’t good to touch a hot stove because their mother told them so, or they can know because they actually touched the hot stove and experienced that it wasn’t good. In matters like hot stoves it is not only acceptable but preferable to get by with a lesser level of knowing—the mother’s warning. In the matter of knowing God nothing less than a first-hand knowing, experiencing, and understanding is acceptable. This sort of knowing cannot happen unless each individual thinks through these matters for themselves.
The third danger inherent in this mindset builds on the second: if individuals rely on their pastors to do their thinking for them they can be led astray.
“Many will show that they are not one with Christ, that they are not dead to the world, that they may live with Him; and frequent will be the apostasies of men who have occupied responsible positions” (Review and Herald, Sept. 11, 1888).
"Men whom He has greatly honored will, in the closing scenes of this earth's history, pattern after ancient Israel. . . . A departure from the great principles Christ has laid down in His teachings, a working out of human projects, using the Scriptures to justify a wrong course of action under the perverse working of Lucifer, will confirm men in misunderstanding, and the truth that they need to keep them from wrong practices will leak out of the soul like water from a leaky vessel” (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 13, pp. 379, 381).
And how does all of this relate to the situation at Takoma Park?
Takoma Park has seen many instances of an overreaching of pastoral power in order to facilitate, and in the wake of, the change in governance structure. This list includes overriding the decision of the business meeting that the change in structure not be included in the vote on the Paul Borden Report, choosing not to recognize motions made by members in business meetings, telling members not to meet to informally discuss church issues without pastoral approval, reassigning subcommittees from one committee to another, and appointing lay leadership instead of following election protocols. These actions have gone unchallenged by many in the congregation because of the mindset that the “Lord’s anointed” cannot be touched.
As we pointed out in part two of this series, God intends that the church utilize a representative form of governance in which all members have a voice to contribute to the collective wisdom which guides the church. All of the pastoral actions listed above fly in the face of the nature and function of representative governance as well as realizing the dangers of allowing the pastor to do the thinking for the congregation and the resulting risk of being led astray.
The events detailed at the end of the Epic, Pt. 37 are a perfect example. Just to refresh everyone’s memory, at the end of a business meeting on Sept. 28, 2008 Pastor DeSilva announced a plan for conducting a spiritual revival within the church during the final quarter of 2008. This revival was to include the visitation of every active member by a pastor and/or elder during the quarter. The plan further called for a day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter to determine whether the spiritual renewal of the congregation had been successful. If the answer was “no,” the program was to be continued a while longer until the answer changed to “yes.” The visitation program fell apart about as soon as it began, with only a handful of members ever receiving visits. This failure didn’t stop the pastoral staff from declaring great success during the day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter.
Now, we got slammed in the comments after describing the failure of the visitation program because it was supposedly a personal attack that had nothing to do with governance. If a serious illness was misdiagnosed, or an implement left inside a patient during surgery, or a prescription written for the wrong medication, would complaining about such things be a personal attack against the doctor? If a lawyer were lazy and inattentive during a trial, would complaining about this behavior be a personal attack or a professional critique? Being a pastor is as much a profession as being a doctor or a lawyer. If a pastor sets a goal in his work for the church and fails to reach that goal pointing this out is a professional critique, not a personal attack. With that in mind, there were several aspects of the failure of the visitation program and the way the pastors dealt with it that pertain to governance and the way clergy and laity relate.
First, there was no public analysis of success as was promised when Pastor DeSilva initially described the effort. Rather than asking the congregation whether it felt spiritually renewed, as they had promised to do, the pastors made the judgment. Whether or not they needed to make such a promise in the first place they chose to do so—and then broke it—preferring instead to once again do the thinking for the congregation.
Second, the pastors put on a front of success which did not reflect reality. The failure of the spiritual renewal campaign was not limited to the incomplete visitation program. The congregation was in just as much of an uproar after the campaign as before but the pastors, knowing that the Group was in communication with the Potomac Conference, were desperately looking for anything they could claim as evidence of their evangelistic progress and good leadership. So they claimed that the spiritual renewal campaign had been a grand success even though it hadn’t. In doing so they misrepresented the true state of things to both the congregation and the conference.
Third, the accountability board failed to do its job in holding the pastors accountable for failing to complete the visitation program. Pastor DeSilva himself has said many times that if a church leader or department fails to complete a goal they set out for themselves that it is the job of the accountability board to ask why the goal wasn’t reached and to look for ways to facilitate the accomplishment of that goal. In the case of the failed visitation program we would have expected the accountability board to consider the matter and ask questions such as, “Were people too busy to receive visitors because of the holidays? Were there just too many people to get to in that amount of time? Did some emergency come up which diverted the pastors’ attention?” No such investigation took place, nor was there any effort to facilitate completion of the goal.
Having a panel devoted to accountability sounds good in theory, but it is useless if it doesn’t actually do what it is supposed to. As we have discussed in numerous previous posts, Takoma Park’s accountability board has the senior pastor as a member, which makes it impossible for that body to render impartial decisions regarding pastoral performance. Further, the accountability board meets only when the senior pastor asks it to and on the agenda the pastor puts forth. And here we truly come back to the starting point of our circle, because the reason for this lack of independent thinking is that the accountability board chairman is of the “Lord’s anointed” mindset.
Failure to adhere to the Church Manual, particularly in matters of governance, is the problem the Takoma Park Church faces. The “Lord’s anointed” mindset is what enables this problem.
“How to Exercise Authority.--God will not vindicate any device whereby man shall in the slightest degree rule or oppress his fellow man. The only hope for fallen man is to look to Jesus, and receive Him as the only Saviour. As soon as man begins to make an iron rule for other men, as soon as he begins to harness up and drive men according to his own mind, he dishonors God, and imperils his own soul and the souls of his brethren...
“He [God] expects His workers to be tenderhearted. How merciful are the ways of God! (See Deut. 10:17-20; 2 Chron. 20:5-7, 9; 1 Peter 1:17.) But the rules God has given have been disregarded, and strange fire has been offered before the Lord...
“If a man is sanguine of his own powers, and seeks to exercise dominion over his brethren, feeling that he is invested with authority to make his will the ruling power, the best and only safe course is to remove him, lest great harm be done, and he lose his own soul, and imperil the souls of others” (The Publishing Ministry, p. 139).
Accountability is needed—real accountability, not mere lip service. This can be done without deviating from the system of governance stipulated by the Church Manual, but only if everyone concerned is serious about making it work. This requires letting go of the “Lord’s anointed” mindset and requiring that pastors do, indeed, practice what they preach. Failure to hold pastors to the same standard of behavior that they require of others carries the greatest danger of all—that prospective new citizens of the kingdom will be so turned off by this duplicity that they will refuse to accept the God we claim to be following.
“The Highhanded Use of Power.--A man's position does not make him one jot or tittle greater in the sight of God; it is character alone that God values. The highhanded power that has been developed, as though positions had made men gods, makes me afraid, and ought to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. This lording it over God's heritage will create such a disgust of man's jurisdiction that a state of insubordination will result. The people are learning that men in high positions of responsibility cannot be trusted to mold and fashion other men's minds and characters. The result will be a loss of confidence even in the management of faithful men. But the Lord will raise up laborers who realize their own nothingness without special help from God....” (The Publishing Ministry, p.127).
This series began with a consideration of the concept that laity “cannot touch the Lord’s anointed.” In this final post of this series we come full circle to look at the dangers of this mindset.
The first and most obvious danger is that it confuses the messenger with the message. God’s message is holy and perfect. His messengers, presumably, strive for holiness and seek to set a good example for others, but no one is going to fully achieve that goal this side of heaven. Even the sinless angels shied away from being equated with the messages they carried to humans, as seen in the text above.
“Again: those who do accept the truth naturally expect that the one who presents it to them is right in his ideas of general principles and of what constitutes Christian character. When associated with him, they incline to do as he does. If his practices are wrong, they almost imperceptibly become partakers of the evil. His defects are reproduced in their religious experience. Often, through their love and reverence for him, some objectionable feature of his character is even copied by them as a virtue. If the one who is thus misrepresenting Christ could know what harm has been wrought by the faults of character which he has excused and cherished, he would be filled with horror” (Review and Herald, April 12, 1892, par. 5).
The best defense against this danger, quite simply, is to not put the messenger “up on a pedestal.”
The next danger is that this mindset encourages people to let the pastor do their thinking for them. To bring this home to the situation at Takoma Park, a member of the Ministries Board was once asked why she did not speak up to correct the pastor when he misrepresented the results of a meeting of the committee she represented. Her response was, “I’m going to do what the pastor wants.” The committee had decided something very different than what the pastor claimed, but this individual thought that the pastor’s opinion was more important than that of the committee, and accepted it without question.
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).
God doesn’t accept a borrowed relationship with Him. He insists that each of His followers seek Him and know Him for themselves. This includes thinking through matters for themselves rather than blindly accepting the opinion of the pastor. It is, fundamentally, a difference in the level of knowing. A child can know that it isn’t good to touch a hot stove because their mother told them so, or they can know because they actually touched the hot stove and experienced that it wasn’t good. In matters like hot stoves it is not only acceptable but preferable to get by with a lesser level of knowing—the mother’s warning. In the matter of knowing God nothing less than a first-hand knowing, experiencing, and understanding is acceptable. This sort of knowing cannot happen unless each individual thinks through these matters for themselves.
The third danger inherent in this mindset builds on the second: if individuals rely on their pastors to do their thinking for them they can be led astray.
“Many will show that they are not one with Christ, that they are not dead to the world, that they may live with Him; and frequent will be the apostasies of men who have occupied responsible positions” (Review and Herald, Sept. 11, 1888).
"Men whom He has greatly honored will, in the closing scenes of this earth's history, pattern after ancient Israel. . . . A departure from the great principles Christ has laid down in His teachings, a working out of human projects, using the Scriptures to justify a wrong course of action under the perverse working of Lucifer, will confirm men in misunderstanding, and the truth that they need to keep them from wrong practices will leak out of the soul like water from a leaky vessel” (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 13, pp. 379, 381).
And how does all of this relate to the situation at Takoma Park?
Takoma Park has seen many instances of an overreaching of pastoral power in order to facilitate, and in the wake of, the change in governance structure. This list includes overriding the decision of the business meeting that the change in structure not be included in the vote on the Paul Borden Report, choosing not to recognize motions made by members in business meetings, telling members not to meet to informally discuss church issues without pastoral approval, reassigning subcommittees from one committee to another, and appointing lay leadership instead of following election protocols. These actions have gone unchallenged by many in the congregation because of the mindset that the “Lord’s anointed” cannot be touched.
As we pointed out in part two of this series, God intends that the church utilize a representative form of governance in which all members have a voice to contribute to the collective wisdom which guides the church. All of the pastoral actions listed above fly in the face of the nature and function of representative governance as well as realizing the dangers of allowing the pastor to do the thinking for the congregation and the resulting risk of being led astray.
The events detailed at the end of the Epic, Pt. 37 are a perfect example. Just to refresh everyone’s memory, at the end of a business meeting on Sept. 28, 2008 Pastor DeSilva announced a plan for conducting a spiritual revival within the church during the final quarter of 2008. This revival was to include the visitation of every active member by a pastor and/or elder during the quarter. The plan further called for a day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter to determine whether the spiritual renewal of the congregation had been successful. If the answer was “no,” the program was to be continued a while longer until the answer changed to “yes.” The visitation program fell apart about as soon as it began, with only a handful of members ever receiving visits. This failure didn’t stop the pastoral staff from declaring great success during the day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter.
Now, we got slammed in the comments after describing the failure of the visitation program because it was supposedly a personal attack that had nothing to do with governance. If a serious illness was misdiagnosed, or an implement left inside a patient during surgery, or a prescription written for the wrong medication, would complaining about such things be a personal attack against the doctor? If a lawyer were lazy and inattentive during a trial, would complaining about this behavior be a personal attack or a professional critique? Being a pastor is as much a profession as being a doctor or a lawyer. If a pastor sets a goal in his work for the church and fails to reach that goal pointing this out is a professional critique, not a personal attack. With that in mind, there were several aspects of the failure of the visitation program and the way the pastors dealt with it that pertain to governance and the way clergy and laity relate.
First, there was no public analysis of success as was promised when Pastor DeSilva initially described the effort. Rather than asking the congregation whether it felt spiritually renewed, as they had promised to do, the pastors made the judgment. Whether or not they needed to make such a promise in the first place they chose to do so—and then broke it—preferring instead to once again do the thinking for the congregation.
Second, the pastors put on a front of success which did not reflect reality. The failure of the spiritual renewal campaign was not limited to the incomplete visitation program. The congregation was in just as much of an uproar after the campaign as before but the pastors, knowing that the Group was in communication with the Potomac Conference, were desperately looking for anything they could claim as evidence of their evangelistic progress and good leadership. So they claimed that the spiritual renewal campaign had been a grand success even though it hadn’t. In doing so they misrepresented the true state of things to both the congregation and the conference.
Third, the accountability board failed to do its job in holding the pastors accountable for failing to complete the visitation program. Pastor DeSilva himself has said many times that if a church leader or department fails to complete a goal they set out for themselves that it is the job of the accountability board to ask why the goal wasn’t reached and to look for ways to facilitate the accomplishment of that goal. In the case of the failed visitation program we would have expected the accountability board to consider the matter and ask questions such as, “Were people too busy to receive visitors because of the holidays? Were there just too many people to get to in that amount of time? Did some emergency come up which diverted the pastors’ attention?” No such investigation took place, nor was there any effort to facilitate completion of the goal.
Having a panel devoted to accountability sounds good in theory, but it is useless if it doesn’t actually do what it is supposed to. As we have discussed in numerous previous posts, Takoma Park’s accountability board has the senior pastor as a member, which makes it impossible for that body to render impartial decisions regarding pastoral performance. Further, the accountability board meets only when the senior pastor asks it to and on the agenda the pastor puts forth. And here we truly come back to the starting point of our circle, because the reason for this lack of independent thinking is that the accountability board chairman is of the “Lord’s anointed” mindset.
Failure to adhere to the Church Manual, particularly in matters of governance, is the problem the Takoma Park Church faces. The “Lord’s anointed” mindset is what enables this problem.
“How to Exercise Authority.--God will not vindicate any device whereby man shall in the slightest degree rule or oppress his fellow man. The only hope for fallen man is to look to Jesus, and receive Him as the only Saviour. As soon as man begins to make an iron rule for other men, as soon as he begins to harness up and drive men according to his own mind, he dishonors God, and imperils his own soul and the souls of his brethren...
“He [God] expects His workers to be tenderhearted. How merciful are the ways of God! (See Deut. 10:17-20; 2 Chron. 20:5-7, 9; 1 Peter 1:17.) But the rules God has given have been disregarded, and strange fire has been offered before the Lord...
“If a man is sanguine of his own powers, and seeks to exercise dominion over his brethren, feeling that he is invested with authority to make his will the ruling power, the best and only safe course is to remove him, lest great harm be done, and he lose his own soul, and imperil the souls of others” (The Publishing Ministry, p. 139).
Accountability is needed—real accountability, not mere lip service. This can be done without deviating from the system of governance stipulated by the Church Manual, but only if everyone concerned is serious about making it work. This requires letting go of the “Lord’s anointed” mindset and requiring that pastors do, indeed, practice what they preach. Failure to hold pastors to the same standard of behavior that they require of others carries the greatest danger of all—that prospective new citizens of the kingdom will be so turned off by this duplicity that they will refuse to accept the God we claim to be following.
“The Highhanded Use of Power.--A man's position does not make him one jot or tittle greater in the sight of God; it is character alone that God values. The highhanded power that has been developed, as though positions had made men gods, makes me afraid, and ought to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. This lording it over God's heritage will create such a disgust of man's jurisdiction that a state of insubordination will result. The people are learning that men in high positions of responsibility cannot be trusted to mold and fashion other men's minds and characters. The result will be a loss of confidence even in the management of faithful men. But the Lord will raise up laborers who realize their own nothingness without special help from God....” (The Publishing Ministry, p.127).
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 44
The request in Elder Ramirez's letter of Oct. 30 that we provide a written statement "outlining all the issues at hand" left the Group bewildered, since we had already sent the conference several letters describing the problems in detail. After careful consideration the Group decided to keep this required statement brief and general. To our minds, all of the problems Takoma Park was facing stemmed from a single issue—failure to adhere to the Church Manual. Our statement could have gone on at great length about all of the problems resulting from this failure, but we believed that this was the heart of the matter, and that by mentioning it we were encompassing all of the resulting problems as well.
Our issue statement was emailed to Elder Ramirez by Elder B on December 12: "The issue is: The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual."
Unfortunately, there were a couple of spelling errors in the issue statement that Elder B emailed to Elder Ramirez. The statement should have read, "The issue is: The present governance structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the Church Manual." Much to our chagrin, Elder Ramirez chose to quote this statement with the typing errors intact in all subsequent meetings and correspondence until we made a point of correcting them some months later.
Timeline note: The holidays, schedule conflicts, and inclement weather all contributed to delay the first of the meetings specified by Elder Ramirez's Oct. 30 letter until early February 2009. We will return to this thread of the story when we reach it, but there were some significant local events which occurred in the meantime which we will be describing first.
Next: Mission and Vision
Religious
Our issue statement was emailed to Elder Ramirez by Elder B on December 12: "The issue is: The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual."
Unfortunately, there were a couple of spelling errors in the issue statement that Elder B emailed to Elder Ramirez. The statement should have read, "The issue is: The present governance structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the Church Manual." Much to our chagrin, Elder Ramirez chose to quote this statement with the typing errors intact in all subsequent meetings and correspondence until we made a point of correcting them some months later.
Timeline note: The holidays, schedule conflicts, and inclement weather all contributed to delay the first of the meetings specified by Elder Ramirez's Oct. 30 letter until early February 2009. We will return to this thread of the story when we reach it, but there were some significant local events which occurred in the meantime which we will be describing first.
Next: Mission and Vision
Religious
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Lord's Anointed, Pt. 2
What is the relationship between clergy and laity? Is it ruler/subject? Boss/employee? Parent/child? Brother/brother? Who is ultimately in charge of the church? What is the proper attitude toward the one that is in charge?
“The interests of Christ's kingdom call for diligence and faithfulness in as much greater degree as spiritual and eternal things are of more importance than temporal things. There must be no feeble working, no sluggish, tardy action, for this would imperil our own souls and the souls of others…
“What general would undertake the command of an army while the officers under him refused to obey until they had satisfied themselves that his command was a reasonable one? Such a course would mean loss to the entire army. It would weaken the hands of the soldiers. The question would arise in their minds, Is there not a better way? But even though there be a better way, the orders must be obeyed, or defeat and disaster would result. A moment's delay, and the advantage that would have been gained is lost.
“Every good soldier is implicit and prompt in the obedience he renders to his captain. The will of the commander is to be the will of the soldier. Sometimes the soldier may be surprised at the command given, but he is not to stop to inquire the reason for it. When the order of the captain crosses the wishes of the soldier, he is not to hesitate and complain, saying, I see no consistency in these plans. He must not frame excuses and leave his work undone. Such soldiers would not be accepted as fitted to engage in earthly conflicts, and much more will they not be accepted in Christ's army. When Christ commands, His soldiers must obey without hesitation. They must be faithful soldiers, or He cannot accept them. Freedom of choice is given to every soul, but after a man has enlisted, he is required to be as true as steel, come life or come death” (Manuscript 7 1/2, 1900).
God is in charge of the church. To God, our General, we own absolute obedience. But what is the role of the clergy?
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
“The believer in Christ is consecrated to high and holy purpose. Before the service of the royal priesthood the glory of the Aaronic priesthood is eclipsed. Called according to God's purpose, set apart by grace divine, invested with Christ's righteousness, imbued with the Holy Spirit, offering up the sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, the true believer is indeed a representative of the Redeemer. Upon such a worshiper, God looks with delight” (Review and Herald, October 30, 1900 par. 7).
The first thing that should be noted is that the word “clergy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible. The word and the concept behind it are of human invention. God never intended for the work of spreading the gospel to be relegated to a few full-time individuals. God’s plan is for all of His people to be His messengers. The role of clergy to laity should be one of facilitator-participant. When all are active in the work as God intends the purpose of the clergy is to coordinate, facilitate, and advise—to be the “point person.” This role calls for respect, as can be seen in the following scriptural example.
“Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, 'My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.' At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, 'God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!'
“Those who were standing near Paul said, 'You dare to insult God's high priest?'
“Paul replied, 'Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people'" (Acts 23:1-5).
Notice that Paul’s action here is one of losing his temper and hurling an insult at the high priest. This is clearly unacceptable behavior toward a leader, as Paul himself quickly acknowledges. This does not, however, preclude disagreeing with or even disobeying leaders respectfully.
“Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.'
"Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" (Acts 5:27-29).
The apostles here appeal to a concept common to both scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy: human leadership, whether religious or secular, should be followed only as long as it is in obedience to God’s principles and directions. If that leadership ceases to follow God, the true follower of God is obligated to disobey that leadership.
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:35-37).
“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” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
“There are those who have stood as managers and yet have not managed after God's order. Some have served on committees here and committees there, and have felt free to dictate just what the committee should say and do, claiming that those who did not carry out these ideas were sinning against Christ. When the power of God is manifest in the church and in the management of the various departments of his work, when it is evident that the managers are themselves controlled by the Holy Spirit of God, then it is time to consider that you are safe in accepting what they may say, under God. But you must know that you are guided by the principles of the Word of the living God. The Great General of armies, the Captain of the Lord's host, is our leader” (General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901 par. 32).
In other words, it is the responsibility of each individual church member to verify that interpretations, assertions, and recommendations made by clergy (or even lay leadership) are biblically accurate, and act accordingly.
“When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 493).
The Seventh-day Adventist Church operates by representative government because there is safety in collective wisdom. In order for this to work properly all members of the collective must be informed and involved. If members choose not to be involved, or show up but defer to the opinion of the clergy rather than expressing their own, then the benefit of collective wisdom is not attained. There is great danger in this because, as the statement above points out, it is far too easy for Satan to target and influence the opinion of a single individual in a leadership position to whom others leave the decision making.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body . . . . God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 9, pp. 260, 261).
When it comes to the principle of individual thought and judgment there is one exception—decisions made by the General Conference in Session. Ironically, in a situation where at nearly every hand the Group is being told to submit independent judgment to the wisdom of the church the one expression of collective wisdom which God ordains to supercede independent judgment is the one the local clergy are trying to ignore: decisions made by the General Conference in Session as expressed in the Church Manual.
“One Rule for Directors and 'Inferiors.'--Let men in responsible positions consider to a purpose that there is not one rule of action for the men in authority and another for the class who are expected to submit to their decisions; not one rule for the director and another for the supposed inferiors. I say supposed, for many who are treated as inferiors are men whose principles and course of action are such as heaven approves…
“I have risen a long while before day to write these words, for I see a great deal that needs to be done in heart and practice for men in authority who are very officious to make laws and restrictions for others, while they themselves do not obey the law of God” (The Publishing Ministry, pp.130, 131).
“The minister is not to rule imperiously over the flock entrusted to his care, but to be their ensample, and to show them the way to heaven. Following the example of Christ, he should intercede with God for the people of his care till he sees that his prayers are answered… The principles that rule in heaven should rule upon earth; the same love that animates the angels, the same purity and holiness that reign in heaven, should, as far as possible, be reproduced upon earth. God holds the minister responsible for the power he exercises, but does not justify His servants in perverting that power into despotism over the flock of their care” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 4, pp.267, 268).
Our final observation in exploring the relationship between clergy and laity is that we are all on a level playing field before God. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one gets a free pass because of his/her profession.
“We are to recognize human government as an ordinance of divine appointment, and teach obedience to it as a sacred duty, within its legitimate sphere. But when its claims conflict with the claims of God, we must obey God rather than men. God's word must be recognized as above all human legislation. A "Thus saith the Lord" is not to be set aside for a "Thus saith the church" or a "Thus saith the state." The crown of Christ is to be lifted above the diadems of earthly potentates” (Gospel Workers, pp.389, 390).
“The interests of Christ's kingdom call for diligence and faithfulness in as much greater degree as spiritual and eternal things are of more importance than temporal things. There must be no feeble working, no sluggish, tardy action, for this would imperil our own souls and the souls of others…
“What general would undertake the command of an army while the officers under him refused to obey until they had satisfied themselves that his command was a reasonable one? Such a course would mean loss to the entire army. It would weaken the hands of the soldiers. The question would arise in their minds, Is there not a better way? But even though there be a better way, the orders must be obeyed, or defeat and disaster would result. A moment's delay, and the advantage that would have been gained is lost.
“Every good soldier is implicit and prompt in the obedience he renders to his captain. The will of the commander is to be the will of the soldier. Sometimes the soldier may be surprised at the command given, but he is not to stop to inquire the reason for it. When the order of the captain crosses the wishes of the soldier, he is not to hesitate and complain, saying, I see no consistency in these plans. He must not frame excuses and leave his work undone. Such soldiers would not be accepted as fitted to engage in earthly conflicts, and much more will they not be accepted in Christ's army. When Christ commands, His soldiers must obey without hesitation. They must be faithful soldiers, or He cannot accept them. Freedom of choice is given to every soul, but after a man has enlisted, he is required to be as true as steel, come life or come death” (Manuscript 7 1/2, 1900).
God is in charge of the church. To God, our General, we own absolute obedience. But what is the role of the clergy?
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
“The believer in Christ is consecrated to high and holy purpose. Before the service of the royal priesthood the glory of the Aaronic priesthood is eclipsed. Called according to God's purpose, set apart by grace divine, invested with Christ's righteousness, imbued with the Holy Spirit, offering up the sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, the true believer is indeed a representative of the Redeemer. Upon such a worshiper, God looks with delight” (Review and Herald, October 30, 1900 par. 7).
The first thing that should be noted is that the word “clergy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible. The word and the concept behind it are of human invention. God never intended for the work of spreading the gospel to be relegated to a few full-time individuals. God’s plan is for all of His people to be His messengers. The role of clergy to laity should be one of facilitator-participant. When all are active in the work as God intends the purpose of the clergy is to coordinate, facilitate, and advise—to be the “point person.” This role calls for respect, as can be seen in the following scriptural example.
“Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, 'My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.' At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, 'God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!'
“Those who were standing near Paul said, 'You dare to insult God's high priest?'
“Paul replied, 'Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people'" (Acts 23:1-5).
Notice that Paul’s action here is one of losing his temper and hurling an insult at the high priest. This is clearly unacceptable behavior toward a leader, as Paul himself quickly acknowledges. This does not, however, preclude disagreeing with or even disobeying leaders respectfully.
“Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.'
"Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" (Acts 5:27-29).
The apostles here appeal to a concept common to both scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy: human leadership, whether religious or secular, should be followed only as long as it is in obedience to God’s principles and directions. If that leadership ceases to follow God, the true follower of God is obligated to disobey that leadership.
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:35-37).
“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” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
“There are those who have stood as managers and yet have not managed after God's order. Some have served on committees here and committees there, and have felt free to dictate just what the committee should say and do, claiming that those who did not carry out these ideas were sinning against Christ. When the power of God is manifest in the church and in the management of the various departments of his work, when it is evident that the managers are themselves controlled by the Holy Spirit of God, then it is time to consider that you are safe in accepting what they may say, under God. But you must know that you are guided by the principles of the Word of the living God. The Great General of armies, the Captain of the Lord's host, is our leader” (General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901 par. 32).
In other words, it is the responsibility of each individual church member to verify that interpretations, assertions, and recommendations made by clergy (or even lay leadership) are biblically accurate, and act accordingly.
“When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 493).
The Seventh-day Adventist Church operates by representative government because there is safety in collective wisdom. In order for this to work properly all members of the collective must be informed and involved. If members choose not to be involved, or show up but defer to the opinion of the clergy rather than expressing their own, then the benefit of collective wisdom is not attained. There is great danger in this because, as the statement above points out, it is far too easy for Satan to target and influence the opinion of a single individual in a leadership position to whom others leave the decision making.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body . . . . God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 9, pp. 260, 261).
When it comes to the principle of individual thought and judgment there is one exception—decisions made by the General Conference in Session. Ironically, in a situation where at nearly every hand the Group is being told to submit independent judgment to the wisdom of the church the one expression of collective wisdom which God ordains to supercede independent judgment is the one the local clergy are trying to ignore: decisions made by the General Conference in Session as expressed in the Church Manual.
“One Rule for Directors and 'Inferiors.'--Let men in responsible positions consider to a purpose that there is not one rule of action for the men in authority and another for the class who are expected to submit to their decisions; not one rule for the director and another for the supposed inferiors. I say supposed, for many who are treated as inferiors are men whose principles and course of action are such as heaven approves…
“I have risen a long while before day to write these words, for I see a great deal that needs to be done in heart and practice for men in authority who are very officious to make laws and restrictions for others, while they themselves do not obey the law of God” (The Publishing Ministry, pp.130, 131).
“The minister is not to rule imperiously over the flock entrusted to his care, but to be their ensample, and to show them the way to heaven. Following the example of Christ, he should intercede with God for the people of his care till he sees that his prayers are answered… The principles that rule in heaven should rule upon earth; the same love that animates the angels, the same purity and holiness that reign in heaven, should, as far as possible, be reproduced upon earth. God holds the minister responsible for the power he exercises, but does not justify His servants in perverting that power into despotism over the flock of their care” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 4, pp.267, 268).
Our final observation in exploring the relationship between clergy and laity is that we are all on a level playing field before God. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one gets a free pass because of his/her profession.
“We are to recognize human government as an ordinance of divine appointment, and teach obedience to it as a sacred duty, within its legitimate sphere. But when its claims conflict with the claims of God, we must obey God rather than men. God's word must be recognized as above all human legislation. A "Thus saith the Lord" is not to be set aside for a "Thus saith the church" or a "Thus saith the state." The crown of Christ is to be lifted above the diadems of earthly potentates” (Gospel Workers, pp.389, 390).
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 43
Our pastors declared that in order to proceed with becoming “missionally focused” the church must first “discover its core values.” They chose to begin this process at the Ministry Board meeting on November 9, 2008. This was done by means of a survey sheet (see below) which was handed out in the meeting for the ministry board members to complete. This survey listed 25 potential core values and asked that each be ranked on a scale of 1 to 4 to indicate their importance. Here is just one rather scary example of these potential core values, “Obedience: A willingness to do what God or others ask.” We certainly have no issue with doing anything God asks of us, but that obedience does not, should not, automatically extend to unspecified “others.” You can see, however, how a pastor could use this line of reasoning to demand unquestioning obedience of his congregation rather than allowing members to exercise individual judgment.
This exercise in the ministry board meeting was recorded in the minutes that. “Church Ministry Core Values Audit forms were handed out to each CMB member to see what the CMB members assess as our core values. These forms will be tabulated and compared to the tabulation of the forms when they are given to the church membership to see if the CMB and the general membership agree as to core values.” No such comparison was made, or at least not presented to the ministries board, but survey forms were mailed out to the congregation shortly after this meeting. With the forms went a letter encouraging members to duplicate the forms as needed to ensure that each family member could submit a copy. Boxes were placed in the lobbies of the church to collect the completed forms. It was noted how easily such a system could be abused if someone wanted to pack the vote, but there wasn’t really anything anyone could do about it.
At the end of the Nov. 9 ministry board meeting Pastor DeSilva offered to any who wanted them a list of examples of “values statements” from other churches, and urged members to consider them in thinking about how our own should read. These examples came from Northwood Community Church (Dallas, TX), The Jerusalem Church (Jerusalem, Israel), Fellowship Bible Church (Dallas, TX), Lakeview Community Church (Cedar Hill, TX) Willow Creek Community Church (South Barrington, IL), Parkview Evangelical Free Church (Iowa City, IA), and Grace Bible Church (Laredo, TX).
The results of the core values survey were presented to the ministries board on December 7, 2008. The presentation did not include any exact data about how many points each option had received. A list of nine core values was presented. Pastor DeSilva declared that he wanted to narrow it down to six. (How he came to decide that nine was the ideal number of options to present or that six was the perfect number of values for the church to hold is unknown.) The nine values presented were prayer, Bible knowledge, excellence, worship, evangelism, community, encouragement, preaching, and obedience. Pastor DeSilva suggested that excellence be taken out of the running to be listed as a stand-alone value, because it was really a part of all of the others (excellence in worship, excellence in encouragement, etc.). It was agreed. In order to eliminate two more of the values to achieve the six each ministries board member was handed six colored sticky dots. Each of the remaining eight values was written on a separate piece of marker board and taped to the wall. Members were asked to vote by placing their sticky dots on the values they wanted to vote for. In this manner preaching and obedience were eliminated.
Next: Making a Statement
Religious
Friday, November 20, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 17
“Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition. 'Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.' John 3:20. As men see that they cannot maintain their position by the Scriptures, many determine to maintain it at all hazards, and with a malicious spirit they assail the character and motives of those who stand in defense of unpopular truth. It is the same policy which has been pursued in all ages. Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic. Multitudes who are too unbelieving to accept the sure word of prophecy will receive with unquestioning credulity an accusation against those who dare to reprove fashionable sins. This spirit will increase more and more...
“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers. The confession of faith made by saints and martyrs was recorded for the benefit of succeeding generations. Those living examples of holiness and steadfast integrity have come down to inspire courage in those who are now called to stand as witnesses for God. They received grace and truth, not for themselves alone, but that, through them, the knowledge of God might enlighten the earth. Has God given light to His servants in this generation? Then they should let it shine forth to the world” (The Great Controversy, pp. 458, 459).
“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers. The confession of faith made by saints and martyrs was recorded for the benefit of succeeding generations. Those living examples of holiness and steadfast integrity have come down to inspire courage in those who are now called to stand as witnesses for God. They received grace and truth, not for themselves alone, but that, through them, the knowledge of God might enlighten the earth. Has God given light to His servants in this generation? Then they should let it shine forth to the world” (The Great Controversy, pp. 458, 459).
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Lord's Anointed, Pt. 1
Pastors are people too. They are human beings just like the laity. They are fallible just like the rest of us. They make mistakes and need to learn from those mistakes. Pastors need to serve their congregations with a sense of humility.
I bring this up because of one of the most common arguments we have encountered throughout this experience has been, "Yes, the pastor may be wrong, but if he is God will deal with him. We cannot touch 'the Lord's anointed.'" God does deal with His anointed. At times God does this by sending members of the congregation to talk with the pastor when the members feel the pastor is on the wrong course. Pastors need to be willing to listen to their church leaders and parishioners. They need to be willing to accept wise council.
We will consider this subject in three sections. The first will explore the scriptural justification of the “Lord’s anointed” theory and the accuracy of this common interpretation. The second will seek a balanced interpretation of instructions from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy regarding proper attitudes/relations with clergy. The third will consider the dangers inherent in misinterpretation of these relations and explain how all of this pertains to issues of adhering to the Church Manual.
Let’s start this analysis with a look at the text the concept of “the Lord’s anointed” springs from. This terminology is used by David when referring to King Saul. It appears in 1 Samuel 24, and again in 1 Samuel 26:8 & 9, “Then Abishai said to David, 'God has delivered your enemy into your hand this day. Now therefore, please, let me strike him at once with the spear, right to the earth; and I will not have to strike him a second time!'
“But David said to Abishai, 'Do not destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?'”
Notice that what David is refusing to do is kill Saul. He is not refusing to disagree with Saul, or tell Saul that he is wrong, or point out to Saul that he has been treated unfairly. He is refusing to murder Saul. The SDA Bible Commentaries don’t have anything to say about the instance of this phrase in chapter 24. Of the situation quoted above from chapter 26, they offer the following observations, “David exercised independent thought. He was above taking any living man as his criterion for conduct. He had developed his philosophy of life, not from tradition, but from the principles laid down in divine revelation. Among the precepts of the Mosaic law, with which David had familiarized himself, was the following: “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (Ex. 22:28, RSV). David possessed keen spiritual discernment and understood this law to prohibit such action against the king as Abishai advocated…” (Vol. 2, p.578).
Further investigation of Exodus 22:28 helps to shed light on the meaning of this encounter in 1 Samuel. The Commentaries have this to say, “It is in the divine order that we should respect the authority of those placed over us, in both church and state” (Vol. 1, p.624).
Two other texts are mentioned by the Commentaries on Ex. 22:28 which help us further understand this concept, Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7).
“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17).
Both of these texts speak not to some radical or revolutionary concept of unquestioning devotion, but to a common sense continuation of respect for those in authority inherent in any civilized society. “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” The underlying notion is that being under the law of God does not exempt the Christian from the laws of civil society—taxes should still be paid and civic leaders should still be acknowledged.
It is also worth noting that none of these texts differentiate between secular and religious leaders—what applies to one would seem to apply equally to the other. If we assume for the sake of argument that these texts do demand unquestioning devotion and obedience to religious leaders then the same must be true for secular leaders as well. Following this line of logic to its conclusion, the following secular activities must therefore be wrong: voting in elections, holding protests against disagreeable laws, and impeaching or prosecuting corrupt officials. Again, by this logic, since God “removes kings and sets up kings,” all of these actions would be interference in God’s prerogative to set up and remove leaders, or would be attacking God’s servants.
Let’s go back to 1 Samuel. “David said furthermore, “As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall go out to battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 26:10 & 11).
“David was content to leave all in God’s hands, and in no way try to prescribe the course for God to follow… While expecting God to do great things for him, he knew that he too had a part to act in the present situation” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 578).
In other words, David’s reluctance to kill Saul as Abishai recommended was due to an uncertainty that this was what God wanted him to do. If God had clearly instructed David to assassinate Saul he would have done so (as happened with Ehud and King Eglon of Moab, Judges 3:14-25), but in the absence of such a clear directive David chose to err on the side of safety out of respect for Saul as the king God had appointed for Israel.
The principle to take away from these verses, then, is not one of absolute deference to clergy. It is a general call for reasonable respect of all authority figures and a caution to be certain that the course of action you embark on is what God wants you to do.
I bring this up because of one of the most common arguments we have encountered throughout this experience has been, "Yes, the pastor may be wrong, but if he is God will deal with him. We cannot touch 'the Lord's anointed.'" God does deal with His anointed. At times God does this by sending members of the congregation to talk with the pastor when the members feel the pastor is on the wrong course. Pastors need to be willing to listen to their church leaders and parishioners. They need to be willing to accept wise council.
We will consider this subject in three sections. The first will explore the scriptural justification of the “Lord’s anointed” theory and the accuracy of this common interpretation. The second will seek a balanced interpretation of instructions from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy regarding proper attitudes/relations with clergy. The third will consider the dangers inherent in misinterpretation of these relations and explain how all of this pertains to issues of adhering to the Church Manual.
Let’s start this analysis with a look at the text the concept of “the Lord’s anointed” springs from. This terminology is used by David when referring to King Saul. It appears in 1 Samuel 24, and again in 1 Samuel 26:8 & 9, “Then Abishai said to David, 'God has delivered your enemy into your hand this day. Now therefore, please, let me strike him at once with the spear, right to the earth; and I will not have to strike him a second time!'
“But David said to Abishai, 'Do not destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?'”
Notice that what David is refusing to do is kill Saul. He is not refusing to disagree with Saul, or tell Saul that he is wrong, or point out to Saul that he has been treated unfairly. He is refusing to murder Saul. The SDA Bible Commentaries don’t have anything to say about the instance of this phrase in chapter 24. Of the situation quoted above from chapter 26, they offer the following observations, “David exercised independent thought. He was above taking any living man as his criterion for conduct. He had developed his philosophy of life, not from tradition, but from the principles laid down in divine revelation. Among the precepts of the Mosaic law, with which David had familiarized himself, was the following: “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (Ex. 22:28, RSV). David possessed keen spiritual discernment and understood this law to prohibit such action against the king as Abishai advocated…” (Vol. 2, p.578).
Further investigation of Exodus 22:28 helps to shed light on the meaning of this encounter in 1 Samuel. The Commentaries have this to say, “It is in the divine order that we should respect the authority of those placed over us, in both church and state” (Vol. 1, p.624).
Two other texts are mentioned by the Commentaries on Ex. 22:28 which help us further understand this concept, Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7).
“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17).
Both of these texts speak not to some radical or revolutionary concept of unquestioning devotion, but to a common sense continuation of respect for those in authority inherent in any civilized society. “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” The underlying notion is that being under the law of God does not exempt the Christian from the laws of civil society—taxes should still be paid and civic leaders should still be acknowledged.
It is also worth noting that none of these texts differentiate between secular and religious leaders—what applies to one would seem to apply equally to the other. If we assume for the sake of argument that these texts do demand unquestioning devotion and obedience to religious leaders then the same must be true for secular leaders as well. Following this line of logic to its conclusion, the following secular activities must therefore be wrong: voting in elections, holding protests against disagreeable laws, and impeaching or prosecuting corrupt officials. Again, by this logic, since God “removes kings and sets up kings,” all of these actions would be interference in God’s prerogative to set up and remove leaders, or would be attacking God’s servants.
Let’s go back to 1 Samuel. “David said furthermore, “As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall go out to battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 26:10 & 11).
“David was content to leave all in God’s hands, and in no way try to prescribe the course for God to follow… While expecting God to do great things for him, he knew that he too had a part to act in the present situation” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 578).
In other words, David’s reluctance to kill Saul as Abishai recommended was due to an uncertainty that this was what God wanted him to do. If God had clearly instructed David to assassinate Saul he would have done so (as happened with Ehud and King Eglon of Moab, Judges 3:14-25), but in the absence of such a clear directive David chose to err on the side of safety out of respect for Saul as the king God had appointed for Israel.
The principle to take away from these verses, then, is not one of absolute deference to clergy. It is a general call for reasonable respect of all authority figures and a caution to be certain that the course of action you embark on is what God wants you to do.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 42
In early November of 2008 two couples got up during the announcements one Sabbath and declared that they were the new leaders of the family ministries and social departments. This came as quite a surprise because the leadership positions they were claiming were supposed to be elected positions. There had been no report from the standing nominating committee, no vote from the church, yet here they were assuming the titles. We could only conclude that Pastor DeSilva, in yet another act of dictatorship, had placed them in these positions by executive order.
To be clear, we have nothing against these individuals personally. To the best of our knowledge they are fine, upstanding Christians who have done their best to fulfill the responsibilities of the positions they were placed in, but ends do not justify means. Pastors do not have the right to make political appointments. For Pastor DeSilva to have done so is an insult to the congregation’s right to make those decisions.
Next: Choosing Values
Religious
To be clear, we have nothing against these individuals personally. To the best of our knowledge they are fine, upstanding Christians who have done their best to fulfill the responsibilities of the positions they were placed in, but ends do not justify means. Pastors do not have the right to make political appointments. For Pastor DeSilva to have done so is an insult to the congregation’s right to make those decisions.
Next: Choosing Values
Religious
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 41
By this stage in the process it was painfully clear that the Group’s interpretation of Matthew 18 was substantially at odds with that of the Potomac Conference. It was also painfully clear that the Potomac Conference didn’t consider our interpretation worthy of consideration. Since the matter of “process” as defined by the conference hinged on this interpretation of Matthew 18 some of the Group got to thinking that we ought to solicit a third-party interpretation from someone the conference would take seriously. This sounded to us like a job for the Biblical Research Institute (BRI), the department of the General Conference that does nothing but biblical research.
BRI was contacted, but they declined to offer an interpretation. While sympathetic about the situation they felt that it was an administrative matter which they, as theologians, should not involve themselves in.
BRI was contacted, but they declined to offer an interpretation. While sympathetic about the situation they felt that it was an administrative matter which they, as theologians, should not involve themselves in.
The Enormous Tiny Word
The enormous tiny word on which a proper understanding of Matthew 18 hangs is IF.
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (Matthew 18:15-17).
Let's follow the trail of "ifs."
First, "If your brother sins against you." This text applies only to situations in which one brother has committed a sin against the other. So is deviating from acceptable governance practices a sin? Not in and of itself, though it is troubling and can lead to other issues. That fact alone disqualifies Matthew 18 from being directly applicable to the present situation.
Second, "If he listens to you, you have won your brother over," and third, "if he will not listen, take one or two others along." Quite simply, the power of choice is involved. Going through the process of Matthew 18 does not guarantee gaining your brother, because your brother can choose not to be gained. Neither does the text call for endless repetition of this step in the hope of compelling the guilty party to be gained. Should the guilty party make such a choice the injured party's only option is to proceed to the next step.
Fourth, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." Once again, the guilty party can choose not to listen. In this step also, the text does not call for endless repetition, but rather a single visit. The guilty party might listen to reason, and then again, might not. If not, the process again moves forward.
Fifth and finally, "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." It is possible for the Matthew 18 process to be fulfilled without having gained your brother. If/when that happens the response demanded by the Bible is that the offending party be extricated from the church. "And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" (1 Corinthians 5:2).
In conclusion, Matthew 18 requires a sum total of three (3) attempts to reason with the guilty party. If none are successful it is the duty of the church to remove that person from membership. The story doesn't end there. Such action removes the sinful influence from the church, but it also hopes that the drastic measure will finally cause the guilty party to realize that they have a problem. In such a happy eventuality the church can work with the person to bring them back into membership.
As previously stated, Matthew 18 simply doesn't apply to the case of the Group's dealings with Takoma Park's pastors because the matter of proper governance isn't a matter of sin. Even if you choose to apply the text to situations that do not rise to the level of involving sin, all of the steps of Matthew 18 have been followed in this situation except for the removal from membership. The ideal of "gaining our brother" was not achieved, but not for lack of effort on our part.
As an example, one of the many Matthew 18 visits we have refenced took place on Oct. 27, 2007, before the vote to implement this change in structure. The reason presented for needing this change in the first place was that it would facilitate better evangelism. During that visit Brothers H and R presented to Pastor DeSilva the North American Division's plan book for evangelism, demonstrating how this goal could be accomplished without changing the governance and pleading with the pastor not to go through with the change. The conversation ended with Pastor DeSilva warning, "Don't fight me on this."
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (Matthew 18:15-17).
Let's follow the trail of "ifs."
First, "If your brother sins against you." This text applies only to situations in which one brother has committed a sin against the other. So is deviating from acceptable governance practices a sin? Not in and of itself, though it is troubling and can lead to other issues. That fact alone disqualifies Matthew 18 from being directly applicable to the present situation.
Second, "If he listens to you, you have won your brother over," and third, "if he will not listen, take one or two others along." Quite simply, the power of choice is involved. Going through the process of Matthew 18 does not guarantee gaining your brother, because your brother can choose not to be gained. Neither does the text call for endless repetition of this step in the hope of compelling the guilty party to be gained. Should the guilty party make such a choice the injured party's only option is to proceed to the next step.
Fourth, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." Once again, the guilty party can choose not to listen. In this step also, the text does not call for endless repetition, but rather a single visit. The guilty party might listen to reason, and then again, might not. If not, the process again moves forward.
Fifth and finally, "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." It is possible for the Matthew 18 process to be fulfilled without having gained your brother. If/when that happens the response demanded by the Bible is that the offending party be extricated from the church. "And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" (1 Corinthians 5:2).
In conclusion, Matthew 18 requires a sum total of three (3) attempts to reason with the guilty party. If none are successful it is the duty of the church to remove that person from membership. The story doesn't end there. Such action removes the sinful influence from the church, but it also hopes that the drastic measure will finally cause the guilty party to realize that they have a problem. In such a happy eventuality the church can work with the person to bring them back into membership.
As previously stated, Matthew 18 simply doesn't apply to the case of the Group's dealings with Takoma Park's pastors because the matter of proper governance isn't a matter of sin. Even if you choose to apply the text to situations that do not rise to the level of involving sin, all of the steps of Matthew 18 have been followed in this situation except for the removal from membership. The ideal of "gaining our brother" was not achieved, but not for lack of effort on our part.
As an example, one of the many Matthew 18 visits we have refenced took place on Oct. 27, 2007, before the vote to implement this change in structure. The reason presented for needing this change in the first place was that it would facilitate better evangelism. During that visit Brothers H and R presented to Pastor DeSilva the North American Division's plan book for evangelism, demonstrating how this goal could be accomplished without changing the governance and pleading with the pastor not to go through with the change. The conversation ended with Pastor DeSilva warning, "Don't fight me on this."
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 40
A week and a half after the phone call between Elder Ramirez and Brother G we were surprised by the following letter from Elder Ramirez.
“October 30, 2008
“Dear [Brother G],
“This is to inform you that administration has considered your request and in light of the agreed process on October 9, 2008 we feel that it is imperative that we continue to follow this process before we agree to submit this issue to the Executive Committee.
“As I shared with you in a recent phone conversation, I have talked with pastor Alan DeSilva and he is willing to meet with you to talk about the issues. So the next step in this process is for you to engage in a one on one dialogue with Alan DeSilva to discuss the issues according to Matthew 18, and to give pastor DeSilva and his board of elders a chance to respond to the issues. But before you do this, it is important that you and the group write a document outlining all the issues at hand so that this document can serve as the basis for this dialogue. I will need a copy of this written document for the record.
“Should this dialogue not be productive in resolving all the issues, then the next step will be to hold a meeting (or meetings, as the Holy Spirit sees fit) with 2-3 individuals from each group to continue a dialogue in prayer. Now, it is very important that during this process, you all keep in mind that the purpose of all this according to Matthew 18 is “to gain a brother.” “To gain a brother” is what this is all about. God is in the business of restoring broken relationships and we must not loose sight of that.
“[Brother G], I invite you and your group to pray and humble yourselves before the Lord as we seek His will through this process. Remember that God is bigger than anyone of us and He can restore any broken relationship, if we give Him a chance. This was my plea to you as we concluded our meeting and it is my plea again, as I seek to re-emphasize the importance of this process. Please give God a chance.
“Finally, the last step in this process should nothing be resolved, then will be to bring the issues before the executive committee, and the Potomac Conference administration is willing to do that. However, please understand that unless the above process is followed, the meeting with the executive committee will not take place.
“It is my prayer that you will trust in the redeeming power of God and will reconsider your position.
“Sincerely,
“Jorge A. Ramirez
“Vice President for Administration
“Potomac Conference”
For the record, the only statements that in any way resembled a process discussion at the October 9 meeting was Elder Ramirez stating that he would have a similar meeting with Pastor DeSilva and then be in touch with us. There was no “agreed process” of any kind, much less one that resembled the steps specified in this letter.
Next: No Involvement
Religious
“October 30, 2008
“Dear [Brother G],
“This is to inform you that administration has considered your request and in light of the agreed process on October 9, 2008 we feel that it is imperative that we continue to follow this process before we agree to submit this issue to the Executive Committee.
“As I shared with you in a recent phone conversation, I have talked with pastor Alan DeSilva and he is willing to meet with you to talk about the issues. So the next step in this process is for you to engage in a one on one dialogue with Alan DeSilva to discuss the issues according to Matthew 18, and to give pastor DeSilva and his board of elders a chance to respond to the issues. But before you do this, it is important that you and the group write a document outlining all the issues at hand so that this document can serve as the basis for this dialogue. I will need a copy of this written document for the record.
“Should this dialogue not be productive in resolving all the issues, then the next step will be to hold a meeting (or meetings, as the Holy Spirit sees fit) with 2-3 individuals from each group to continue a dialogue in prayer. Now, it is very important that during this process, you all keep in mind that the purpose of all this according to Matthew 18 is “to gain a brother.” “To gain a brother” is what this is all about. God is in the business of restoring broken relationships and we must not loose sight of that.
“[Brother G], I invite you and your group to pray and humble yourselves before the Lord as we seek His will through this process. Remember that God is bigger than anyone of us and He can restore any broken relationship, if we give Him a chance. This was my plea to you as we concluded our meeting and it is my plea again, as I seek to re-emphasize the importance of this process. Please give God a chance.
“Finally, the last step in this process should nothing be resolved, then will be to bring the issues before the executive committee, and the Potomac Conference administration is willing to do that. However, please understand that unless the above process is followed, the meeting with the executive committee will not take place.
“It is my prayer that you will trust in the redeeming power of God and will reconsider your position.
“Sincerely,
“Jorge A. Ramirez
“Vice President for Administration
“Potomac Conference”
For the record, the only statements that in any way resembled a process discussion at the October 9 meeting was Elder Ramirez stating that he would have a similar meeting with Pastor DeSilva and then be in touch with us. There was no “agreed process” of any kind, much less one that resembled the steps specified in this letter.
Next: No Involvement
Religious
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 39
The follow-up contact from Elder Ramirez took the form of a phone call to Brother G on October 20, 2008. During this conversation Elder Ramirez asked again whether the Group would be willing to meet again with Pastor DeSilva. Having polled the Group on the matter in the intervening time, Brother G responded that the Group did not believe that another such meeting would be productive.
Elder Ramirez jumped on this and tried to get Brother G to say that the Group was unwilling to meet further with Pastor DeSilva. Brother G tried to explain that it was not a question of willingness. If we thought for one moment that Pastor DeSilva was genuinely interested in hearing our concerns and resolving the issues we would be the first ones at the table. Given how all of our previous overtures had been received, however, we did not believe that yet another meeting would make any difference. Elder Ramirez either couldn’t or wouldn’t understand this. He continued to paint this as a matter of willingness, and Brother G continued to try to explain that it wasn’t willingness, but doubt of productivity. Finally, Elder Ramirez asked that Brother G send him an email answering the question in writing. This Brother G agreed to do, and sent the following on October 21, 2008:
“Dear Jorge,
“Thank you for your phone call yesterday afternoon. After our meeting on October 9, 2008, and our phone conversation, we feel that further dialog with Alan DeSilva will not resolve any issues.
“Therefore, we, again, request to bring our urgent concerns to the Executive Committee, without further delay.
“With God’s blessing,
“[Brother G]”
Next: New Hurdles
Religious
Elder Ramirez jumped on this and tried to get Brother G to say that the Group was unwilling to meet further with Pastor DeSilva. Brother G tried to explain that it was not a question of willingness. If we thought for one moment that Pastor DeSilva was genuinely interested in hearing our concerns and resolving the issues we would be the first ones at the table. Given how all of our previous overtures had been received, however, we did not believe that yet another meeting would make any difference. Elder Ramirez either couldn’t or wouldn’t understand this. He continued to paint this as a matter of willingness, and Brother G continued to try to explain that it wasn’t willingness, but doubt of productivity. Finally, Elder Ramirez asked that Brother G send him an email answering the question in writing. This Brother G agreed to do, and sent the following on October 21, 2008:
“Dear Jorge,
“Thank you for your phone call yesterday afternoon. After our meeting on October 9, 2008, and our phone conversation, we feel that further dialog with Alan DeSilva will not resolve any issues.
“Therefore, we, again, request to bring our urgent concerns to the Executive Committee, without further delay.
“With God’s blessing,
“[Brother G]”
Next: New Hurdles
Religious
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 38
The “process” meeting between Elder Ramirez and Brother G took place on the afternoon of October 9, 2008. The meeting was two hours long, and consisted mostly of Elder Ramirez asking questions about the situation. These included, "Have you looked at Matthew 18?" That one absolutely flabbergasted us after the lengths to which we had already gone not only to follow Matthew 18 but to explain to the conference that we had followed it.
Elder Ramirez also asked whether the Group would be willing to sit down one-on-one with Pastor DeSilva to try to work things out. Brother G declined to speak for the Group, but observed that he didn't think it would do any good. Elder Ramirez also inquired whether things would be better at Takoma Park under new leadership. (The response given to that one was that although a change in leadership might be helpful, it would not completely resolve the problem, which was one of governance structure.)
Elder Ramirez acknowledged that we had the right to ask to appear before the executive committee, but didn't seem to understand why we would feel a need to. Brother G did not come away from the meeting with a firm commitment that we would be allowed to do so as yet. Elder Ramirez stated that his next step would be to meet with Pastor DeSilva and get his side of the story, after which he would contact us. The outside time limit he put on this was two weeks.
The appalling aspect of the meeting was that its content was exactly what Elder Ramirez had promised it would not be: issues. His explanation to Brother G was that before anyone could appear at the executive committee, the conference must go through the "process" of collecting information about why. To our way of thinking, however, Elder Ramirez lied to us, because the process of such data collection necessitated a discussion of what the issues were, which he swore would not be any part of this meeting.
Next: A Matter of Perspective
Religious
Elder Ramirez also asked whether the Group would be willing to sit down one-on-one with Pastor DeSilva to try to work things out. Brother G declined to speak for the Group, but observed that he didn't think it would do any good. Elder Ramirez also inquired whether things would be better at Takoma Park under new leadership. (The response given to that one was that although a change in leadership might be helpful, it would not completely resolve the problem, which was one of governance structure.)
Elder Ramirez acknowledged that we had the right to ask to appear before the executive committee, but didn't seem to understand why we would feel a need to. Brother G did not come away from the meeting with a firm commitment that we would be allowed to do so as yet. Elder Ramirez stated that his next step would be to meet with Pastor DeSilva and get his side of the story, after which he would contact us. The outside time limit he put on this was two weeks.
The appalling aspect of the meeting was that its content was exactly what Elder Ramirez had promised it would not be: issues. His explanation to Brother G was that before anyone could appear at the executive committee, the conference must go through the "process" of collecting information about why. To our way of thinking, however, Elder Ramirez lied to us, because the process of such data collection necessitated a discussion of what the issues were, which he swore would not be any part of this meeting.
Next: A Matter of Perspective
Religious
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 37
A regularly scheduled business meeting took place on September 28, 2008. The first significant item of business was the approval of an air conditioning repair contractor. A document handed out at the beginning of the discussion stated, “As of 9/18/2008—The building committee selected and approved the contractor for the A/C renovation.” The Business Manager provided a cursory description of the contractor the building committee selected, then the floor was opened to discussion.
Proper procedure would have been for the building committee to report about all of the bids received in sufficient detail that the business meeting could have selected any one of them, and then explain which one they were recommending and why. When the lack of information was questioned Pastor DeSilva explained that the decision was already made and this was to be merely a “courtesy vote,” so complete information was not required. In other words, the building committee, at his direction, had just usurped the ultimate authority of the business meeting and this vote had no meaning—it was merely to give the appearance of propriety. As the handout quoted earlier further stated, “Conference approvals and CURF approvals have been received. The business meeting approval is for their records.” The “courtesy vote” went as Pastor DeSilva intended.
After the contractor approval Pastor DeSilva described his plans for a spiritual revival within the church to be held in the final quarter of 2008. This plan had three primary components—prayer groups, the visitation of every active member by a pastor and/or elder within the following three months, and Bible-based sermons. The plan further called for a day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter to determine whether the spiritual renewal of the congregation had been successful. If the answer was “no,” the program was to be continued a while longer until the answer changed to “yes.”
In order to accomplish the visitation program the active membership and roster of elders had been divided into three groups, with each group assigned to one of our three pastors. The announced intention was that the pastors would work through their territories by zip code. As each zip code was believed to be finished it would be announced during the announcements each week that the pastors believed that area to be complete, and if anyone living in that area had been missed that they should alert the pastors to the oversight. To finish this story here, the visitation program fell apart about as soon as it began. Only a handful of members ever received visits, and there were never any announcements of completed zip codes. This failure didn’t stop the pastoral staff from declaring great success during the day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter.
Next: Unprocessed
Religious
Proper procedure would have been for the building committee to report about all of the bids received in sufficient detail that the business meeting could have selected any one of them, and then explain which one they were recommending and why. When the lack of information was questioned Pastor DeSilva explained that the decision was already made and this was to be merely a “courtesy vote,” so complete information was not required. In other words, the building committee, at his direction, had just usurped the ultimate authority of the business meeting and this vote had no meaning—it was merely to give the appearance of propriety. As the handout quoted earlier further stated, “Conference approvals and CURF approvals have been received. The business meeting approval is for their records.” The “courtesy vote” went as Pastor DeSilva intended.
After the contractor approval Pastor DeSilva described his plans for a spiritual revival within the church to be held in the final quarter of 2008. This plan had three primary components—prayer groups, the visitation of every active member by a pastor and/or elder within the following three months, and Bible-based sermons. The plan further called for a day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter to determine whether the spiritual renewal of the congregation had been successful. If the answer was “no,” the program was to be continued a while longer until the answer changed to “yes.”
In order to accomplish the visitation program the active membership and roster of elders had been divided into three groups, with each group assigned to one of our three pastors. The announced intention was that the pastors would work through their territories by zip code. As each zip code was believed to be finished it would be announced during the announcements each week that the pastors believed that area to be complete, and if anyone living in that area had been missed that they should alert the pastors to the oversight. To finish this story here, the visitation program fell apart about as soon as it began. Only a handful of members ever received visits, and there were never any announcements of completed zip codes. This failure didn’t stop the pastoral staff from declaring great success during the day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter.
Next: Unprocessed
Religious
Monday, October 26, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 16
"God had separated the Israelites from every other people, to make them His own peculiar treasure. But they, disregarding this high honor, eagerly desired to imitate the example of the heathen! And still the longing to conform to worldly practices and customs exists among the professed people of God. As they depart from the Lord they become ambitious for the gains and honors of the world. Christians are constantly seeking to imitate the practices of those who worship the god of this world. Many urge that by uniting with worldlings and conforming to their customs they might exert a stronger influence over the ungodly. But all who pursue this course thereby separate from the Source of their strength. Becoming the friends of the world, they are the enemies of God" (Conflict and Courage, p. 146).
"Often the Christian life is beset with dangers, and duty seems hard to perform. The imagination pictures impending ruin before, and bondage and death behind. Yet the voice of God speaks clearly, Go forward. Let us obey the command, even though our sight cannot penetrate the darkness. The obstacles that hinder our progress will never disappear before a halting, doubting spirit. Those who defer obedience till every uncertainty disappears, and there remains no risk of failure or defeat, will never obey. Faith looks beyond the difficulties, and lays hold of the unseen, even Omnipotence, therefore it cannot be baffled. Faith is the clasping of the hand of Christ in every emergency" (Gospel Workers, p. 262).
"Solomon was never so rich or so wise or so truly great as when he confessed, "I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in."
"Those who today occupy positions of trust should seek to learn the lesson taught by Solomon's prayer. The higher the position a man occupies, the greater the responsibility that he has to bear, the wider will be the influence that he exerts and the greater his need of dependence on God. Ever should he remember that with the call to work comes the call to walk circumspectly before his fellow men. He is to stand before God in the attitude of a learner. Position does not give holiness of character. It is by honoring God and obeying His commands that a man is made truly great.
"So long as he remains consecrated, the man who God has endowed with discernment and ability will not manifest an eagerness for high position, neither will he seek to rule or control. Of necessity men must bear responsibilities; but instead of striving for the supremacy, he who is a true leader will pray for an understanding heart, to discern between good and evil" (Prophets and Kings, pp. 30, 31).
"Often the Christian life is beset with dangers, and duty seems hard to perform. The imagination pictures impending ruin before, and bondage and death behind. Yet the voice of God speaks clearly, Go forward. Let us obey the command, even though our sight cannot penetrate the darkness. The obstacles that hinder our progress will never disappear before a halting, doubting spirit. Those who defer obedience till every uncertainty disappears, and there remains no risk of failure or defeat, will never obey. Faith looks beyond the difficulties, and lays hold of the unseen, even Omnipotence, therefore it cannot be baffled. Faith is the clasping of the hand of Christ in every emergency" (Gospel Workers, p. 262).
"Solomon was never so rich or so wise or so truly great as when he confessed, "I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in."
"Those who today occupy positions of trust should seek to learn the lesson taught by Solomon's prayer. The higher the position a man occupies, the greater the responsibility that he has to bear, the wider will be the influence that he exerts and the greater his need of dependence on God. Ever should he remember that with the call to work comes the call to walk circumspectly before his fellow men. He is to stand before God in the attitude of a learner. Position does not give holiness of character. It is by honoring God and obeying His commands that a man is made truly great.
"So long as he remains consecrated, the man who God has endowed with discernment and ability will not manifest an eagerness for high position, neither will he seek to rule or control. Of necessity men must bear responsibilities; but instead of striving for the supremacy, he who is a true leader will pray for an understanding heart, to discern between good and evil" (Prophets and Kings, pp. 30, 31).
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 36
There was more that concerned the Group about the course of Elder Ramirez’s communications than just the attitude. If he was willing to make an agreement and then break it, despite being presented with excellent reasons and evidence for maintaining the original agreement, what was there to stop him from doing it again? Further, since he was clearly unwilling to accept any interpretation of facts (let alone scripture) other than his own, we would be at his mercy on decisions regarding satisfaction of whatever “process” the conference mandated.
To put it another way, suppose he said to do “A,” “B,” and “C.” If we completed “A” and “B” but he didn’t like the outcome, he could continue to claim that we hadn’t done them and refuse to let us proceed to “C” until we had repeated them to his satisfaction. He could also come back later and decree that “D” and “E” were also necessary, even though they weren’t in the original agreement. In this way he could drag out the “process” interminably.
Because of these concerns there were many in the Group who felt that it was important not to set the precedent of caving to the conference’s demands. Others in the Group were concerned that the protracted negotiations could be twisted by the conference into “evidence” that the Group was being unreasonable. It was finally decided to give the conference the benefit of the doubt and risk agreeing to their terms in order to move the process forward. Since Elder Ramirez had demonstrated no comprehension of the delicacies of meeting alone with a female it was decided to send Brother G, the third member of the spokesgroup, instead of Sister L.
(September 26, 2008, 8:18am): “We are concerned by your appeal to Matt. 18. Matthew 18:15 says “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone…” According to your previous e-mails, however, this meeting is not to reconcile anything, and I quote, “I have been very clear from the beginning that this meeting is not about the issues, or to determine who is right or wrong, but rather to both agree on a process and procedure to follow.” Since the process of Matt. 18 is specific to “telling faults” and this meeting is not to be about our concerns, Matt 18 really doesn’t apply to this particular meeting.
“We continue to have significant reservations about a one-on-one meeting, but in order to move this process forward we are willing to accept the conference’s request. We are appointing [Brother G] to be our representative...
“It is our understanding that this meeting is in preparation for a formal presentation to the Conference Executive Committee of our objections regarding the new structure functioning at the Takoma Park Church which is in violation of the Church Manual. It is our hope that this will be the only preparatory meeting which is necessary.”
Next: "Courtesy Vote"
Religious
To put it another way, suppose he said to do “A,” “B,” and “C.” If we completed “A” and “B” but he didn’t like the outcome, he could continue to claim that we hadn’t done them and refuse to let us proceed to “C” until we had repeated them to his satisfaction. He could also come back later and decree that “D” and “E” were also necessary, even though they weren’t in the original agreement. In this way he could drag out the “process” interminably.
Because of these concerns there were many in the Group who felt that it was important not to set the precedent of caving to the conference’s demands. Others in the Group were concerned that the protracted negotiations could be twisted by the conference into “evidence” that the Group was being unreasonable. It was finally decided to give the conference the benefit of the doubt and risk agreeing to their terms in order to move the process forward. Since Elder Ramirez had demonstrated no comprehension of the delicacies of meeting alone with a female it was decided to send Brother G, the third member of the spokesgroup, instead of Sister L.
(September 26, 2008, 8:18am): “We are concerned by your appeal to Matt. 18. Matthew 18:15 says “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone…” According to your previous e-mails, however, this meeting is not to reconcile anything, and I quote, “I have been very clear from the beginning that this meeting is not about the issues, or to determine who is right or wrong, but rather to both agree on a process and procedure to follow.” Since the process of Matt. 18 is specific to “telling faults” and this meeting is not to be about our concerns, Matt 18 really doesn’t apply to this particular meeting.
“We continue to have significant reservations about a one-on-one meeting, but in order to move this process forward we are willing to accept the conference’s request. We are appointing [Brother G] to be our representative...
“It is our understanding that this meeting is in preparation for a formal presentation to the Conference Executive Committee of our objections regarding the new structure functioning at the Takoma Park Church which is in violation of the Church Manual. It is our hope that this will be the only preparatory meeting which is necessary.”
Next: "Courtesy Vote"
Religious
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 35
A special business meeting was called for September 15, 2008 to deal with the matter of discipline that had been recommended by the Ministries Board. The board of elders had met with Elder Miller for about an hour before the business meeting. As they and the other business meeting attendees filtered in to the larger meeting room there were a few surprises. The first was Elder Kloosterhuis, a former member of Takoma Park and longtime Vice President of the General Conference, who chose to attend the meeting that night. When he walked into the room Pastor DeSilva blanched, then made a big show of welcoming him and his advice but pointing out that he was not permitted to vote as he was no longer a member of the congregation. The second surprise was that Elder Bediako also chose to attend. (He usually doesn’t.) The third surprise occurred at the back of the room and consequently was witnessed only by a few. It consisted of Elder Miller starting in through the rear door, seeing Elders Kloosterhuis and Bediako, and turning around to leave the meeting (and the building).
This desertion by Elder Miller was rather inconvenient for Pastor DeSilva. The Group got it on good authority afterward that their intention had been to “ride the wave” of the primary disciplinary motion of the evening and orchestrate to discipline the Group as well while they were at it. But without Elder Miller there to support him Pastor DeSilva’s courage failed him and he didn’t attempt any action against the Group after all.
Pastor DeSilva opened the meeting with a quick pitch to empower the building committee to select an air conditioning contractor without bringing the decision back to the business meeting in order to “save the time.” This suggestion went over like a lead balloon. The consensus decision was that a matter of that magnitude had to be reviewed by the business meeting. While this attempt failed, it is worth noting that this was an incredible power grab by Pastor DeSilva. If it had been successful he would have had a committee that he could manipulate making a decision worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (not an exaggeration) with absolutely no accountability to anyone.
When the disciplinary matter came up Pastor DeSilva read a letter from the individual in question asking that his membership be removed from the church books, which preempted action by the church to do it for him. With that the meeting was brought to a close. It had lasted less than 20 minutes. As an aside, we should mention that the candidate for discipline denied ever having been visited by any member of the congregation in an attempt at reclamation as the Church Manual requires. If true, this would make yet another time when Pastor DeSilva had ignored the Church Manual and then lied about it.
Next: Concession
Religious
This desertion by Elder Miller was rather inconvenient for Pastor DeSilva. The Group got it on good authority afterward that their intention had been to “ride the wave” of the primary disciplinary motion of the evening and orchestrate to discipline the Group as well while they were at it. But without Elder Miller there to support him Pastor DeSilva’s courage failed him and he didn’t attempt any action against the Group after all.
Pastor DeSilva opened the meeting with a quick pitch to empower the building committee to select an air conditioning contractor without bringing the decision back to the business meeting in order to “save the time.” This suggestion went over like a lead balloon. The consensus decision was that a matter of that magnitude had to be reviewed by the business meeting. While this attempt failed, it is worth noting that this was an incredible power grab by Pastor DeSilva. If it had been successful he would have had a committee that he could manipulate making a decision worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (not an exaggeration) with absolutely no accountability to anyone.
When the disciplinary matter came up Pastor DeSilva read a letter from the individual in question asking that his membership be removed from the church books, which preempted action by the church to do it for him. With that the meeting was brought to a close. It had lasted less than 20 minutes. As an aside, we should mention that the candidate for discipline denied ever having been visited by any member of the congregation in an attempt at reclamation as the Church Manual requires. If true, this would make yet another time when Pastor DeSilva had ignored the Church Manual and then lied about it.
Next: Concession
Religious
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Sins of the Conference, Pt. 2
When Elder Ramirez was initially contacted per Elder Miller's stipulation he cheerfully agreed to have a meeting in the Washington area with himself and three of us present. He then attempted to go back on that agreement, insisting that we could have only one representative present. When we expressed a desire to proceed with the meeting as originally planned and cited reasons for our desire, Elder Ramirez refused to listen, “Please understand that this is our firm position and that we will not deviate from it.” (1)
C) Elder Ramirez wronged us by defaulting on a good-faith agreement.
D) Elder Ramirez wronged us by trying to compel us to accept conditions we had legitimate reasons for finding unacceptable.
The nonnegotiable attitude expressed above was justified by an appeal to Matt 18, “Under the guidelines of Matthew 18, it is clear that any step required to bring reconciliation between two parties should be done in person…we must insist on the need to have a one on one meeting.” (2) This is a faulty interpretation of Matt 18. The text states that the injured party should speak one on one with the offending party. In this situation the conference is not in either role. Since the conference is neither the injured party nor the offending party the stipulation of the text for a one on one meeting is not applicable.
E) Elder Ramirez wronged us (and God) by twisting scripture to his personal convenience.
(1) Email to Sister L dated Sept. 15, 2008, 8:48pm
(2) Ibid
C) Elder Ramirez wronged us by defaulting on a good-faith agreement.
D) Elder Ramirez wronged us by trying to compel us to accept conditions we had legitimate reasons for finding unacceptable.
The nonnegotiable attitude expressed above was justified by an appeal to Matt 18, “Under the guidelines of Matthew 18, it is clear that any step required to bring reconciliation between two parties should be done in person…we must insist on the need to have a one on one meeting.” (2) This is a faulty interpretation of Matt 18. The text states that the injured party should speak one on one with the offending party. In this situation the conference is not in either role. Since the conference is neither the injured party nor the offending party the stipulation of the text for a one on one meeting is not applicable.
E) Elder Ramirez wronged us (and God) by twisting scripture to his personal convenience.
(1) Email to Sister L dated Sept. 15, 2008, 8:48pm
(2) Ibid
The Epic, Pt. 34
Our previous email to the conference had explained as clearly and nicely as we could think to put it that we wanted to travel in a pack because we were scared that they would lie about the conclusions of the meeting afterwards, and that we were sick of them accusing us of failing in a task we had already completed. We thought that we had painted a picture clear enough that there could be no mistaking our point. It turned out that we had underestimated them.
Elder Ramirez’s way of getting around the obvious was simple—he ignored it. “In light of the apparent confusion, I would like to talk to you by phone to see if we can better understand each other and agree on the terms of this process and procedure meeting” (Aug. 25, 2008, 4:46pm). “Apparent confusion” indeed! He went on to specify hours for this phone call that fell within the standard workday, making it impossible for Sister L to place the call without endangering her job.
The next message from the Group reflected the mounting exasperation caused by the conference’s approach. “[Brother G] called me last night after the TA board meeting to tell me about the meeting and the conversation between the two of you. He praised the way Bill Miller had run the meeting and the way in which he had sought to involve everyone present so as to come to the best possible decisions. [Brother G] and I both find it absolutely incredible that Bill Miller and the rest of the conference administration are so interested and actively involved in seeking the best interests of one conference institution while just down the road another is coming apart at the seams and no one is willing to sit down with us and hear our concerns.
“Seriously, you want to have a phone call about the process of how to have a meeting about the process of how to share our concerns?!?! Jorge, you’re making this infinitely more complicated than it needs to be. There are exactly four components necessary to have a meeting:
“1) a place – we have already agreed that that will be my parents’ home
“2) a time – Sept. 9 is still available and seems to work for everyone
“3) attendees – you and our spokesgroup of three. If you would like to discuss in further detail why we find this necessary we would be happy to do so at the meeting. In the meantime, simply accept that we do find it both necessary and nonnegotiable.
“4) an agenda – In our last message we spelled out both the process that has been observed to date and what remains to be done. We are baffled by your continued insistence that there is yet more process to discuss, especially since you have yet to provide a specific list of what still needs to be resolved. As one of our group recently put it, “I would like to know what the purpose of the process and procedure meeting is, and why is it necessary. Is Robert's Rules not sufficient? Would it not benefit everyone to know what the conference’s processes and procedures are?” (Aug. 26, 2008, 10:31pm).
Elder Ramirez fell back on the same tactic he had used earlier, “I desist from any further correspondence with you, and will turn all focus unto the real issues surrounding the Takoma Park Church” (September 2, 2008, 10:14pm). After this second temper tantrum the Group once again offered to conduct the entire “process discussion” by email and thereby skip the difficulties of a meeting altogether. Elder Ramirez’s response was predictable, “Under the guidelines of Matthew 18, it is clear that any step required to bring reconciliation between two parties should be done in person, face to face. There are great benefits in doing this. Besides forcing a face to face dialogue which is always good, it also allows for some kind of trust that must be present in order to bring reconciliation. Therefore, in light of this, we must insist on the need to have a one on one meeting to discuss process and outline the steps necessary to bring a solution to this problem. Please understand that this is our firm position and that we will not deviate from it. I pray that you will see the wisdom in agreeing to have this one on one meeting” (September 15, 2008, 8:48pm).
Here the conference’s twisting of Matthew 18 goes to a new extreme. Up to this point they had been insisting that we hadn’t heeded the verse in relation to our dealings with the pastors. While we dispute this “failure” and the relevance of the verse to the situation altogether since this is a matter of policy rather than personal affront, we can at least see some application of the general principles. In this new usage, however, the conference was now implying that the verse applied to our dealings with them. In order for this to be the case there would have to be some wrong between us and the conference that needed to be resolved. The bottom line is that the verse had absolutely no applicability to our dialogue with the conference, and for them to claim that it did was an abuse of scripture.
Next: A Fast One
Religious
Elder Ramirez’s way of getting around the obvious was simple—he ignored it. “In light of the apparent confusion, I would like to talk to you by phone to see if we can better understand each other and agree on the terms of this process and procedure meeting” (Aug. 25, 2008, 4:46pm). “Apparent confusion” indeed! He went on to specify hours for this phone call that fell within the standard workday, making it impossible for Sister L to place the call without endangering her job.
The next message from the Group reflected the mounting exasperation caused by the conference’s approach. “[Brother G] called me last night after the TA board meeting to tell me about the meeting and the conversation between the two of you. He praised the way Bill Miller had run the meeting and the way in which he had sought to involve everyone present so as to come to the best possible decisions. [Brother G] and I both find it absolutely incredible that Bill Miller and the rest of the conference administration are so interested and actively involved in seeking the best interests of one conference institution while just down the road another is coming apart at the seams and no one is willing to sit down with us and hear our concerns.
“Seriously, you want to have a phone call about the process of how to have a meeting about the process of how to share our concerns?!?! Jorge, you’re making this infinitely more complicated than it needs to be. There are exactly four components necessary to have a meeting:
“1) a place – we have already agreed that that will be my parents’ home
“2) a time – Sept. 9 is still available and seems to work for everyone
“3) attendees – you and our spokesgroup of three. If you would like to discuss in further detail why we find this necessary we would be happy to do so at the meeting. In the meantime, simply accept that we do find it both necessary and nonnegotiable.
“4) an agenda – In our last message we spelled out both the process that has been observed to date and what remains to be done. We are baffled by your continued insistence that there is yet more process to discuss, especially since you have yet to provide a specific list of what still needs to be resolved. As one of our group recently put it, “I would like to know what the purpose of the process and procedure meeting is, and why is it necessary. Is Robert's Rules not sufficient? Would it not benefit everyone to know what the conference’s processes and procedures are?” (Aug. 26, 2008, 10:31pm).
Elder Ramirez fell back on the same tactic he had used earlier, “I desist from any further correspondence with you, and will turn all focus unto the real issues surrounding the Takoma Park Church” (September 2, 2008, 10:14pm). After this second temper tantrum the Group once again offered to conduct the entire “process discussion” by email and thereby skip the difficulties of a meeting altogether. Elder Ramirez’s response was predictable, “Under the guidelines of Matthew 18, it is clear that any step required to bring reconciliation between two parties should be done in person, face to face. There are great benefits in doing this. Besides forcing a face to face dialogue which is always good, it also allows for some kind of trust that must be present in order to bring reconciliation. Therefore, in light of this, we must insist on the need to have a one on one meeting to discuss process and outline the steps necessary to bring a solution to this problem. Please understand that this is our firm position and that we will not deviate from it. I pray that you will see the wisdom in agreeing to have this one on one meeting” (September 15, 2008, 8:48pm).
Here the conference’s twisting of Matthew 18 goes to a new extreme. Up to this point they had been insisting that we hadn’t heeded the verse in relation to our dealings with the pastors. While we dispute this “failure” and the relevance of the verse to the situation altogether since this is a matter of policy rather than personal affront, we can at least see some application of the general principles. In this new usage, however, the conference was now implying that the verse applied to our dealings with them. In order for this to be the case there would have to be some wrong between us and the conference that needed to be resolved. The bottom line is that the verse had absolutely no applicability to our dialogue with the conference, and for them to claim that it did was an abuse of scripture.
Next: A Fast One
Religious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)