The Adventist grapevine is a fearful and wonderful thing, and this next part of the story we owe entirely to the grapevine. Without any action or knowledge of any Group member another Adventist who had heard about the issues Takoma Park was facing got in touch with the secretary of the Church Manual Committee at the GC. This third party asked the committee secretary to render an opinion on the legitimacy of the new governance proposed at Takoma Park. He responded with the following letter, which the third party forwarded to a very surprised member of the Group:
“To Whom It May Concern
“Monday, April 21, 2008
“Re: Takoma Park Church Proposal
“It has just been brought to my attention that the Takoma Park Church in Maryland is considering moving away from the prescribed form of church governance approved by the World Church and which is recorded in the Church Manual.
“There are two levels of instruction recorded in the current Church Manual. The main body of information in each chapter, which the World Church has agreed is mandatory, is recorded for every church in the world to follow. And then there are the “Notes,” at the end of chapters seven, eight, and nine, which are for guidance purposes only.
“There are two new sections, which the current Church Manual Committee has approved for recommendation to the General Conference Session in 2010 which read as follows.
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual describes the operation and functions of local churches and their relationship to denominational structures in which they hold membership… The worldwide family of Seventh-day Adventists, through the Church Manual, expresses the principles and practices that are to characterize the existence of local Seventh-day Adventist congregations.
“We will also be including a statement from Testimonies to Ministers, p. 26, which reads,
“As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization there would be great confusion, and the work would not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying the work in new fields, for protecting both the churches and the ministry from unworthy members, for holding church properly, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for many other objects, organization was indispensable.
“The section on the role and function of the Church Board is recorded in the chapter of the Church Manual where it is required practice for every church. There is no alternative structure for the Church. The Church Manual does not allow for any alternatives.
“The highest body in church governance is the Church Business Meeting. This body of believers delegates authority to the Church Board. The Church Board is the committee which oversees most of the day to day activities of the church but in major issues the Church Business meeting must give approval.
“Our lawyers have advised us that when a local Seventh-day Adventist church adopts administrative practices that are contrary to the Church Manual, there is no protection for them in the courts of this country.
“I would urge the leaders of the Takoma Park Church and its members to maintain the representative form of government outlined clearly in the Church Manual which requires the institution of a regular Business Meeting and the election of a Church Board. The General Conference does not support any other form of governance.
“With Christian Greetings,
“Elder Vernon B Parmenter
“Associate Executive Secretary
“Secretary, Church Manual Committee”
Next: A Hardened Heart
Religious
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 16
In February, March, and April of 2008 the Potomac Conference held a series of Town Hall meetings through their territory. The only one to be held anywhere near Takoma Park took place at the Southern Asian SDA Church in mid April. Several Group members made a point of attending. The presentation of the Conference was insulting, both in the level of intelligence it was geared to and in the message it sought to convey.
The presentation began with a fill-in-the-blanks review of statements from the Spirit of Prophesy regarding evangelism. This was followed by a review of the growth statistics of the conference (and some really wild goals for future growth), the enrollment statistics of the schools within the conference, and an overview of the financial condition of the conference. The final assessment was that the financial picture wasn’t good and that we all desperately needed to go out and convert massive numbers of people so that the conference’s financial picture would be improved by the influx of tithes and offerings. All of this information was presented at, perhaps, at second-grade level of complexity and assumed comprehension.
When the presentation concluded time was allowed for questions. The first person out of their seat with a question was a member of Takoma Park. The question was, “Are all congregations in the conference being required to follow the new system of governance being imposed at Takoma Park?”
Dr. Pichette, who was answering the questions, replied that each congregation had the right to choose whether or not to adopt that system of governance, but that every church needed to get serious about evangelism.
The Takoma Park questioner asked a follow-up, “So, just to be clear, if Takoma Park decided they didn’t want the new system after all, they could do that?”
Dr. Pichette’s answer? “Yes, absolutely—as long as they were doing evangelism.”
Next: Reinforcement
Religious
The presentation began with a fill-in-the-blanks review of statements from the Spirit of Prophesy regarding evangelism. This was followed by a review of the growth statistics of the conference (and some really wild goals for future growth), the enrollment statistics of the schools within the conference, and an overview of the financial condition of the conference. The final assessment was that the financial picture wasn’t good and that we all desperately needed to go out and convert massive numbers of people so that the conference’s financial picture would be improved by the influx of tithes and offerings. All of this information was presented at, perhaps, at second-grade level of complexity and assumed comprehension.
When the presentation concluded time was allowed for questions. The first person out of their seat with a question was a member of Takoma Park. The question was, “Are all congregations in the conference being required to follow the new system of governance being imposed at Takoma Park?”
Dr. Pichette, who was answering the questions, replied that each congregation had the right to choose whether or not to adopt that system of governance, but that every church needed to get serious about evangelism.
The Takoma Park questioner asked a follow-up, “So, just to be clear, if Takoma Park decided they didn’t want the new system after all, they could do that?”
Dr. Pichette’s answer? “Yes, absolutely—as long as they were doing evangelism.”
Next: Reinforcement
Religious
Friday, July 17, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 11
"Those who are most ready to excuse or justify themselves in sin are often most severe in judging and condemning others. There are many today, like Saul, bringing upon themselves the displeasure of God. They reject counsel and despise reproof. Even when convinced that the Lord is not with them, they refuse to see in themselves. . . the cause of their trouble. How many cherish a proud, boastful spirit, while they indulge in cruel judgment or severe rebuke of others really better in heart and life than they. Well would it be for such self-constituted judges to ponder those words of Christ: "With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
"The Lord has His appointed agencies; and if these are not discerned and respected by those who are connected with His work, if men feel free to disregard God's requirements, they must not be kept in positions of trust. They would not listen to counsel, nor to the commands of God through His appointed agencies. Like Saul, they would rush into a work that was never appointed them, and the mistakes they would make in following their human judgment would place the Israel of God where their Leader could not reveal Himself to them. Sacred things would become mingled with the common" (Youth’s Instructor, Nov. 17, 1898).
"The Lord has His appointed agencies; and if these are not discerned and respected by those who are connected with His work, if men feel free to disregard God's requirements, they must not be kept in positions of trust. They would not listen to counsel, nor to the commands of God through His appointed agencies. Like Saul, they would rush into a work that was never appointed them, and the mistakes they would make in following their human judgment would place the Israel of God where their Leader could not reveal Himself to them. Sacred things would become mingled with the common" (Youth’s Instructor, Nov. 17, 1898).
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 15
Many things happened in the month that followed the first ministry board meeting. First, the church office sent copies of the “Code of Ethics” to all the members of the ministry board who had not been present at the first meeting. Most of the absent members were elders, since it had not been well publicized that all elders were considered members of the ministries board. Second, it was noised around that the “Code of Ethics” was prepared by the North American Division. This was a claim we found extremely hard to believe. We decided to verify it.
“Elder B” called NAD to ask who she should speak to regarding verifying whether a particular document had been produced by NAD. She was transferred to the assistant for Roscoe Howard, who was at that time the Secretary of NAD. Upon hearing what was wanted the assistant told Elder B that if she wanted them to look at the document she should sent it to them, which Elder B did. Upon reviewing the document, and without any direct conversation with any member of Takoma Park to color his perspective, Elder Howard wrote this letter in response:
“March 25, 2008
“Dear [Elder B]:
“As I read over the documents you sent, I was very concerned over the general direction the church is shifted toward. This is not the Church governance that has been established by the World Church or the North American Division. I would direct you to the Church Manual on page 26 which speaks of a representative form of church governance where the local church membership has ultimate authority for all church business.
“The Church Manual is also clear as to the authority of the Church Board. It does not have the authority to make major decision without the consent of the church in Business Session. The board is subject to the church in Business Session at all times. Any decision the board makes cam be overturned by the church in Business Session. The church members in Business Session have the final say as to how the church will conduct business.
“This document seems to be moving away from the basic primes. I could not support this form of church governance nor would the General Conference. It is a far departure of how the Seventh-day Adventist church does business. I could write much more and quote many policies but I wanted to give you a quick response.
“In His Service;
“Roscoe J Howard III
North American Division Secretary”
It doesn’t take a detective to deduce from this letter that not only did NAD not have any part in creating the “Code of Ethics,” they didn’t want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. The Group found this very enlightening, but decided not to confront the pastoral staff with this letter at the April ministry board out of respect and a desire not to embarrass them unduly.
When the ministry board met in April 2008 discussion of the “Code of Ethics” resumed. Elder B, who had been one of the elders not present at the first meeting, was the first to be recognized. She questioned Pastor DeSilva regarding the attendance policy, pointing out that under it she already had one mark against her for having been absent at the previous meeting simply because she didn’t know she was supposed to be present. Pastor DeSilva’s response was shocking, “Oh no, no, I never said anything like that [the attendance policy]. See, this is why you shouldn’t listen to what other people tell you about what happens in meetings.” Friends, the attendance policy was written in the very document he was asking us to vote on. In the previous meeting he had read it aloud and verbally reiterated it. Yet when he perceived that it might not be a popular statement he told a bold-faced lie to the entire leadership of the congregation denying he had ever uttered it rather than defend an unpopular position!
Next to be recognized was the head of the communications department. She objected to item 12 in the Suggestions for Effectiveness for roughly the same reasons as were outlined in the Analysis. When she pointed out that this policy would prevent the reconsideration of bad decisions Pastor DeSilva, supported by the chairman of the finance committee, immediately stated that no such thing would happen. Any decision could be revisited at any time, Pastor DeSilva reassured. (This also turned out to be a lie, as will be demonstrated later.)
Elder B was recognized again. She asked Pastor DeSilva about the assertion that had gone around that the “Code of Ethics” was coming from the North American Division. Pastor DeSilva stated that it was absolutely true. Elder B expressed doubt about this and asked to see the documentation of this as an official statement from the North American Division. Pastor DeSilva stated that it was up in his office and that he didn’t want to delay the meeting. At this several attendees voiced a willingness to wait while he retrieved the evidence. Pastor DeSilva hedged again, stating that he couldn’t remember off-hand where in his office he had put it. Again willingness was expressed to wait while he looked. At this Pastor DeSilva flat out stated that he wasn’t going to go get it and that we were just going to have to trust him that the evidence did exist. (In other words, he had just told his third bold-faced lie to the leadership of the church in the space of about half an hour and chose to bluster through it rather than admit anything when called on it!) To this decidedly unsatisfactory answer Elder B bluntly stated that she did not believe Pastor DeSilva.
Pastor Fuentes, Takoma Park’s Pastor for Discipleship and Assimilation, chose that moment to start heckling Elder B. He reprimanded her for saying such a thing because she was accusing the pastor of lying and that if she was going to do so that she had to produce proof. Thinking of Elder Howard’s letter and the Group’s decision not to bring it up at that meeting she stated simply that she would do so at another time. This didn’t satisfy Pastor Fuentes and he continued to push her. Elder B stood up and turned around to speak to Pastor Fuentes face to face, because he was seated behind her. Pastor Fuentes exploded. His exact words were, “You don’t talk to me like that! I’m a pastor! SIT DOWN!” Elder B chose instead to pick up her belongings and walk out of the room.
The entire meeting was in shock at this outburst from Pastor Fuentes. Someone suggested that the meeting be stopped for a prayer to refocus the proceedings. After the prayer the vote on the “Code of Ethics” was eventually taken. It passed.
Next: The Almighty Dollar
Religious
“Elder B” called NAD to ask who she should speak to regarding verifying whether a particular document had been produced by NAD. She was transferred to the assistant for Roscoe Howard, who was at that time the Secretary of NAD. Upon hearing what was wanted the assistant told Elder B that if she wanted them to look at the document she should sent it to them, which Elder B did. Upon reviewing the document, and without any direct conversation with any member of Takoma Park to color his perspective, Elder Howard wrote this letter in response:
“March 25, 2008
“Dear [Elder B]:
“As I read over the documents you sent, I was very concerned over the general direction the church is shifted toward. This is not the Church governance that has been established by the World Church or the North American Division. I would direct you to the Church Manual on page 26 which speaks of a representative form of church governance where the local church membership has ultimate authority for all church business.
“The Church Manual is also clear as to the authority of the Church Board. It does not have the authority to make major decision without the consent of the church in Business Session. The board is subject to the church in Business Session at all times. Any decision the board makes cam be overturned by the church in Business Session. The church members in Business Session have the final say as to how the church will conduct business.
“This document seems to be moving away from the basic primes. I could not support this form of church governance nor would the General Conference. It is a far departure of how the Seventh-day Adventist church does business. I could write much more and quote many policies but I wanted to give you a quick response.
“In His Service;
“Roscoe J Howard III
North American Division Secretary”
It doesn’t take a detective to deduce from this letter that not only did NAD not have any part in creating the “Code of Ethics,” they didn’t want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. The Group found this very enlightening, but decided not to confront the pastoral staff with this letter at the April ministry board out of respect and a desire not to embarrass them unduly.
When the ministry board met in April 2008 discussion of the “Code of Ethics” resumed. Elder B, who had been one of the elders not present at the first meeting, was the first to be recognized. She questioned Pastor DeSilva regarding the attendance policy, pointing out that under it she already had one mark against her for having been absent at the previous meeting simply because she didn’t know she was supposed to be present. Pastor DeSilva’s response was shocking, “Oh no, no, I never said anything like that [the attendance policy]. See, this is why you shouldn’t listen to what other people tell you about what happens in meetings.” Friends, the attendance policy was written in the very document he was asking us to vote on. In the previous meeting he had read it aloud and verbally reiterated it. Yet when he perceived that it might not be a popular statement he told a bold-faced lie to the entire leadership of the congregation denying he had ever uttered it rather than defend an unpopular position!
Next to be recognized was the head of the communications department. She objected to item 12 in the Suggestions for Effectiveness for roughly the same reasons as were outlined in the Analysis. When she pointed out that this policy would prevent the reconsideration of bad decisions Pastor DeSilva, supported by the chairman of the finance committee, immediately stated that no such thing would happen. Any decision could be revisited at any time, Pastor DeSilva reassured. (This also turned out to be a lie, as will be demonstrated later.)
Elder B was recognized again. She asked Pastor DeSilva about the assertion that had gone around that the “Code of Ethics” was coming from the North American Division. Pastor DeSilva stated that it was absolutely true. Elder B expressed doubt about this and asked to see the documentation of this as an official statement from the North American Division. Pastor DeSilva stated that it was up in his office and that he didn’t want to delay the meeting. At this several attendees voiced a willingness to wait while he retrieved the evidence. Pastor DeSilva hedged again, stating that he couldn’t remember off-hand where in his office he had put it. Again willingness was expressed to wait while he looked. At this Pastor DeSilva flat out stated that he wasn’t going to go get it and that we were just going to have to trust him that the evidence did exist. (In other words, he had just told his third bold-faced lie to the leadership of the church in the space of about half an hour and chose to bluster through it rather than admit anything when called on it!) To this decidedly unsatisfactory answer Elder B bluntly stated that she did not believe Pastor DeSilva.
Pastor Fuentes, Takoma Park’s Pastor for Discipleship and Assimilation, chose that moment to start heckling Elder B. He reprimanded her for saying such a thing because she was accusing the pastor of lying and that if she was going to do so that she had to produce proof. Thinking of Elder Howard’s letter and the Group’s decision not to bring it up at that meeting she stated simply that she would do so at another time. This didn’t satisfy Pastor Fuentes and he continued to push her. Elder B stood up and turned around to speak to Pastor Fuentes face to face, because he was seated behind her. Pastor Fuentes exploded. His exact words were, “You don’t talk to me like that! I’m a pastor! SIT DOWN!” Elder B chose instead to pick up her belongings and walk out of the room.
The entire meeting was in shock at this outburst from Pastor Fuentes. Someone suggested that the meeting be stopped for a prayer to refocus the proceedings. After the prayer the vote on the “Code of Ethics” was eventually taken. It passed.
Next: The Almighty Dollar
Religious
"Code of Ethics" Analysis
“*Any mention of “The Church Board” is understood to mean “Church Ministries Board” in this document.”
This statement acknowledges that the Church Ministries Board simply is not the same as a Church Board as defined by the Church Manual, and should not be mistaken for the same thing. This is significant because when pressed on the issue of whether or not this new system is in accordance with the Church Manual Pastor DeSilva has claimed that we really do have a Church Board, it’s just called something different. Aside from the differences evident to anyone who compares the two, this statement written by Pastor DeSilva himself makes it plain that at the time he did not consider the two to be the same. (And nothing has changed since then to make them the same.)
“You should be loyal to God, loyal to the pastor, and loyal to the members.”
What sort of loyalty is being referred to here? Loyalty to God is an absolute loyalty. () The loyalty that God demands allows no equal, conflict, or dilution. Loyalty to our fellow man takes the form of faithful service to them in God’s name and for the furtherance of His purposes. The latter is subordinate to and the outgrowth of the former. Yet in this statement loyalty to God is put on the same level as loyalty to human beings, particularly the pastor. What special sort of loyalty is the pastor requiring of the lay leadership that he feels a need to specify loyalty to himself above and beyond that which naturally results from loyalty to the cause of God? Loyalty to anyone other than God should never be stipulated, especially by a church. Loyalty to God has no equal, and if you are loyal to God everything else naturally falls into its proper place.
Regarding numbers one through nine and number eleven of the Suggestions for Effectiveness, we have only to say that we desperately wish our pastors would practice what they preach.
“10. Confidentiality of Discussions”
The Seventh-day Adventist Church operates a representative form of government. Elected leaders in a representative government must answer for their actions, statements, and positions, good or bad. To restrict reporting back to the electorate on the actions and positions of their representatives destroys accountability, which is an indispensable part of representative government. This item stipulates that leaders are under a permanent gag order and that only the pastor may communicate with the congregation or any individual member about the activities of the Ministries Board. This authoritarian control of the message of the leadership is the hallmark of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
“12. Support of the Majority Vote.”
This item leads of back to the objections to item 10. How can there be accountability if no one is allowed to disagree with a decision the Ministry Board makes? Also, how can mistakes be corrected? To say, “I think we made a mistake; we should revisit that issue,” is to speak against a decision. Therefore, no matter what new evidence or changed circumstances came along to invalidate a decision, revisiting the issue would not be tolerated. Finally, this item issues a gag order on the leaders’ consciences. If we were simply talking about matters of paint/carpet color, that would be one thing, but a Ministry Board charged with spiritual leadership of a congregation must necessarily consider matters of conscience. To say that no one may express disagreement with that sort of vote is to place a gag order on that individual’s conscience.
“If you are absent without notification for three consecutive meetings the board may vote to replace you.”
The Ministry Board did not elect its membership, and it would be dramatically overstepping its bounds if it presumed to remove and/or replace any of its membership.
“A part of the work of the Church Board involves money. At each meeting we usually go through the financial statement pertaining to ministry, presented by the Finance Committee Chairman.”
According to the job description of the Ministry Board, its work does not involve money. Perhaps this explains why the financial reports which have been provided over the last year of Ministry Board function have been sketchy and irregular.
“Conflict of Interest”
Once again, we wish our pastors would practice what they preach.
This statement acknowledges that the Church Ministries Board simply is not the same as a Church Board as defined by the Church Manual, and should not be mistaken for the same thing. This is significant because when pressed on the issue of whether or not this new system is in accordance with the Church Manual Pastor DeSilva has claimed that we really do have a Church Board, it’s just called something different. Aside from the differences evident to anyone who compares the two, this statement written by Pastor DeSilva himself makes it plain that at the time he did not consider the two to be the same. (And nothing has changed since then to make them the same.)
“You should be loyal to God, loyal to the pastor, and loyal to the members.”
What sort of loyalty is being referred to here? Loyalty to God is an absolute loyalty. () The loyalty that God demands allows no equal, conflict, or dilution. Loyalty to our fellow man takes the form of faithful service to them in God’s name and for the furtherance of His purposes. The latter is subordinate to and the outgrowth of the former. Yet in this statement loyalty to God is put on the same level as loyalty to human beings, particularly the pastor. What special sort of loyalty is the pastor requiring of the lay leadership that he feels a need to specify loyalty to himself above and beyond that which naturally results from loyalty to the cause of God? Loyalty to anyone other than God should never be stipulated, especially by a church. Loyalty to God has no equal, and if you are loyal to God everything else naturally falls into its proper place.
Regarding numbers one through nine and number eleven of the Suggestions for Effectiveness, we have only to say that we desperately wish our pastors would practice what they preach.
“10. Confidentiality of Discussions”
The Seventh-day Adventist Church operates a representative form of government. Elected leaders in a representative government must answer for their actions, statements, and positions, good or bad. To restrict reporting back to the electorate on the actions and positions of their representatives destroys accountability, which is an indispensable part of representative government. This item stipulates that leaders are under a permanent gag order and that only the pastor may communicate with the congregation or any individual member about the activities of the Ministries Board. This authoritarian control of the message of the leadership is the hallmark of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
“12. Support of the Majority Vote.”
This item leads of back to the objections to item 10. How can there be accountability if no one is allowed to disagree with a decision the Ministry Board makes? Also, how can mistakes be corrected? To say, “I think we made a mistake; we should revisit that issue,” is to speak against a decision. Therefore, no matter what new evidence or changed circumstances came along to invalidate a decision, revisiting the issue would not be tolerated. Finally, this item issues a gag order on the leaders’ consciences. If we were simply talking about matters of paint/carpet color, that would be one thing, but a Ministry Board charged with spiritual leadership of a congregation must necessarily consider matters of conscience. To say that no one may express disagreement with that sort of vote is to place a gag order on that individual’s conscience.
“If you are absent without notification for three consecutive meetings the board may vote to replace you.”
The Ministry Board did not elect its membership, and it would be dramatically overstepping its bounds if it presumed to remove and/or replace any of its membership.
“A part of the work of the Church Board involves money. At each meeting we usually go through the financial statement pertaining to ministry, presented by the Finance Committee Chairman.”
According to the job description of the Ministry Board, its work does not involve money. Perhaps this explains why the financial reports which have been provided over the last year of Ministry Board function have been sketchy and irregular.
“Conflict of Interest”
Once again, we wish our pastors would practice what they preach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)