The following is a transcript of the announcement made by Pastor DeSilva on Sabbath morning, April 26, 2008, regarding the letter sent by the Group to the congregation.
“Good morning everyone. Pleasant Sabbath to you. I usually reserve announcements for business meetings like this but I felt it necessary to make an announcement this morning, and first elder is here. By the way, that brown insert about the business meeting, we’d really like for everyone to fill it out so we can get a good time, and we’d like for you to start attending business meetings.
“You know, over the past couple of days my eyes have been severely red. A lot of people perhaps think I’ve been crying, but it’s not the case. This is my worst year for allergies yet. And I made a mistake on Thursday going for a motorcycle ride and it just got worse. I thought my eyes were going to bug out for a minute.
“But what I’ve come to address you about is a letter that has been circulating. Some of you may have gotten it, and some of you may not have gotten it. And, um, if you have gotten the letter I as a leader I’ve just come up to announce, and the first elder is here with me. To let you know that there are some gross inaccuracies in the letter. And I consider the letter extremely divisive. And um right now the conference president is in Germany. When he gets back there will be a complete open disclosure and we’ll be looking at the letter and the individuals that wrote the letter. A full investigation. And there are two letters that are included in the letter from the North American Division and the General Conference. To this date I’ve never ever met any of these individuals and never ever talked to me about the reorganizing of the church, and I don’t even know if they know that their letters are being circulated amongst the membership.
“And so we are going to ask you just to discount the letters, and uh we will be addressing it. The conference president knows exactly what’s happening in our church, and the conference president approves everything that is happening. And so this letter is considered very divisive. We are asking that you just treat it that way. And we will be dealing with this. And the board of elders besides a couple that’s mentioned on it are firmly behind what the church is doing at this time. God bless you and we will continue to move forward.”
We don’t need to offer very much commentary about this announcement; its “My big brother is going to come beat you up” attitude speaks pretty loudly for itself. Briefly, there are two significant points worth noting. The first is the abject failure of open-minded leadership. If you are part of an organization and individuals within that organization speak up to say that a problem exists, a good leader listens respectfully, investigates the matter thoroughly, and considers it carefully before rendering any opinion on the matter. In this situation we have instant condemnation. Only a bully reacts that way. The second significant point is the assumption that no one but the leader is capable of properly communicating with the outside world the nature of the situation within the church, and therefore the responses from “upper management” must be invalid. This attitude is equal parts ego and censorship and has no place within a true representative system of governance. It is perfectly at home within the dictatorship which Pastor DeSilva continually denies having created.
Next: Blocked
Religious
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Power
The issue at Takoma Park is about adhering to the Church Manual. It's also about power. The pastors (though they would never admit it) want the power to be able to control the direction of the church. The conference wants the increased power of a larger tithe and offering base, and is so desperate that it is willing to empower pastors to take any steps they claim are necessary in order to bring in the money.
Then there is the other side. The union doesn't want to be credited with any power, because then it would be required to use it to rein in our rogue conference. The division and General Conference are afraid they have too much power, and are wary of using it for fear of overwhelming us. The pastors and conference leaders have been only too happy to keep the higher authorities at arms-length by forwarding the notion that only the conference can deal with matters in an individual congregation, and that even then it can only offer recommendations. In their view, the vote of a local congregation is absolute. (We might as well be dealing with the laws of the Persians and Medes the way they tell it.)
So where does that leave us? Where does the power rightfully belong?
The conference is partly right. (Don't die of shock on me, I only said "partly!") The organization of the SDA Church allows the local congregation a great deal of autonomy. This stems from the fear the church founders had of being part of a larger organization that had the power to dictate to individual members on matters on conscience (think Catholic Church during the Middle Ages). However, they were also divinely impressed that there could be no cohesive, effective world-wide effort without some "teeth" at the highest level of the organization.
As Ellen White put it, "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).
To put it simply, in matters of church function there is only one power that God intends to be higher than the individual's personal judgment, and that is the action of the General Conference in session. The local congregation, then, is not absolute. Nor does the conference have absolute and exclusive power over congregations. It is true that in matters where the General Conference is silent the local church may act largely as it pleases - with the advice and review of the conference. In such "everyday matters" the union sticks to managing conferences and the division to managing unions, etc.
Determining which of these principles applies to the present situation requires only the determination of whether the situation involves a matter on which the General Conference has taken action. In this case the matter is proper adherence to the Church Manual, which is a product of the General Conference in session. It is, therefore, the right of the General Conference to weigh in on the matter, and the duty of the congregation and conference to accept their judgment.
The opinion of the General Conference on Takoma Park's situation has been expressed in five different letters. Two of these have already been described in the Epic, another will be dealt with shortly, and the final two will come along somewhat later. Unfortunately, our pastors and the conference leadership have chosen to thumb their noses at this rightful exercise of the General Conference's authority. It is now up to the General Conference to deal with this blatant disobedience (and we do have some reason to believe that they will - eventually).
Then there is the other side. The union doesn't want to be credited with any power, because then it would be required to use it to rein in our rogue conference. The division and General Conference are afraid they have too much power, and are wary of using it for fear of overwhelming us. The pastors and conference leaders have been only too happy to keep the higher authorities at arms-length by forwarding the notion that only the conference can deal with matters in an individual congregation, and that even then it can only offer recommendations. In their view, the vote of a local congregation is absolute. (We might as well be dealing with the laws of the Persians and Medes the way they tell it.)
So where does that leave us? Where does the power rightfully belong?
The conference is partly right. (Don't die of shock on me, I only said "partly!") The organization of the SDA Church allows the local congregation a great deal of autonomy. This stems from the fear the church founders had of being part of a larger organization that had the power to dictate to individual members on matters on conscience (think Catholic Church during the Middle Ages). However, they were also divinely impressed that there could be no cohesive, effective world-wide effort without some "teeth" at the highest level of the organization.
As Ellen White put it, "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).
To put it simply, in matters of church function there is only one power that God intends to be higher than the individual's personal judgment, and that is the action of the General Conference in session. The local congregation, then, is not absolute. Nor does the conference have absolute and exclusive power over congregations. It is true that in matters where the General Conference is silent the local church may act largely as it pleases - with the advice and review of the conference. In such "everyday matters" the union sticks to managing conferences and the division to managing unions, etc.
Determining which of these principles applies to the present situation requires only the determination of whether the situation involves a matter on which the General Conference has taken action. In this case the matter is proper adherence to the Church Manual, which is a product of the General Conference in session. It is, therefore, the right of the General Conference to weigh in on the matter, and the duty of the congregation and conference to accept their judgment.
The opinion of the General Conference on Takoma Park's situation has been expressed in five different letters. Two of these have already been described in the Epic, another will be dealt with shortly, and the final two will come along somewhat later. Unfortunately, our pastors and the conference leadership have chosen to thumb their noses at this rightful exercise of the General Conference's authority. It is now up to the General Conference to deal with this blatant disobedience (and we do have some reason to believe that they will - eventually).
Friday, August 21, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 12
"Many whom the Lord could use will not hear and obey His voice above all others. Kindred and friends, former habits and associations, have so strong an influence upon them that God can give them but little instruction, can communicate to them but little knowledge of His purposes. The Lord would do much more for His servants if they were wholly consecrated to Him, placing His service above the ties of kindred and all other earthly associations" (Gospel Workers, p.114).
"The great leaders of religious thought in this generation sound the praises and build the monuments of those who planted the seed of truth centuries ago. Do not many turn from this work to trample down the growth springing from the same seed today? The old cry is repeated, "We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow [Christ in the messenger He sends], we know not from whence he is." John 9:29. As in earlier ages, the special truths for this time are found, not with the ecclesiastical authorities, but with men and women who are not too learned or too wise to believe the word of God" (Christ's Object Lessons, p.79).
"Brethren, treat men as men, not as servants to be ordered about at your pleasure. He who indulges a harsh, overbearing spirit might better become a tender of sheep as did Moses, and thus learn what it means to be a true shepherd. Moses gained in Egypt an experience as a mighty statesman and as a leader of the armies, but he did not there learn the lessons essential for true greatness. He needed an experience in more humble duties, that he might become a caretaker, tender toward every living thing. In keeping the flocks of Jethro his sympathies were called out to the sheep and lambs, and he learned to guard these creatures of God with the gentlest care. Although their voice could never complain of mistreatment, yet their attitude might show much. God cares for all the creatures He has made. In working for God in this lowly station, Moses learned to be a tender shepherd for Israel" (Testimonies to Ministers, pp.262, 263).
"The great leaders of religious thought in this generation sound the praises and build the monuments of those who planted the seed of truth centuries ago. Do not many turn from this work to trample down the growth springing from the same seed today? The old cry is repeated, "We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow [Christ in the messenger He sends], we know not from whence he is." John 9:29. As in earlier ages, the special truths for this time are found, not with the ecclesiastical authorities, but with men and women who are not too learned or too wise to believe the word of God" (Christ's Object Lessons, p.79).
"Brethren, treat men as men, not as servants to be ordered about at your pleasure. He who indulges a harsh, overbearing spirit might better become a tender of sheep as did Moses, and thus learn what it means to be a true shepherd. Moses gained in Egypt an experience as a mighty statesman and as a leader of the armies, but he did not there learn the lessons essential for true greatness. He needed an experience in more humble duties, that he might become a caretaker, tender toward every living thing. In keeping the flocks of Jethro his sympathies were called out to the sheep and lambs, and he learned to guard these creatures of God with the gentlest care. Although their voice could never complain of mistreatment, yet their attitude might show much. God cares for all the creatures He has made. In working for God in this lowly station, Moses learned to be a tender shepherd for Israel" (Testimonies to Ministers, pp.262, 263).
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 19
Dear Takoma Park Church Member:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of issues that have arisen within the bosom of our church regarding its structure, administration, and the conduct of ministries.
Issues involving the Takoma Park Church structure and the Church Manual
During the summer of 2007 Pastor DeSilva requested the Potomac Conference to conduct a survey of the church’s outreach health. The Survey was conducted by Dr. Paul Borden, a Baptist consultant in church growth, Dr. Ray Pichette, and Pastor Glen Altermatt, both from the Potomac Conference. They prepared a Survey Report enumerating the “Strengths, Concerns and Prescriptions” for the Takoma Park Church. Notably, the Report observed that “this congregation has been disobedient to the command of Jesus Christ to ‘go and make disciples.’” Takoma Park’s “disobedience” is placed totally on the congregation and its organizational structure. The Report observed that “the current structure of our congregation inhibits growth and the accomplishment of a compelling mission and an exciting vision. Authority is separated from responsibility and no one is held accountable.”
The report went on to prescribe a remedy: “It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure.” Unfortunately, those three words would put in place a totally new kind of structure which is contrary to Seventh-day Adventist church polity—notably, the eradication of the Church Board. Organizationally, the church would operate more like a “congregationally structured” local church, such as the Baptists have, rather than a “representative form” of church governance which is the Seventh-day Adventist form of church governance. This suggested change is contrary to the policies set forth in the Church Manual, the policies of the General Conference, and the North American Division.
In October, 2007 Pastor DeSilva presented the Survey Report to the church in a series of “Town halls.” Much discussion ensued. There was opposition, acquiescence, and support for the report’s conclusions. Some felt that Takoma Park should not stray from the Church Manual. Some thought because it was “recommended by the Conference” it should be accepted. Others felt that the Church Manual contains only guidelines—to be followed or changed as members decided. This is not the case. The survey team’s recommendations are not an official directive from the Potomac Conference. (It can never have the weight of an official conference endorsement because that would be contrary to the policies of the General Conference and the North American Division.) The Church Manual is much more than mere guidelines. It is binding on all Seventh-day Adventist Churches world-wide. The Church Manual is authoritative in every church in every country of the world. Yes, there may need to be some minor adaptations due to local circumstances but these are provided for through each world division’s published Church Manual Supplement. Regarding this particular issue before the Takoma Park Church, no such provision has been made by the North American Division. We are under solemn obligation to follow the Church Manual.
The basic underlying condition which brought divisiveness into the church is the one statement found near the conclusion of the Survey Report about how the Takoma Park church must decide about a “staff led church” and mission emphasis: “The church will vote on this report as a whole to accept or reject by Oct. 13, 2007.” The Report’s recommended two major changes are: (1) A shift toward emphasis in evangelism and (2) a radical shift in church structure. These two issues should NOT be linked together. One is excellent and the other wrong. Who would vote against the mission of the church? Thus some reasoned: “Since one is good, it must be acceptable to permit the other.” Not so. Separate the two issues. Mission, yes. Structural change, no! Structural change does not enhance Mission!
The Church Manual already outlines a form of structure for conducting the nurture and outreach of the local church. However, the new proposal has one major vital change which is contrary to the Church Manual. It does away with the Church Board! The basic internal governance of the local church is so altered that such changes ultimately lead to a form of Congregationalism, and/or the governance of the local church evolves into an environment where one person controls the operations of the local church. This is NOT the structural governance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Church Board represents the whole church and acts on behalf of the church between church Business Meetings. Only the church in a Business Session has higher authority than the Church Board. Pastor DeSilva’s proposal annuls and wipes out the Church Board. In its place is proposed two committees—two powerless bodies with high probability for conflict between them: (1) A Church Ministries “Board.” The word “board” used in the title is a misnomer. It is not an authentic board as per our denominational understanding. (We use the title “board” loosely i.e. such as “Board of Elders.” However, in our present context, due to the eradication of the Church Board, it takes on a very critical connotation. The Church Ministries Board has no financial authority whatsoever nor has it the authority of a “board” it portends to “partially” replace. In fact there are no specific Terms of Reference delineating its responsibilities, authority and accountability. Please remember: the church, in a Business Meeting, is the only body empowered to delegate responsibility, authority, and accountability. (The Church Board can also establish Terms of Reference for its sub-committees such as a Finance Committee.) Besides, this “board” is to be accountable to the Support & Accountability “Board.” (2) Support & Accountability “Board.” Again the word “board” is a misnomer. Generally speaking, boards are given specific assignments, authority and held accountable to the body which authorized the board. In the same proposal paper there is no mention of finances which are vital, yes, critical to the mission of the church. Who is responsible for finance?
The pity in all of this is the fact that the Church Manual already provides for all the functions, authority, and accountability needed for the efficient operation of our church so that it can carry out its mission. The Survey Team’s evaluation is that our present church structure is dysfunctional. If something is not used properly, of course, it can be dysfunctional. Church leadership should see to it that it is functional and seize the initiative to move ahead and utilize the structure already in place. Leadership must energetically take the lead in promoting and doing missional activities. Leadership should train, inspire and demonstrate how ministry should be done and do it. A new structure will not cause Takoma Park to become a growing mission—focused church. Rather it is leadership who leads by example that will make the difference.
The major fatal flaws in the proposal are: (1) Two committees, neither one of which is obligated to report to the church or is accountable to the church. (2) Both do not derive their authority from the membership. (3) Specific financial accountability is lacking. (4) These proposals are contrary to the Church Manual.
Under the present suggestive “church led structure,” it is conceivable that one person could control the finances and the ministries without ever consulting the church as a whole. Is this the way we want to go? One other observation, Pastor DeSilva bases his stance for having two “boards” on the premise that the Church, in a Business Meeting, did approve the recommendations (take all of it or reject all of it) of the Survey Report and, therefore, he has moved ahead by having new officers nominated and approved by the church. However, we see major flaws in the process leading to the approval action by the church in a Business Meeting.
Pastor DeSilva announced on Sabbath, November 17, 2007 that a Business Meeting would be held during the 11:00a.m. Worship Service the following Sabbath. No other “proper announcements” were made either through a letter or in the Bulletin as stipulated in the Church Manual (page 89). Business Meetings are generally not held during the Worship Hour for the simple reason it inhibits open discussion of the pros and cons of items on the agenda. Many members are ill at ease to discuss “business items” on Sabbath during the Worship Hour. Prior to the Worship Hour Business Meeting, “town hall meetings” were held. Discussion centered almost entirely on the “staff led structure.” Those present were mostly leadership personnel. Following the Town Hall Meetings came the announcement that the following Sabbath a final vote would be taken regarding the recommendations of the Survey Committee. The sequence of these events lacked due process as many members attending the Worship Service knew nothing about what had been discussed in the Town Hall Meetings. Not one question or comment was made. There was just a call to vote up or down. Consequently, many refrained from voting stating, “It was not clear what was to be voted.” There was no time for this new group to understand, think through what were the implications of such an action. Because of improper procedures that Church Business Meeting is considered by many to be null and void.
Seventh-day Adventists do not have “staff led churches” structured as the Baptists or any other denomination. We have a world-wide “representative structured” church. In the light of the discussions that have gone on over these issues the papers prepared by Pastor DeSilva which he has said repeatedly, publicly and privately, are the policies of the North American Division were given to Pastor Roscoe Howard, Secretary of the North American Division, for evaluation. The attached letter is his response. In light of his official observations we need to rescind the November 24, 2007 Business Meeting action.
A mission led church? YES! A staff led church? NO!! A representative led church board? YES!
As a member of Takoma Park Church we urge you join us to do the following:
1. Reflect on what has happened thus far.
2. Pray for enlightenment and wisdom to comprehend the issues.
3. Be certain you understand all the issues.
4. Voice your opposition concerning the direction in which the church is presently heading.
5. Be present at the April 27, 2008 Business Meeting and support a call for a vote to rescind the irregular action taken last November 24, 2007.
Yours for a missional church in harmony with the Church Manual,
[Nine Signatures]
Next: The Voice
Religious
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of issues that have arisen within the bosom of our church regarding its structure, administration, and the conduct of ministries.
Issues involving the Takoma Park Church structure and the Church Manual
During the summer of 2007 Pastor DeSilva requested the Potomac Conference to conduct a survey of the church’s outreach health. The Survey was conducted by Dr. Paul Borden, a Baptist consultant in church growth, Dr. Ray Pichette, and Pastor Glen Altermatt, both from the Potomac Conference. They prepared a Survey Report enumerating the “Strengths, Concerns and Prescriptions” for the Takoma Park Church. Notably, the Report observed that “this congregation has been disobedient to the command of Jesus Christ to ‘go and make disciples.’” Takoma Park’s “disobedience” is placed totally on the congregation and its organizational structure. The Report observed that “the current structure of our congregation inhibits growth and the accomplishment of a compelling mission and an exciting vision. Authority is separated from responsibility and no one is held accountable.”
The report went on to prescribe a remedy: “It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure.” Unfortunately, those three words would put in place a totally new kind of structure which is contrary to Seventh-day Adventist church polity—notably, the eradication of the Church Board. Organizationally, the church would operate more like a “congregationally structured” local church, such as the Baptists have, rather than a “representative form” of church governance which is the Seventh-day Adventist form of church governance. This suggested change is contrary to the policies set forth in the Church Manual, the policies of the General Conference, and the North American Division.
In October, 2007 Pastor DeSilva presented the Survey Report to the church in a series of “Town halls.” Much discussion ensued. There was opposition, acquiescence, and support for the report’s conclusions. Some felt that Takoma Park should not stray from the Church Manual. Some thought because it was “recommended by the Conference” it should be accepted. Others felt that the Church Manual contains only guidelines—to be followed or changed as members decided. This is not the case. The survey team’s recommendations are not an official directive from the Potomac Conference. (It can never have the weight of an official conference endorsement because that would be contrary to the policies of the General Conference and the North American Division.) The Church Manual is much more than mere guidelines. It is binding on all Seventh-day Adventist Churches world-wide. The Church Manual is authoritative in every church in every country of the world. Yes, there may need to be some minor adaptations due to local circumstances but these are provided for through each world division’s published Church Manual Supplement. Regarding this particular issue before the Takoma Park Church, no such provision has been made by the North American Division. We are under solemn obligation to follow the Church Manual.
The basic underlying condition which brought divisiveness into the church is the one statement found near the conclusion of the Survey Report about how the Takoma Park church must decide about a “staff led church” and mission emphasis: “The church will vote on this report as a whole to accept or reject by Oct. 13, 2007.” The Report’s recommended two major changes are: (1) A shift toward emphasis in evangelism and (2) a radical shift in church structure. These two issues should NOT be linked together. One is excellent and the other wrong. Who would vote against the mission of the church? Thus some reasoned: “Since one is good, it must be acceptable to permit the other.” Not so. Separate the two issues. Mission, yes. Structural change, no! Structural change does not enhance Mission!
The Church Manual already outlines a form of structure for conducting the nurture and outreach of the local church. However, the new proposal has one major vital change which is contrary to the Church Manual. It does away with the Church Board! The basic internal governance of the local church is so altered that such changes ultimately lead to a form of Congregationalism, and/or the governance of the local church evolves into an environment where one person controls the operations of the local church. This is NOT the structural governance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Church Board represents the whole church and acts on behalf of the church between church Business Meetings. Only the church in a Business Session has higher authority than the Church Board. Pastor DeSilva’s proposal annuls and wipes out the Church Board. In its place is proposed two committees—two powerless bodies with high probability for conflict between them: (1) A Church Ministries “Board.” The word “board” used in the title is a misnomer. It is not an authentic board as per our denominational understanding. (We use the title “board” loosely i.e. such as “Board of Elders.” However, in our present context, due to the eradication of the Church Board, it takes on a very critical connotation. The Church Ministries Board has no financial authority whatsoever nor has it the authority of a “board” it portends to “partially” replace. In fact there are no specific Terms of Reference delineating its responsibilities, authority and accountability. Please remember: the church, in a Business Meeting, is the only body empowered to delegate responsibility, authority, and accountability. (The Church Board can also establish Terms of Reference for its sub-committees such as a Finance Committee.) Besides, this “board” is to be accountable to the Support & Accountability “Board.” (2) Support & Accountability “Board.” Again the word “board” is a misnomer. Generally speaking, boards are given specific assignments, authority and held accountable to the body which authorized the board. In the same proposal paper there is no mention of finances which are vital, yes, critical to the mission of the church. Who is responsible for finance?
The pity in all of this is the fact that the Church Manual already provides for all the functions, authority, and accountability needed for the efficient operation of our church so that it can carry out its mission. The Survey Team’s evaluation is that our present church structure is dysfunctional. If something is not used properly, of course, it can be dysfunctional. Church leadership should see to it that it is functional and seize the initiative to move ahead and utilize the structure already in place. Leadership must energetically take the lead in promoting and doing missional activities. Leadership should train, inspire and demonstrate how ministry should be done and do it. A new structure will not cause Takoma Park to become a growing mission—focused church. Rather it is leadership who leads by example that will make the difference.
The major fatal flaws in the proposal are: (1) Two committees, neither one of which is obligated to report to the church or is accountable to the church. (2) Both do not derive their authority from the membership. (3) Specific financial accountability is lacking. (4) These proposals are contrary to the Church Manual.
Under the present suggestive “church led structure,” it is conceivable that one person could control the finances and the ministries without ever consulting the church as a whole. Is this the way we want to go? One other observation, Pastor DeSilva bases his stance for having two “boards” on the premise that the Church, in a Business Meeting, did approve the recommendations (take all of it or reject all of it) of the Survey Report and, therefore, he has moved ahead by having new officers nominated and approved by the church. However, we see major flaws in the process leading to the approval action by the church in a Business Meeting.
Pastor DeSilva announced on Sabbath, November 17, 2007 that a Business Meeting would be held during the 11:00a.m. Worship Service the following Sabbath. No other “proper announcements” were made either through a letter or in the Bulletin as stipulated in the Church Manual (page 89). Business Meetings are generally not held during the Worship Hour for the simple reason it inhibits open discussion of the pros and cons of items on the agenda. Many members are ill at ease to discuss “business items” on Sabbath during the Worship Hour. Prior to the Worship Hour Business Meeting, “town hall meetings” were held. Discussion centered almost entirely on the “staff led structure.” Those present were mostly leadership personnel. Following the Town Hall Meetings came the announcement that the following Sabbath a final vote would be taken regarding the recommendations of the Survey Committee. The sequence of these events lacked due process as many members attending the Worship Service knew nothing about what had been discussed in the Town Hall Meetings. Not one question or comment was made. There was just a call to vote up or down. Consequently, many refrained from voting stating, “It was not clear what was to be voted.” There was no time for this new group to understand, think through what were the implications of such an action. Because of improper procedures that Church Business Meeting is considered by many to be null and void.
Seventh-day Adventists do not have “staff led churches” structured as the Baptists or any other denomination. We have a world-wide “representative structured” church. In the light of the discussions that have gone on over these issues the papers prepared by Pastor DeSilva which he has said repeatedly, publicly and privately, are the policies of the North American Division were given to Pastor Roscoe Howard, Secretary of the North American Division, for evaluation. The attached letter is his response. In light of his official observations we need to rescind the November 24, 2007 Business Meeting action.
A mission led church? YES! A staff led church? NO!! A representative led church board? YES!
As a member of Takoma Park Church we urge you join us to do the following:
1. Reflect on what has happened thus far.
2. Pray for enlightenment and wisdom to comprehend the issues.
3. Be certain you understand all the issues.
4. Voice your opposition concerning the direction in which the church is presently heading.
5. Be present at the April 27, 2008 Business Meeting and support a call for a vote to rescind the irregular action taken last November 24, 2007.
Yours for a missional church in harmony with the Church Manual,
[Nine Signatures]
Next: The Voice
Religious
Saturday, August 8, 2009
I attended an apostate church this morning.
Unfortunately, it was my own.
The pastors of the Takoma Park Church have ceased to follow proper procedure in voting membership transfers. Their procedure has been iffy throughout this structural dispute, but they have now gone to blatantly ignoring the rules set forth in the Manual.
Just to make sure we're on the same page, this is what the Church Manual instructs (p.36), "Application for a letter should be made to the clerk of the church with which the member desires to unite. The clerk then sends the request to the clerk of the church from which the member desires to be transferred. On receiving this, the clerk brings the request to the pastor or to the church elder, who in turn lays the request before the church board. After due consideration the board recommends to the church, favorably or otherwise, concerning the application. The pastor or elder then brings the recommendation to the attention of the church, announcing that this is the first reading. Final action is taken the following week, when the request is again presented and a vote of the church is taken."
I bring this up because there have been first and second readings of membership transfers listed in our bulletin for the last three weeks. None of these names were taken to the church board, or even to the church ministries board. What's even worse, the names that were second readings last week were not actually voted on, nor were the names that were second readings this week! We hold two services at Takoma Park. It had occurred to me that perhaps this essential action had been taken at the one I didn't attend, so I made inquiries. It had not. Such an omission might be attributed to forgetfulness once, but if that was the case it should be fixed the next week. The same thing happening two weeks in a row (with no attempt at correction) makes it obvious that the omission was intentional. (I can only guess that the pastors are embarrassed to call attention to the transfers because there are far more going out than coming in. Of those leaving a substantial majority are going to other local churches, which makes it pretty obvious that the move is the result of being unhappy with this congregation, not geographical relocation.)
This brings me back to the title of this post. The central premise of this blog and the efforts of the Group over these last two years is that the Church Manual is what defines who we are as Seventh-day Adventists. Therefore, when we ignore its instructions we cease to be Seventh-day Adventists. This matter of handling membership transfers is just the latest in a long stream of Manual violations perpetrated by our pastors that have gradually taken the Takoma Park Church further and further away from Adventism, and the "intervention" of the Potomac Conference has accomplished absolutely nothing by way of correcting these problems.
I attended an apostate church this morning. Unfortunately, it was my own.
The pastors of the Takoma Park Church have ceased to follow proper procedure in voting membership transfers. Their procedure has been iffy throughout this structural dispute, but they have now gone to blatantly ignoring the rules set forth in the Manual.
Just to make sure we're on the same page, this is what the Church Manual instructs (p.36), "Application for a letter should be made to the clerk of the church with which the member desires to unite. The clerk then sends the request to the clerk of the church from which the member desires to be transferred. On receiving this, the clerk brings the request to the pastor or to the church elder, who in turn lays the request before the church board. After due consideration the board recommends to the church, favorably or otherwise, concerning the application. The pastor or elder then brings the recommendation to the attention of the church, announcing that this is the first reading. Final action is taken the following week, when the request is again presented and a vote of the church is taken."
I bring this up because there have been first and second readings of membership transfers listed in our bulletin for the last three weeks. None of these names were taken to the church board, or even to the church ministries board. What's even worse, the names that were second readings last week were not actually voted on, nor were the names that were second readings this week! We hold two services at Takoma Park. It had occurred to me that perhaps this essential action had been taken at the one I didn't attend, so I made inquiries. It had not. Such an omission might be attributed to forgetfulness once, but if that was the case it should be fixed the next week. The same thing happening two weeks in a row (with no attempt at correction) makes it obvious that the omission was intentional. (I can only guess that the pastors are embarrassed to call attention to the transfers because there are far more going out than coming in. Of those leaving a substantial majority are going to other local churches, which makes it pretty obvious that the move is the result of being unhappy with this congregation, not geographical relocation.)
This brings me back to the title of this post. The central premise of this blog and the efforts of the Group over these last two years is that the Church Manual is what defines who we are as Seventh-day Adventists. Therefore, when we ignore its instructions we cease to be Seventh-day Adventists. This matter of handling membership transfers is just the latest in a long stream of Manual violations perpetrated by our pastors that have gradually taken the Takoma Park Church further and further away from Adventism, and the "intervention" of the Potomac Conference has accomplished absolutely nothing by way of correcting these problems.
I attended an apostate church this morning. Unfortunately, it was my own.
Friday, August 7, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 18
The Group deliberated long and thoughtfully about how best to use the letters from Elders Howard and Parmenter. The consensus was that we needed to present them in a way that caused minimal embarrassment to the pastoral staff, while still getting our points across. It was finally decided that a small delegation of Group members should request a meeting with Pastor DeSilva and our First Elder Joel Bullard to present them and ask that the vote to approve the change in governance be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. Accordingly, calls were placed to request the meeting. Elder Bullard responded that it should be a meeting of the entire Elders Board. Since not all of the Group members to be present were elders it was made a joint meeting between the elders and the Accountability Board, which then did encompass all of the selected Group members. This emergency meeting was called for April 23, 2008.
At the meeting the two letters were read and the request was made that the matter be reconsidered at the next business meeting of the church, which was scheduled for the following Sunday, April 27, 2008. Pastor DeSilva responded by attacking the authors of the letters, challenging their authority and their right to communicate with members of his congregation without his permission! A discussion sprung up among the elders about whether or not to approve the request which was cut short by a dictatorial pronouncement by Pastor DeSilva, “I will not allow this matter to be brought to the business meeting!” On that imperious note the meeting ended.
Friends, we remind you that just a few weeks before Pastor DeSilva had declared to the ministries board that any decision could be reconsidered at any time if new evidence came to light (see the Epic, Pt. 15). It is in light of the nonnegotiable declaration made in this subsequent meeting that we level against him the charge of having been lying. This is precisely the sort of scenario that was under discussion in the ministries board and he did exactly the opposite of what he had promised at that meeting.
The possibility that Pastor DeSilva might not be willing to listen to reason had occurred to the Group as it considered its options for using the letters. It had been decided in advance that if the good faith efforts at this meeting failed to produce the desired results that the Group would make its case to the entire congregation in a letter and include copies of the letters from Elders Howard and Parmenter. Such a letter had been prepared in advance in order to be ready for sending immediately after the meeting if the results of the meeting made it necessary. The intent of the timing was to ensure that the letter would arrive at the homes of all the church members before the upcoming business meeting. Having found our worst fears about Pastor DeSilva’s receptiveness realized, the Group proceeded to mail the congregational letter. The next chapter of the Epic will feature that letter in its entirety.
Next: The Letter
Religious
At the meeting the two letters were read and the request was made that the matter be reconsidered at the next business meeting of the church, which was scheduled for the following Sunday, April 27, 2008. Pastor DeSilva responded by attacking the authors of the letters, challenging their authority and their right to communicate with members of his congregation without his permission! A discussion sprung up among the elders about whether or not to approve the request which was cut short by a dictatorial pronouncement by Pastor DeSilva, “I will not allow this matter to be brought to the business meeting!” On that imperious note the meeting ended.
Friends, we remind you that just a few weeks before Pastor DeSilva had declared to the ministries board that any decision could be reconsidered at any time if new evidence came to light (see the Epic, Pt. 15). It is in light of the nonnegotiable declaration made in this subsequent meeting that we level against him the charge of having been lying. This is precisely the sort of scenario that was under discussion in the ministries board and he did exactly the opposite of what he had promised at that meeting.
The possibility that Pastor DeSilva might not be willing to listen to reason had occurred to the Group as it considered its options for using the letters. It had been decided in advance that if the good faith efforts at this meeting failed to produce the desired results that the Group would make its case to the entire congregation in a letter and include copies of the letters from Elders Howard and Parmenter. Such a letter had been prepared in advance in order to be ready for sending immediately after the meeting if the results of the meeting made it necessary. The intent of the timing was to ensure that the letter would arrive at the homes of all the church members before the upcoming business meeting. Having found our worst fears about Pastor DeSilva’s receptiveness realized, the Group proceeded to mail the congregational letter. The next chapter of the Epic will feature that letter in its entirety.
Next: The Letter
Religious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)