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

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).

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

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

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

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

The Epic, Pt. 33

Given Elder Ramirez’s repeated assertions that he did not see a need for the Group to have three representatives it was decided that we needed to elaborate on our concerns about sending only one.

Aug. 24, 2008, 7:32pm: “You may not feel the need for more than two people to be present at every meeting or have the meeting recorded. We do, and this comes from repeated willful misrepresentations to and about us as well as being denied due process by church administration, particularly the TP pastoral staff. You and I have never met. I don't know you, and I'm not saying that you personally had anything to do with the aforementioned miss-treatment, but since you come to us as a representative of the conference you should be sympathetic to our insistence simply as a matter of self-preservation.

“Allow me to give you a prime example of this duplicity. You have stated, as has Elder Miller, that we have not followed Matt. 18 and that the "process" which must be worked out is how to follow its principles. Since neither you nor he have been personally attending TP, or our church's administrative meetings, or heard any of the personal conversations between members of our group and the pastoral staff, you have no personal knowledge of whether or not we have followed Matt. 18 by presenting our concerns first to the pastoral staff. The only possible basis you might have for such a statement is that you have been told. In fact, we have more than followed Matt. 18. Attached is a chart which chronicles just a few of our efforts to follow Matt. 18. I say "a few" because a number of other members of our group have also made attempts to reason with the pastors, but they didn't get me their dates of such visits soon enough to be included in the chart. Even with only this partial list, you can clearly see that we have bent over backwards to follow Matthew's principles. The pastors, if they were being honest, would have to admit this fact, and yet they haven't. The bottom line is that the only part of Matt. 18 which has not been followed is the, "but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

“Beyond the process of Matt. 18 Elder Miller stated in his letters that we should first seek a meeting with conference administration (which we have already done, as we pointed out to Elder Miller in our last letter) and then, if we were not satisfied with the results, we could appear before the conference executive committee (which we formally requested to do at the close of the aforementioned letter). To our minds, the only "process" which remains is for the conference to grant the request that we be allowed to present our case to the full Conference Committee. We agreed to have a process meeting with you to point out these facts and finalize the time of our appearance before the committee.

“Unless you have something to hide, you have nothing to lose from a meeting with the three of us who have been appointed to represent the group. The suggestion of recording the meeting about process is a distinctly inferior option, made only as a compromise attempt because of your unwillingness to have our full spokesgroup in the room. If you are unwilling to meet with us under what we consider to be extremely reasonable conditions, we will conclude that the conference is not going to allow the three representatives to appear before the executive committee as promised. In that case, we will have to pursue alternate venues for making our appeal.

“The course of these negotiations is extremely disappointing to us. As I have already pointed out, every consideration of due process required of us by the Bible and Elder Miller we have faithfully performed. That we are now being told that we have been deficient and even more "process" is required, combined with your determined resistance to meeting with the three of us, seems to us to be a changing of the ground rules as stalling tactic in the hopes that we will get tired and give up. This only contributes to our impression that our church leadership is untrustworthy. We are trying very hard to be flexible and accommodating. We are willing to have an in-person meeting with you about "process" whether or not we see a purpose for such a meeting. Meet us half way and prove that our fears about church leadership are unfounded by accepting that there will be three of us in the room.”

The partial list of Matthew 18 visits referred to in the message is included below.

1. Matt. 18:15 - Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Sept. 8, 2007 - Brother H
Oct. 15, 2007 - Brother H
Nov. (7 or 14), 2007 - Brother G
Nov. 19, 2007 - Brother H
Dec. 10, 2007 - Elder B
Jan. 7, 2008 - Elder B
April 14, 2008 - Elder B (phone call)
April 14, 2008 - Elder B (letter)

2. Matt. 18:16 - But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Oct. 27, 2007 - Brother H and Brother R
Dec. 31, 2007 and Jan. 6, 2008 - Elders' Meetings
April 23, 2008 - Elders' and Acountability Boards Meeting

3. Matt. 18:17 - And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

April 24, 2008 - letter to congregation signed by nine concerned church leaders and members

Next: Impasse

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 32

At this point in the meeting negotiations with the conference Brother H became ill. It wasn’t serious, but it was enough of a distraction that he asked Sister L, another member of the spokesgroup, to take over for him. She responded to Elder Ramirez’s email with a list of reasons why the Group did not wish to alter the agreement regarding the meeting. (We should note here that this was the beginning of a month and a half long email exchange on this subject, a full transcript of which would be too mind-numbingly long to include. For the sake of brevity, we will be quoting only portions of the exchange relevant to the larger issue and summarizing entire messages when possible.)

Sent Aug. 14, 2008, 12:56pm: “In the matter of meeting with you to discuss the crisis at the Takoma Park Church, I'm afraid that we must insist on having our entire designated spokesgroup present. We are familiar with the portion of Elder Miller's letter to which you refer, but we do not consider his letter to be a binding contract. Our large group intentionally decided on a spokesgroup rather than an individual spokesperson for the following reasons:

“1) To comply with the biblical directive of Deut 19:15, "One witness is not enough... A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

“2) Different individuals have different experiences, perspectives, and recollections, and hearing from several different people would give you a more rounded view of the matter.

“3) One of the things we have found so disturbing throughout this situation is the consistent manipulation of facts by authority figures. In Elder Miller's own letters he has twice accused us of misunderstandings, inaccuracies, and misleading information. While he has yet to offer any substantiation of those accusations we nonetheless find it alarming to have been thus judged without having been fairly heard. We are unwilling to put any single member of our group in the unenviable position of potentially coming away with a different understanding of the discussion than you might take away and have it be their word alone against the word of the conference official.

“4) If there were to be a meeting between yourself and a single representative of our group that representative would most likely be me, and to have a single female meeting a conference official alone, in the evening, would look incredibly bad, no matter how innocent the intent. Good reputations being one of those things that once lost can never be gotten back I'm sure you'll understand why I'm not willing to risk mine on such a situation.”

This was received in reply on Aug. 18, 2008, 9:57am: “I have carefully read your email in regards to the proposed meeting. I believe there is some confusion as to the purpose of such meeting. When I first talked to [Brother H], yes, we talked about the need to have a meeting to address all the issues that are before us. This meeting of course will involved the appropriate individuals from both sides, however, before we do that, as I have tried to explain in my last two emails, I need to have a meeting with one representative of your group to discuss process.

“I believe this step is very important as we outline the process that we must follow in order to resolve these issues. Please work with me on this. I am willing to meet with you in the Washington area. As to the issue of meeting with you as a female, I believe it would be appropriate to meet in a public place such as a restaurant.”

The Group, and particularly Sister L, were not amused by the proposal of a meeting in a restaurant, which would inevitably carry the same sort of negative connotations in the minds of any witnesses as would be suggested by a meeting alone in any other sort of venue. The Group was also puzzled as to what sort of “process” required discussion. The sorts of things our minds went to were rules of order, meeting duration, order of speaking, etc. It did not seem to us that deciding on such things should require an in-person meeting, but if that was all Elder Ramirez had in mind to talk about we concluded that we could offer a compromise on the matter of attendees, which Sister L communicated in the next message.

Aug. 18, 2008, 10:27pm: “I have taken your request for a one-on-one meeting about procedure to our large group. The consensus was that in the interest of finding a swift resolution we could accept an initial one-on-one meeting on the following conditions:

“1) that the meeting be exclusively about process and procedure,
“2) that an audio recording be made of the meeting, and
“3) that it take place at my parents' home with them in the building.”

Elder Ramirez was delighted with this proposal, except for the condition of the recording, “I do not have a problem with most of your conditions. However, I am not in favor of recording the meeting since I feel our goal is simple: to discuss process and procedure. Our notes should be sufficient” (Aug. 19, 2008, 10:23am).

The Group was not impressed with the rejection of their olive branch. Sister L’s next message declared the Group consensus that it must be either three people or a recording. That message also asked whether we couldn’t just have the entire “process” discussion via email and save the bother of arranging an in-person meeting. This question went unanswered. Faced with the choice of three people or a recording, Elder Ramirez elected instead to walk away, “Under the apparent unwillingness to have an unrecorded meeting, it appears to me that it will not be possible for us to meet since I am not open to the idea of having a meeting with a group of three” (Aug. 19, 2008, 9:51pm). By the next morning he had cooled off and come back to the table, but he still refused to budge on the matter of attendees, “As stated before, this initial meeting in my view, does not require the presence of lots of people nor does it merit that we record it” (Aug. 20, 2008, 8:44am).

Next: Matthew 18, Again

Religious

Fairness...But With Honesty, Part 8

Well, after all this, I just hope I will not be accused of being inattentive to Anonymous, his questions, or his concerns. But what perplexes me is how come he won't answer any of the questions I raise? Forget about fair, I mean, I'm a grown-up, I don't expect fair (or balanced) from the Potomac Conference "leadership." I doubt if anyone else expects it, either. But is ignoring everything that I have asked even right?

Anonymous writes, "I have been an Adventist for 38 years and I love my church and the people in it. Do we have challenges? Yes. Do we need to adjust? Yes. Can we do it together? We have to. May it be the case in your church that it is done in love, and a non-confrontational manner, so that others, who are observing this "fight" and sharpening their swords, will humble themselves as well as you have done, sheathed their swords and dropped to their knees as we all seek common ground to serve and honor our God.

Anonymous I want you to show me one, single, solitary, time, I have used the word, "fight," in relationship to you, Bill Miller, Alan DeSilva, or anyone. I'm not fighting. I don't want to fight. Then again, I don't have to fight. I am completely secure in letting God do whatever fighting that needs to be done...if at all.

Frankly, why do you want to make this about fighting? You are the one using words like "swords" and other terms of violence, not me.

I'll close this out with two simple questions. First, what, if anything on this blog is a lie? And second, to date, is the Takoma Park Church better off today, in any measurable sense, in any spiritual sense, in any practical sense, than it was before all this happened?

Fairness...But With Honesty, Part 7

Okay. Time for the "Seventh Inning Stretch."

Now, back to the next paragraph by "Anonymous, "The answer to knowing whether or not you have begun to harden your heart to reconciling truth and relationships with those you are writing against is your willingness to love them in spite of where you believe they are wrong. Would you wash their feet? Would you pray with and for them? Would you be willing to admit where you are wrong if they came to you to admit they were wrong? Would you humbly sit down and seek to reach the common ground that "wins a brother" (Matthew 18) or do you desire a win that satisfies your view, even at the expense of someone else experiencing a loss..."

Continuing to say, or even suggesting, that anyone who posts on this blog has any personal animus against any pastor, any conference official, or anyone for that matter, is patently false, and purposely misleading. It's a tactic to draw attention away form the real issues at hand. That issue is simply showing people the Healthy Church Initiative back story, using the letters, statements, charts, and other documents, developed and proffered by the Initiative proponents themselves. This way when the HCI comes a calling, people will be better prepared to make a decision on whether to accept or reject this deviation from the SDA faith.

You suggest that what we "desire [is] a win that satisfies [our] view, even at the expense of someone else experiencing a loss..." You really don't get it, do you? Don't you see there is nothing for us to win personally? Unlike those who took money to push this plan on unsuspecting SDA Churches, we aren't getting paid to do this. We do this because every SDA Church that has tried the "Growing Healthy Churches," or the "Healthy Church Initiative," or "Team One," or any aliases this nefarious plan works under has failed. If I am wrong, you have had an ample opportunity to show me a church, or churches, or conferences, or unions, or divisions in which it has worked. You haven't. I don't think you can. Instead, you want to make this about us trying to cause someone a "loss." Would that life were that simple...or simplistic?

I take personal responsibility for this blog as it's founder. If you can prove anything, anything at all, that is wrong, or false, or untrue, I will be happy to apologize, admit my bad act, and ask for forgiveness. You see as far as I am concerned, there is only one side I am worried about. That's God's side. So here I stand. If I am wrong, prove it. But if not, Anonymous, I think you really have some thinking, some research, and soul searching to do.

Fairness...But With Honesty, Part 6

More from Anonymous, "One danger in all of this, and in fact I suspect it gets worse with each post of the "epic", is that you begin to believe what you are claiming is the best, most accurate version of the truth. Satan did the same thing, in that at first he knew better with his charge against God, but the more he expounded his belief to the other angels, the more he became to believe his version was THE truth. He was willing to go to war for his version of the truth about God and he lost his place in heaven because of it."

LOL, we don't have to make a claim that ours is the "best, most accurate version of the truth..." Again, we didn't write these documents. We didn't draw the charts. We didn't come up with the Growing Healthy Church Initiative. We didn't try to sell this half-baked plan to unsuspecting people, like so much snake-oil at a medicine show.

Alas, attempting to implicate that we are somehow modeling Satan is pretty lame at this point. If you can't address the questions we raise like an adult, why even bother writing at all? Further, we aren't accusing God of a single, solitary thing. I've said it once, but I'll say it again for any learning challenged students in the class. If you don't like what the documents say, take it up with the authors, not the publisher.

Fairness...But With Honesty, Part 5

The next paragraph Anonymous writes is, "Let me be clear. I harbor no ill-will or grudges against you for your blog. I only wish for all our churches in the world to be focused on God, focused on humanity, and seeking to reconcile the two together quickly so we can spend eternity with all. Trying to work together is better than battling apart. I feel this blog is a very abrupt way of sharing YOUR view, not the whole view. For it has been said, and proven often, there is your version of the truth, their version of the truth, and the cold hard truth in the middle. I suspect it holds true in this case as well, and I hope you will rethink where the truth is in this case."

You keep saying we are sharing our own view. Once again if we were that dishonest, we would simply say the Healthy Church Initiative is bad without providing anything to back up those claims.

This accusation is a sad distraction. It's especially sad because it fails to deal with the actual content of the documents. It ignores what has actually happened, not just in Takoma Park, not just in the Potomac Conference, but in every Adventist Church this pathetic plan has been tried, and failed.

Man, oh man, talk about one sided! At least we open our blog so that people like you can have a say. If you know as much about the "situation at Takoma Park and the Potomac Conference" as you say you do, you can't say the reverse has been true.

How many times do I need to say this is the reason we are publishing the actual documents, written and published by your guys? The kind of relativism you speak of falls by the wayside, when you publish actual documentation. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, but the documentation is there for everyone to see. And that's you real problem, isn't it? With the actual writings of Alan DeSilva and Bill Miller out there in cyber-space, you've go no where to run, and no where to hide. That's why we have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in America. Put information out there, unfiltered, and let people make up their own minds.

Bottom line, if anything we have published is false, prove it. If you can't, then what are we talking about?

Fairness...But With Honesty, Part 4

The bad thing about giving one's word, either as a Christian or a gentleman, is that you are bound by honor to keep it. Therefore, I will continue to address the comments by Anonymous. He writes, "I think what has happened here, and is clearly evident in your writing, is that you have ceased to find the common ground and are now wanting the higher ground at whatever expense of others is needed. I think this is evident in that you feel it is important to share letters and other insights to others so you can beat up the person who wrote the letters. Is this Christ's way to get a win-win for everyone? I suspect if you stood back and thought and prayed on it you would find out it isn't."

Ahhhhhh, no. As I've questioned in previous posts, how can one achieve a "win-win," between truth and error, honesty and deceit, light and dark. To use your interesting logic, I suppose the win-win between hot and cold in luke warm. So are you now trying to tell me that luke warm is a good thing?

Let me put this another way, what was the win-win for Saul? What was the win-win for Goliath? Judas? Ananias and Sapphira? What's the win-win, for, oh let's see...Satan?!?!? How's that going to work?

Honestly, if our intention was to beat anyone up, we wouldn't bother with posting the documents we've used. These documents were provided by the people who are pushing the Healthy Church Initiative. If they are damning, don't blame us. We weren't the ones who wrote the documents. We're only the messengers. If you don't like what the documents say, or how confused, or self-serving, or duplicitous they might be, take it up with Alan DeSilva and Bill Miller.

If you know as much about Takoma Park and the Potomac Conference as you say you do, I think you will agree that if we really wanted to do something as childish as what you continually seek to accuse of, there is other information, and other documents equally true and more far more personally damning we could present.

For the umpteenth time, we are publishing these documents so that others will have information to make informed decisions should they be asked to go on this journey. Bottom line, it is, what it is.

Fairness...But With Honesty, Part 3

My parents, my belief in Christ, and my academic training all taught me to respect people. Respect their persons, their property, their feelings, and their ideas. This is the reason why I am going into detail to answer the points raised by Anonymous.

The second paragraph Anonymous wrote today was, "I am fully aware of the entire situation at Takoma Park, and other churches in the Potomac Conference. Stephen Covey suggests that we seek first to understand before we try to be understood. Have you tried this approach? Have you looked for the best in the situation instead of the worst? Have you tried to see what the desired outcome of the changes is for TP? Perhaps you could agree with the outcome and then work TOGETHER on the process that achieves the desired outcome."

This is a wee bit redundant of the first paragraph, nevertheless, I should respond. It's the respectful thing to do, and with no disrespect intended, I have to doubt when you say that "[You are] fully aware of the entire situation at Takoma Park, and other churches in the Potomac Conference." If this statement were accurate, you would know how much we agonised about taking up this cross. You would know all the times we, individually and as a group, have approached Elders Alan DeSilva, Bill Miller, Ray Pichette, Jorge Ramirez, and David Weigley, in a spirit of Christian charity, only to be ignored and rebuffed. You would know the fear most who work in the Potomac Conference office have of speaking out against this evil. You would admit that Potomac Conference has trouble getting qualified people now because of the willful decision to go down this dark path. You would know of Conference officials and workers that have been hounded for taking a Protestant Christian stand on principle. And I think you would be less likely to cast allusions to us behaving like Satan.

Most un-becoming, but as the Bible says, "Forgive..."

As for Stephen Covey, well, I've discussed him in the previous post. I can only pray that your mention of him is not a foreshadow that the Potomac Conference is now planning on inculcating Mormon doctrines into our Church.

There are earlier posts in the beginning of this blog that I wish you would go back and read. We did try, and continue to try to understand what these people are doing and why. We have also looked at the fruits of what has happened.

You boast of your familiarity with what has happened at Takoma Park and the Potomac Conference. I will put it to you again. What good has come of it? Any of it? Further, if this were of God, would there be this confusion? This is at least the second time I have asked you this, and yet you remain silent. What's up with that? Seriously?

You ask, "Have you tried to see what the desired outcome of the changes [are] for TP?" Do you really want to have this conversation? Seriously?

Professionally speaking, process and outcome are linked. In other words, the outcome one wants is determined by the process used. In other words, if you want to get to NYC from DC, you don't buy a ticket that is singly bound for Alabama. It's absurd. That said, it's ridiculous to suggest that any sane person "envision an outcome" without looking at the process that is being used. Looking at the process in the case of the "Great Leap Forward" at Takoma Park, the isn't just cracked, the process in on crack. And look at the devastation in it's wake!

C'mon Anonymous, 'fess up. Would this process be this confused, and problematic if it were of God? What about the Biblical injunction to conduct things in good order and discipline? Again, I ask you, if this process and outcome were honest, why don't your friends take this before General Conference? If it worked in any of the other SDA churches or Conferences, why aren't we hearing about it's successes? Take Jim Bauer, for example. A "Fellow Traveller" of Bill Miller, Bauer pushed this process in the Rocky Mountain Conference. Not only did it not work, Bauer wasn't re-elected as Conference President for a second term because of it.

As a Christian, something as nebulous as a "desired outcome" is no where near important as actual outcome. It's as though you are saying that the ends justify the means, and that is completely wrong.

We've seen the actual outcomes in churches from North Carolina to New Zealand. Both the process and the actual outcomes have compelled Conference, Union, and General Conference officials to speak against it, ranging from Tom Mostert, to Richard O'Ffil, to the Michigan Conference President, to various conference presidents throughout California and Nevada.

Seriously, are you in a state of complete psychological denial that you are not seeing this?

The outcome we seek is an SDA church comprised of people living in the neighborhood immediately around the Takoma Park Church. We seek a Christ centered Church. A loving Church. A working, vibrant, Church. A Church were honesty and transparency are the coins of the realm, not a wounded, limping, dysfunctional, commuter church, devoid of SDA principles and beliefs, and depending on the writings of Ric Warren, oh, and Stephen Covey, as cheap substitutes for Ellen' G. White.

And in the name of Jesus, don't believe we should be compelled to settle for anything less.

The Epic, Pt. 31

A meeting of the Church Ministries Board was held on August 10, 2008. Arriving board members were surprised to find members of the building committee in the room. When the meeting began Pastor DeSilva “explained” that since the building committee was voted by the business meeting to be a subcommittee of the Ministries Board that its members were also members of the Ministries Board and entitled to attend Ministries Board meetings. This statement was faulty for so many reasons that the attendees were at a loss for where to begin objecting, so it went unchallenged.

Before detailing those objections we should include a little more history about the building committee. As mentioned earlier in the Epic, it was formed as a subcommittee of the finance committee. Now, when a committee makes a subcommittee of itself it is entitled to choose the members of that subcommittee without any outside input, and the subcommittee is to report back to its “parent” committee, and no one else. In this case, however, the building committee’s membership had been approved by the standing nominating committee, which is a procedure that would be expected if this was an independent committee that would report to the business meeting or some other committee specified by the church as a whole. But, there was no follow-through in taking the standing nominating committee’s recommendations to the church body for a vote, without which their involvement was moot.

Pastor DeSilva’s announcement regarding the status of the building committee and its membership was faulty for the following reasons. 1) The business meeting had never taken a vote of any kind regarding the creation of this committee. Its existence had simply been announced as fact. 2) The building committee, when announced, was declared to be a subcommittee of the finance committee, not the Ministries Board. 3) The only committee the building committee should have been permitted to report to was its parent committee, the finance committee. 4) Even if the building committee had been a subcommittee of the Ministries Board, membership in a subcommittee does not give automatic membership in the parent committee. 5) The building committee could not possibly be a subcommittee of the Ministries Board because, per the duty lists prepared by Pastor DeSilva, the Ministries Board had no authorization to deal with the matters the building committee was tasked with handling. 6) The building committee couldn’t be a subcommittee of the Ministries Board because the Ministries Board hadn’t had any hand in its creation or the selection of its members.

Declaring the building committee a subcommittee of the Ministries Board enabled Pastor DeSilva to bypass the finance committee and increase his influence on the selection of a contractor to repair the air conditioning. The building committee had so far been reporting to the finance committee as it was supposed to, which Pastor DeSilva was finding inconvenient because the finance committee was insisting procedural propriety in contractor selection. He had asked the finance committee for a vote to enable the building committee to report directly to the business meeting with its contractor recommendation, thereby skipping the finance committee’s oversight. This request had been refused. He was now doing the same with the Ministries Board.

The first 40 minutes of the meeting were taken up with a report and discussion about the nature of the air conditioning problem and the various recommendations on how to fix it. Finally, a member of the Group asked Pastor DeSilva what action he wanted from the Ministries Board on the subject. He replied that he wanted the Ministries Board to empower the building committee to report directly to the business meeting with a contractor recommendation. At this the Group member pointed out that that action would not be appropriate because the Ministries Board was not empowered to deal with issues such as contractor selection. She pointed Pastor DeSilva back to the duty list that he himself had prepared for the committee (worship planning, responsible for developing a yearly calendar of events and celebrations, responsible for keeping the church missionally focused, leadership development, develop Mission and Vision, develop long and short term vision goals) and observed that this was what the congregation understood the Ministries Board to be authorized to do—this and nothing more.

This observation angered Pastor DeSilva. His response was, “I wrote that list, let me interpret it!” The next 15 minutes were taken up by a tirade from Pastor DeSilva complaining about the Group, and how he couldn’t get anything done because every meeting was taken up by disruptions from the Group. He further complained about how incredibly mistreated he had been by the Group, and cited as evidence of this a “horrible” and “threatening” letter he had received. He declared that he was not going to accept any more letters from us, and that if we had anything more to say that we must say it to the conference, and that if he was wrong the conference would tell him so. (By the way, the “threatening letter” was identified in a conversation after the meeting as being the cover letter we had sent with Elder Bediako’s letter. His claim was that the timetable included with the request for reconsideration qualified as a threat. We observe that in order to be a threat there would need to be an implication of negative consequences for failing to grant the request, which was entirely absent.)

The motion to allow the building committee to report directly to the business meeting passed.

The next item on the agenda was listed simply as “disciplinary action.” As you will recall, Pastor DeSilva had aborted a sneak attempt to discipline a member he didn’t like at a business meeting on January 28, 2008. This was the same matter. He made a token effort to explain the charges against the member and claimed that the Potomac Conference had a file of evidence against this man that was “this thick!” He offered to ask the conference to meet with the elders and detail this evidence if anyone felt such a need. When asked, he claimed that the congregation had already made the visitation and reclamation efforts required by the Church Manual in disciplinary matters. He asked the Ministries Board to recommend to the business meeting that this individual be removed from membership. The Group found this inappropriate for the same reason that the motion regarding empowering the building committee was inappropriate, but since the argument of its not being within the job description of the Ministries Board had already been made and ignored by Pastor DeSilva, there was no point in making it again in this instance. Pastor DeSilva got his much-desired recommendation for discipline.


Next: Reasoning Together


Religious

Fairness...But With Honesty, Part 2

As previously mentioned, Anonymous makes the following statement, "I have not taken offense to any one thing, only pointed out that in creating a blog, where you feel it is important to expose every letter written and meeting held between Takoma Park and the Conference to anyone who stops by to read about it, is in many ways less Christ-like than the things you are accusing the Potomac Conference, and leadership of Takoma Park Church of doing. I suggest if you were serious about your desire to approach in a Matthew 18 way, you would immediately shut down the blog, drop on your knees and ask God for a humble heart and the best, most effective way to handle what you perceive is a problem. That would be Christ's way of doing it. You may have have good intentions, but even Satan thought he was doing what was right when he deceived one third of the angels in heaven."

Well, I am certainly glad to see that you are not offended. This was, if you would be kind enough to recall, one of the several questions I put to you directly regarding your September 15, 2009 post. I am curious, though. Instead of answering the other questions I put to you regarding what you wrote, you ignored them. Very well, as a Christian I will not return like for like and answer what you asked of us. If however, I fail, you will let me know where I failed so I can correct myself, won't you?

It would be helpful if you would say exactly what problem you have with reprinting documents. In most cases, these letters and other documents were supplied by those you defend. I could see you point if we only printed what we wrote or said. Then your accusation of bias and prejudice would have greater weight and merit. Don't take my word for it. Ask any legitimate scholar, historian, or academic...or judge. If you want the facts, go to the documents. This way no one has to rely on any one's personal interpretation of what has happened. You simply need to look at the documents. They speak for themselves.

Honestly, I wish you would do me the simple courtesy of answering the questions I raise. Have there been any documents we have published that are lies? Have any of the documents that have been published been falsified, in any way? If yes, I would gladly concede that your arguments have some merit. The simply fact that you have not to date, nor cannot in any way say that we have lied speaks volumes.

This blog allows us to get a "headcount," as it were, of the numbers of people that read it. The numbers are growing. As stated in a previous post, our mission is to put the facts forward so others are not duped into the same mistake. Which takes me to your next accusation.

You assert that publishing this blog is not "Christ-like." Thankfully, I know to well my own sins, and the number of times hourly I have had to ask for forgiveness, to dare to speak for Christ. I shudder at the thought. But using you logic of shutting down this blog because it airs, "inconvenient truths," is like saying you want abolish the Bible. It would be reasonable to imagine that Jacob, or Lot, or Solomon, or Abraham, or Peter, or David, would have cringed if they had an inkling that countless generations would read of their misdeeds. I'm no theologian, and I'm certainly no SDA pastor, but I suppose THE WORD records these facts as tools from which we can learn.

Next, you bring up Matthew 18. Please tell me why exactly this Chapter is applicable to the entire situation, or any specific part? The Potomac Conference was asked, but they never explained why? Bill Miller was asked but he never explained why? The Church Manual doesn't even site Matthew 18? We, like other Adventists, in other churches in North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, and other places, assert that if you want us to abandon the path set by God, and followed by the founder of our faith, than take your desires to the General Conference in Open Session, that the entire Church can be heard on he subject. You all don't want to do this. So how can truth and error be reconciled?

Seriously, both Christian honesty and and the honor of our faith demands answer here.

You ask if we have prayed. Weekly, daily, hourly since this darkness descended on our church. To prayer, we've add blood, sweat, toil, tears, and sleepless nights, begging God to uncover the eyes of the men who have shamed God's Remnant Church. I will say this to you, or anyone else, as many times as the question is asked. This is not about hatred towards any pastors or any Conference officials that are leading us down this treacherous path. I, for one do not hate these men. I pray for them, I forgive them. But in good Christian conscience I will not carry water for them, to water this evil fruit.

Given the fact that Stephen Covey is a Mormon, and given what Mormon's teach about spirits, African-Americans, life-after death, and the brotherhood of Jesus with Satan, amongst other things, please forgive me for totally ignoring anything that Stephen Covey has to say. I would rather head Edmund Burke's admonition, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

This, Anonymous, is why we have published, and will continue to publish this blog and may God guide us.

Fairness...But With Honesty

As a matter of honesty; spiritual honesty, intellectual honesty, and academic honesty, we do not erase an comments as unfortunately, and erroneously, suggested by "Anonymous." In fact, when someone writes to support wrong doing, we will feature that writer's comment gladly.

After all, why not? This blog is about publishing facts.

The same "Anonymous," for whatever reason posted the same message twice, once under two different blog posts, both on October 5, 2009. Odd, but there you are...

Because of the length of Anonymous's comment, and the issues raised, I will (1) reprint the comments in it's entirety, and (2) respond to the comments in 6 separate posts, addressing each of Anonymous's paragraphs separately.

So, here goes...

Annonymous writes, "I have not taken offense to any one thing, only pointed out that in creating a blog, where you feel it is important to expose every letter written and meeting held between Takoma Park and the Conference to anyone who stops by to read about it, is in many ways less Christ-like than the things you are accusing the Potomac Conference, and leadership of Takoma Park Church of doing. I suggest if you were serious about your desire to approach in a Matthew 18 way, you would immediately shut down the blog, drop on your knees and ask God for a humble heart and the best, most effective way to handle what you perceive is a problem. That would be Christ's way of doing it. You may have have good intentions, but even Satan thought he was doing what was right when he deceived one third of the angels in heaven.

I am fully aware of the entire situation at Takoma Park, and other churches in the Potomac Conference. Stephen Covey suggests that we seek first to understand before we try to be understood. Have you tried this approach? Have you looked for the best in the situation instead of the worst? Have you tried to see what the desired outcome of the changes is for TP? Perhaps you could agree with the outcome and then work TOGETHER on the process that achieves the desired outcome.I think what has happened here, and is clearly evident in your writing, is that you have ceased to find the common ground and are now wanting the higher ground at whatever expense of others is needed. I think this is evident in that you feel it is important to share letters and other insights to others so you can beat up the person who wrote the letters. Is this Christ's way to get a win-win for everyone? I suspect if you stood back and thought and prayed on it you would find out it isn't.

Let me be clear. I harbor no ill-will or grudges against you for your blog. I only wish for all our churches in the world to be focused on God, focused on humanity, and seeking to reconcile the two together quickly so we can spend eternity with all. Trying to work together is better than battling apart. I feel this blog is a very abrupt way of sharing YOUR view, not the whole view. For it has been said, and proven often, there is your version of the truth, their version of the truth, and the cold hard truth in the middle. I suspect it holds true in this case as well, and I hope you will rethink where the truth is in this case.

One danger in all of this, and in fact I suspect it gets worse with each post of the "epic", is that you begin to believe what you are claiming is the best, most accurate version of the truth. Satan did the same thing, in that at first he knew better with his charge against God, but the more he expounded his belief to the other angels, the more he became to believe his version was THE truth. He was willing to go to war for his version of the truth about God and he lost his place in heaven because of it.

The answer to knowing whether or not you have begun to harden your heart to reconciling truth and relationships with those you are writing against is your willingness to love them in spite of where you believe they are wrong. Would you wash their feet? Would you pray with and for them? Would you be willing to admit where you are wrong if they came to you to admit they were wrong? Would you humbly sit down and seek to reach the common ground that "wins a brother" (Matthew 18) or do you desire a win that satisfies your view, even at the expense of someone else experiencing a loss...

I have been an Adventist for 38 years and I love my church and the people in it. Do we have challenges? Yes. Do we need to adjust? Yes. Can we do it together? We have to. May it be the case in your church that it is done in love, and a non-confrontational manner, so that others, who are observing this "fight" and sharpening their swords, will humble themselves as well as you have done, sheathed their swords and dropped to their knees as we all seek common ground to serve and honor our God."

Please follow the responses to these comments in the following 6 posts.

"Are You Better Off Today..."

At least two presidential candidates in my lifetime have come before the American people and asked a simple question, "Are you better off today, than you were..."

There are a lot of people reading this blog. Good. I'd like to put a question to those of you who are pushing Team One, or the Healthy Church Initiative, or those who belong to congregations who have substituted the Church Manual for "Staff Lead Churches" and consultants. Are you or your churches better off today than you were when all this started?

Are you happier? Is your church growing? Are you told the truth by your pastors or conference officials that back this? Is your church or your conference able to attract, and most importantly retain, talented pastors and other professionals?

When you ask your "Growing Healthy Churches" pastor, or Conference President a straight question, does your gut tell you that you are getting an honest answer?

Can they even look you in the eye?

I'm curious. I would really like to know.

"Not to Put Too Fine a Point on Things, BUT...."

There are a few things that are discussed in the comments to this blog that raise HUGE points. In the interest of everyone reading, quite a few people in fact, judging by the blog census, there are a few comments I would like to address directly.

Let's start with the post of September 15, 2009. Before going any further, please go back and re-read the posting, specifically, the letter sent by Potomac Conference President, William Miller. In response to that post, we received this:

Anonymous said...
How you feel the letter was dismissive is beyond me. It does, however, prove what I have always known. We see what we want to see. That being, if you want to be offended, you surely will be. As you clearly are. And believe it or not, your real character came out with your response to Bill Miller in the parentheses. It is clear it's all about you, and your desire to control the church. What you have claimed your pastor is doing is in fact what you are doing. And along the way you will destroy anyone, or any process that gets in the way.I would second what the Conference president stated, that being if this process and discussion is fruitful to bring people to Christ, it's the right motive. I cannot judge, but from what I have seen in these writings, your motives have nothing to do with winning people to Jesus, only gaining a victory that satisfies your agenda.I wonder if you will delete this comment, as you most likely delete all comments that are not "for" you.

In a word, whoa. Both the post, and the response, miss out on a few very important points. So, I'd like to take a moment and fill in a few gaps. Well, okay, several gaps. :)

This blog has never been about "traditionalism," over the "contemporary." This had never been about control of this or any other church. Neither this blog, nor the struggle against a system of church government that is neither Adventist, nor Protestant, was designed to be personal. This isn't about ad hominem attacks. This certainly isn't about destruction. These sad allegations are distractions. This blog is about putting the facts forward.

For me facts, like honesty, are important. Indeed, facts aren't just important, facts are essential when one is trying to make a decision. Unlike any of the other writers, or responders to this blog, I was a member of the Takoma Park Church Board when the vote was taken to bring in a consultant. Had I know the fact that the consultant would have advocated a course of action that was detrimental to my church family, as well as other SDA churches from the USA to New Zealand, I would never have voted in support of bringing in a consultant. Indeed had we known the fact that SDA churches have suffered most grievously for abandoning an SDA form of democratic church government, in a sorry exchange for an "Accountability Board" and a "Ministry Board," none of us would have voted in favor this.

I started this blog with the simple idea of putting the facts out there. Let no church, nor any individual, suffer for want of truth.

Now with that said, let's look at Elder Miller's letter of June 17, 2008. The immediate thought that crossed my mind when I first read the letter was, "How bizarre?" This wasn't then, not is it now, an attack on Elder Miller; I'm just saying...

First, Elder Miller responded to a phone call for a meeting by personally attending it himself, along with Dr. Ray Pichette, and local (Takoma Park Church) elders and officers, held at a Potomac Conference property in Silver Spring. The meeting and the use of the property was scheduled, if not by Elder Miller ditrectly, then by his staff. How in the world was that an unofficial meeting? I could see it, maybe, if all these people just happened to bump into each other, coming from locations as different and diverse as Staunton, VA, to Hillandale, MD, to Haggertown, MD, by random chance of course, at the Home Depot on 410, in the middle of the Winter, on a weekday evening, and just started talking. I could see where that might have been called an "unofficial meeting."

Having been there at that meeting though, I can tell you that there was nothing random about it. It was planned. And by my way of thinking, if a meeting of that type was planned and scheduled, it was official.

However, if the Potomac Conference President wants to call it an "unofficial meeting." who am I to say otherwise? But here's what I don't get. Does the Potomac Conference President, or any clergy for that matter have a perceived "God-given right" to determine the definition of "is?" Because if that's the case, we have a whole different problem afoot.

Next, please turn in you Bible to Mathew 18. Whatever version you want. Now, please parse through it. I own a Bible entitled, "The Word: The Bible from 26 Translations." I used this "Worthy Tool" to parse through that chapter. As I read it, Matthew 18 speaks to important issues such as who will be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, how wrong it is to cause others to stumble in their Christian walk, that Jesus came to save those that are lost, what to do if your brother/sister in Christ wrongs you, an admonition to forgive, one of the more famous Biblical promises, and, arguably, the most famous Biblical parable. I see nothing, whatsoever, at all that talks to restoring an SDA church who's clerical leadership has taken it astray.

Elder Miller says it does. I don't see it. Maybe if I read Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic, I could understand Matthew 18 better. Maybe, in his view, we are wrong for wanting an Adventist Church to be an Adventist Church. Perhaps, he thinks that because we are struggling to restore our Church, we have somehow become "lost." If that's the case, then I can see how Matthew 18 applies. If yes, then I take comfort in the promise of Matthew 18 that Jesus will come in search of us and find us. However, if struggling to return our Church to a right path makes us "lost," I'd be more than a bit concerned if I were the one or ones that caused us to be lost...

Now let's look at "Anonymous's" response.

At the beginning of this blog there was an open invitation for everyone and anyone to post their thoughts about the stealth program to change the SDA Church government. I say stealth, because if various pastors, conference presidents, and other high Church officials want the same system used by Ric Warren, Robert Schuller, T.D. Jakes, etc., use instead of what Ellen G. White said came from God, then fine. But do it the right way and go before the General Conference in Open Session and present your plan. For me this was always the issue. If you are going to do something, anything, you do it the right way.
I've studied the "Church Growth Movement" in great detail, along with it's various incarnations, i.e., The Saddleback Church, The Purpose Driven Church, The Healthy Church Initiative, Team One, etc. Further, because of my academic work, I've had to study Group Dynamics, Organizational Behaviour, and Transformational Leadership. I've also read the Bible. You don't need to change your Church organizational structure in order to win souls for Christ. You don't. You simply don't. Take a look at the local Hispanic Churches, or the Ethiopian Church that meets in the basement of the Takoma Park. They adhere to the Church Manual. The have legitimate Church Boards. These Churches are growing. This is in stark contrast to the main body of Takoma Park Church which is losing people. In mathematics, that's called an "Inverse Relationship."

I wonder what Elder Miller would call it?

Anyway, Anonymous, here's my question. You suggest that your concern is bringing people to Jesus. Mine, too. So, I'd like you to show me one person, at one SDA church in Maryland, Virginia, Minnesota, Washington State, Washington, DC, Colorado, or anywhere else, that came into this faith as a result of the Healthy Church Initiative. Just one.

See, I believe that sharing what we know about God, about Jesus, facts from the Bible, and the soon return of Jesus is vitally important. But if we invite people to know Jesus and then be part of the SDA Church, I want people to come to an honest Church, with all the facts on the table. Nothing more, but by the Grace of God, nothing less.
Last, in you message, Anonymous, you make a lot of personal attacks. It's as though someone has offended you personally. Perhaps you feel as though you have a legitmate Matthew 18 grievance. Very well. I started this blog. If you feel you been wronged, tell me. Tell me how you feel you've been wronged, and why. If you can tell us specifically how you are wronged, I will apologize and make amends.

The Epic, Pt. 30

Two weeks later, on August 5, 2008, Brother H was surprised by the following email from Elder Ramirez:

“Hello [Brother H],

“After further review of the correspondence between Bill and [Elder B], I have come to the conclusion that for the purpose of process and clarity, it will be best that I meet with only one representative of the group in question. In addition, I am also requesting that we meet here in the Conference office at your earliest convenience. I am sorry if this will create confusion, but I believe this was part of the understanding from the last correspondence between Bill and [Elder B]. Please let me know when you or another representative of the group would like to meet.

“I pray that God will continue to guide us all to a healthy resolution.

“Jorge Ramirez
“Vice President for Administration
“Potomac Conference”

Brother H wrote back on August 6, 2008 that the Group would like to stick to the original agreement of having three representatives present and holding the meeting in the Washington area. On August 12, 2008 he received the following response:

“Hello [Brother H],

“I am in total agreement with you as to the importance of this initial meeting. This is why we must be careful how we proceed as we seek to review process. As stated in my previous email, the reason for modifying what we had previously discussed is based on careful review of the last correspondence between [Elder B] and Bill. In his last response to [Elder B]’s letter, Bill clearly states the details of the next step. She or a “designee of the disaffected party” was to contact me to set up a meeting to discuss process. I need to respect this. That is why I am asking to meet with one representative of the group. Now as to the location, I am willing to meet with you or whoever you appoint in the Washington area. I want to be sensitive to your work related and financial burdens. Please let me know if we can move forward with these arrangements.

“Praying for you and the Takoma Park Church,

“Jorge Ramírez
“Vice President for Administration
“Potomac Conference”

This is a totally bogus line of reasoning. The initial contact that Elder Miller stipulated in his letter was made by Brother H when he placed the first phone call requesting the meeting. Even if we assumed all statements made by Elder Miller to be binding (which we don’t) the requirement of the initial contact was already fulfilled and had nothing whatsoever to do with how many people should be included in the actual meeting. This was a simple case of the conference looking for an excuse to renegotiate the agreement for more favorable terms.

Next: Reinterpreted

Religious

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 15

"The greatest want of the world is the want of men—men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall" (Education, p. 57).

"God's servants are not excused if they shun pointed testimony. They must reprove and rebuke wrong, and not suffer sin upon a brother. You have often stretched out your hands to shield persons from the censure which they deserved, and the correction which the Lord designed they should have. If these persons fail to reform, their lack is set to your account. Instead of watching for their danger, and warning them of it, you have cast your influence against those who have followed the convictions of duty, and reproved and warned the erring.

"These are perilous times for the church of God, and the greatest danger now is that of self-deception. Individuals professing to believe the truth are blind to their own danger and wrongs. They reach the standard of piety which has been set up by their friends and themselves, they are fellowshiped by their brethren, and are satisfied, while they entirely fail to reach the gospel standard set up by our divine Lord. If they regard iniquity in their hearts, the Lord will not hear them. But with many it is not only regarded in the heart, but openly carried out in the life; yet in many cases the wrongdoers receive no rebuke" (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 214).

"If they will stand together, sustain one another, and faithfully reprove and rebuke wrong, they will soon cause it to wither. But Satan has controlled these matters very much. Private members and even preachers have sympathized with disaffected ones who have been reproved for their wrongs, and division of feeling has been the result. The one who has ventured out and discharged his disagreeable duty by faithfully meeting error and wrong, is grieved and wounded that he receives not the fullest sympathy of his preaching brethren. He becomes discouraged in discharging these painful duties, lays down the cross, and withholds the pointed testimony. His soul is shut up in darkness, and the church suffer for the lack of the very testimony which God designed should live among His people. Satan's object is gained when the faithful testimony is suppressed. Those who so readily sympathize with the wrong consider it a virtue; but they realize not that they are exerting a scattering influence, and that they themselves help to carry out Satan's plans.

"I saw that many souls have been destroyed by their brethren unwisely sympathizing with them, when their only hope was to be left to see and realize the full extent of their wrongs. But as they eagerly accept the sympathy of unwise brethren, they receive the idea that they are abused; and if they attempt to retrace their steps, they make halfhearted work. They divide the matter to suit their natural feelings, lay blame upon the reprover, and so patch up the matter. It is not probed to the bottom, and is not healed, and they again fall into the same wrong, because they were not left to feel the extent of their wrong, and humble themselves before God, and let Him build them up. False sympathizers have worked in direct opposition to the mind of Christ and ministering angels. (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 212, 213).