The request in Elder Ramirez's letter of Oct. 30 that we provide a written statement "outlining all the issues at hand" left the Group bewildered, since we had already sent the conference several letters describing the problems in detail. After careful consideration the Group decided to keep this required statement brief and general. To our minds, all of the problems Takoma Park was facing stemmed from a single issue—failure to adhere to the Church Manual. Our statement could have gone on at great length about all of the problems resulting from this failure, but we believed that this was the heart of the matter, and that by mentioning it we were encompassing all of the resulting problems as well.
Our issue statement was emailed to Elder Ramirez by Elder B on December 12: "The issue is: The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual."
Unfortunately, there were a couple of spelling errors in the issue statement that Elder B emailed to Elder Ramirez. The statement should have read, "The issue is: The present governance structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the Church Manual." Much to our chagrin, Elder Ramirez chose to quote this statement with the typing errors intact in all subsequent meetings and correspondence until we made a point of correcting them some months later.
Timeline note: The holidays, schedule conflicts, and inclement weather all contributed to delay the first of the meetings specified by Elder Ramirez's Oct. 30 letter until early February 2009. We will return to this thread of the story when we reach it, but there were some significant local events which occurred in the meantime which we will be describing first.
Next: Mission and Vision
Religious
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Lord's Anointed, Pt. 2
What is the relationship between clergy and laity? Is it ruler/subject? Boss/employee? Parent/child? Brother/brother? Who is ultimately in charge of the church? What is the proper attitude toward the one that is in charge?
“The interests of Christ's kingdom call for diligence and faithfulness in as much greater degree as spiritual and eternal things are of more importance than temporal things. There must be no feeble working, no sluggish, tardy action, for this would imperil our own souls and the souls of others…
“What general would undertake the command of an army while the officers under him refused to obey until they had satisfied themselves that his command was a reasonable one? Such a course would mean loss to the entire army. It would weaken the hands of the soldiers. The question would arise in their minds, Is there not a better way? But even though there be a better way, the orders must be obeyed, or defeat and disaster would result. A moment's delay, and the advantage that would have been gained is lost.
“Every good soldier is implicit and prompt in the obedience he renders to his captain. The will of the commander is to be the will of the soldier. Sometimes the soldier may be surprised at the command given, but he is not to stop to inquire the reason for it. When the order of the captain crosses the wishes of the soldier, he is not to hesitate and complain, saying, I see no consistency in these plans. He must not frame excuses and leave his work undone. Such soldiers would not be accepted as fitted to engage in earthly conflicts, and much more will they not be accepted in Christ's army. When Christ commands, His soldiers must obey without hesitation. They must be faithful soldiers, or He cannot accept them. Freedom of choice is given to every soul, but after a man has enlisted, he is required to be as true as steel, come life or come death” (Manuscript 7 1/2, 1900).
God is in charge of the church. To God, our General, we own absolute obedience. But what is the role of the clergy?
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
“The believer in Christ is consecrated to high and holy purpose. Before the service of the royal priesthood the glory of the Aaronic priesthood is eclipsed. Called according to God's purpose, set apart by grace divine, invested with Christ's righteousness, imbued with the Holy Spirit, offering up the sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, the true believer is indeed a representative of the Redeemer. Upon such a worshiper, God looks with delight” (Review and Herald, October 30, 1900 par. 7).
The first thing that should be noted is that the word “clergy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible. The word and the concept behind it are of human invention. God never intended for the work of spreading the gospel to be relegated to a few full-time individuals. God’s plan is for all of His people to be His messengers. The role of clergy to laity should be one of facilitator-participant. When all are active in the work as God intends the purpose of the clergy is to coordinate, facilitate, and advise—to be the “point person.” This role calls for respect, as can be seen in the following scriptural example.
“Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, 'My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.' At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, 'God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!'
“Those who were standing near Paul said, 'You dare to insult God's high priest?'
“Paul replied, 'Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people'" (Acts 23:1-5).
Notice that Paul’s action here is one of losing his temper and hurling an insult at the high priest. This is clearly unacceptable behavior toward a leader, as Paul himself quickly acknowledges. This does not, however, preclude disagreeing with or even disobeying leaders respectfully.
“Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.'
"Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" (Acts 5:27-29).
The apostles here appeal to a concept common to both scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy: human leadership, whether religious or secular, should be followed only as long as it is in obedience to God’s principles and directions. If that leadership ceases to follow God, the true follower of God is obligated to disobey that leadership.
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:35-37).
“We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
“There are those who have stood as managers and yet have not managed after God's order. Some have served on committees here and committees there, and have felt free to dictate just what the committee should say and do, claiming that those who did not carry out these ideas were sinning against Christ. When the power of God is manifest in the church and in the management of the various departments of his work, when it is evident that the managers are themselves controlled by the Holy Spirit of God, then it is time to consider that you are safe in accepting what they may say, under God. But you must know that you are guided by the principles of the Word of the living God. The Great General of armies, the Captain of the Lord's host, is our leader” (General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901 par. 32).
In other words, it is the responsibility of each individual church member to verify that interpretations, assertions, and recommendations made by clergy (or even lay leadership) are biblically accurate, and act accordingly.
“When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 493).
The Seventh-day Adventist Church operates by representative government because there is safety in collective wisdom. In order for this to work properly all members of the collective must be informed and involved. If members choose not to be involved, or show up but defer to the opinion of the clergy rather than expressing their own, then the benefit of collective wisdom is not attained. There is great danger in this because, as the statement above points out, it is far too easy for Satan to target and influence the opinion of a single individual in a leadership position to whom others leave the decision making.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body . . . . God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 9, pp. 260, 261).
When it comes to the principle of individual thought and judgment there is one exception—decisions made by the General Conference in Session. Ironically, in a situation where at nearly every hand the Group is being told to submit independent judgment to the wisdom of the church the one expression of collective wisdom which God ordains to supercede independent judgment is the one the local clergy are trying to ignore: decisions made by the General Conference in Session as expressed in the Church Manual.
“One Rule for Directors and 'Inferiors.'--Let men in responsible positions consider to a purpose that there is not one rule of action for the men in authority and another for the class who are expected to submit to their decisions; not one rule for the director and another for the supposed inferiors. I say supposed, for many who are treated as inferiors are men whose principles and course of action are such as heaven approves…
“I have risen a long while before day to write these words, for I see a great deal that needs to be done in heart and practice for men in authority who are very officious to make laws and restrictions for others, while they themselves do not obey the law of God” (The Publishing Ministry, pp.130, 131).
“The minister is not to rule imperiously over the flock entrusted to his care, but to be their ensample, and to show them the way to heaven. Following the example of Christ, he should intercede with God for the people of his care till he sees that his prayers are answered… The principles that rule in heaven should rule upon earth; the same love that animates the angels, the same purity and holiness that reign in heaven, should, as far as possible, be reproduced upon earth. God holds the minister responsible for the power he exercises, but does not justify His servants in perverting that power into despotism over the flock of their care” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 4, pp.267, 268).
Our final observation in exploring the relationship between clergy and laity is that we are all on a level playing field before God. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one gets a free pass because of his/her profession.
“We are to recognize human government as an ordinance of divine appointment, and teach obedience to it as a sacred duty, within its legitimate sphere. But when its claims conflict with the claims of God, we must obey God rather than men. God's word must be recognized as above all human legislation. A "Thus saith the Lord" is not to be set aside for a "Thus saith the church" or a "Thus saith the state." The crown of Christ is to be lifted above the diadems of earthly potentates” (Gospel Workers, pp.389, 390).
“The interests of Christ's kingdom call for diligence and faithfulness in as much greater degree as spiritual and eternal things are of more importance than temporal things. There must be no feeble working, no sluggish, tardy action, for this would imperil our own souls and the souls of others…
“What general would undertake the command of an army while the officers under him refused to obey until they had satisfied themselves that his command was a reasonable one? Such a course would mean loss to the entire army. It would weaken the hands of the soldiers. The question would arise in their minds, Is there not a better way? But even though there be a better way, the orders must be obeyed, or defeat and disaster would result. A moment's delay, and the advantage that would have been gained is lost.
“Every good soldier is implicit and prompt in the obedience he renders to his captain. The will of the commander is to be the will of the soldier. Sometimes the soldier may be surprised at the command given, but he is not to stop to inquire the reason for it. When the order of the captain crosses the wishes of the soldier, he is not to hesitate and complain, saying, I see no consistency in these plans. He must not frame excuses and leave his work undone. Such soldiers would not be accepted as fitted to engage in earthly conflicts, and much more will they not be accepted in Christ's army. When Christ commands, His soldiers must obey without hesitation. They must be faithful soldiers, or He cannot accept them. Freedom of choice is given to every soul, but after a man has enlisted, he is required to be as true as steel, come life or come death” (Manuscript 7 1/2, 1900).
God is in charge of the church. To God, our General, we own absolute obedience. But what is the role of the clergy?
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
“The believer in Christ is consecrated to high and holy purpose. Before the service of the royal priesthood the glory of the Aaronic priesthood is eclipsed. Called according to God's purpose, set apart by grace divine, invested with Christ's righteousness, imbued with the Holy Spirit, offering up the sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, the true believer is indeed a representative of the Redeemer. Upon such a worshiper, God looks with delight” (Review and Herald, October 30, 1900 par. 7).
The first thing that should be noted is that the word “clergy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible. The word and the concept behind it are of human invention. God never intended for the work of spreading the gospel to be relegated to a few full-time individuals. God’s plan is for all of His people to be His messengers. The role of clergy to laity should be one of facilitator-participant. When all are active in the work as God intends the purpose of the clergy is to coordinate, facilitate, and advise—to be the “point person.” This role calls for respect, as can be seen in the following scriptural example.
“Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, 'My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.' At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, 'God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!'
“Those who were standing near Paul said, 'You dare to insult God's high priest?'
“Paul replied, 'Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people'" (Acts 23:1-5).
Notice that Paul’s action here is one of losing his temper and hurling an insult at the high priest. This is clearly unacceptable behavior toward a leader, as Paul himself quickly acknowledges. This does not, however, preclude disagreeing with or even disobeying leaders respectfully.
“Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.'
"Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" (Acts 5:27-29).
The apostles here appeal to a concept common to both scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy: human leadership, whether religious or secular, should be followed only as long as it is in obedience to God’s principles and directions. If that leadership ceases to follow God, the true follower of God is obligated to disobey that leadership.
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:35-37).
“We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
“There are those who have stood as managers and yet have not managed after God's order. Some have served on committees here and committees there, and have felt free to dictate just what the committee should say and do, claiming that those who did not carry out these ideas were sinning against Christ. When the power of God is manifest in the church and in the management of the various departments of his work, when it is evident that the managers are themselves controlled by the Holy Spirit of God, then it is time to consider that you are safe in accepting what they may say, under God. But you must know that you are guided by the principles of the Word of the living God. The Great General of armies, the Captain of the Lord's host, is our leader” (General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901 par. 32).
In other words, it is the responsibility of each individual church member to verify that interpretations, assertions, and recommendations made by clergy (or even lay leadership) are biblically accurate, and act accordingly.
“When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 493).
The Seventh-day Adventist Church operates by representative government because there is safety in collective wisdom. In order for this to work properly all members of the collective must be informed and involved. If members choose not to be involved, or show up but defer to the opinion of the clergy rather than expressing their own, then the benefit of collective wisdom is not attained. There is great danger in this because, as the statement above points out, it is far too easy for Satan to target and influence the opinion of a single individual in a leadership position to whom others leave the decision making.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body . . . . God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 9, pp. 260, 261).
When it comes to the principle of individual thought and judgment there is one exception—decisions made by the General Conference in Session. Ironically, in a situation where at nearly every hand the Group is being told to submit independent judgment to the wisdom of the church the one expression of collective wisdom which God ordains to supercede independent judgment is the one the local clergy are trying to ignore: decisions made by the General Conference in Session as expressed in the Church Manual.
“One Rule for Directors and 'Inferiors.'--Let men in responsible positions consider to a purpose that there is not one rule of action for the men in authority and another for the class who are expected to submit to their decisions; not one rule for the director and another for the supposed inferiors. I say supposed, for many who are treated as inferiors are men whose principles and course of action are such as heaven approves…
“I have risen a long while before day to write these words, for I see a great deal that needs to be done in heart and practice for men in authority who are very officious to make laws and restrictions for others, while they themselves do not obey the law of God” (The Publishing Ministry, pp.130, 131).
“The minister is not to rule imperiously over the flock entrusted to his care, but to be their ensample, and to show them the way to heaven. Following the example of Christ, he should intercede with God for the people of his care till he sees that his prayers are answered… The principles that rule in heaven should rule upon earth; the same love that animates the angels, the same purity and holiness that reign in heaven, should, as far as possible, be reproduced upon earth. God holds the minister responsible for the power he exercises, but does not justify His servants in perverting that power into despotism over the flock of their care” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 4, pp.267, 268).
Our final observation in exploring the relationship between clergy and laity is that we are all on a level playing field before God. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one gets a free pass because of his/her profession.
“We are to recognize human government as an ordinance of divine appointment, and teach obedience to it as a sacred duty, within its legitimate sphere. But when its claims conflict with the claims of God, we must obey God rather than men. God's word must be recognized as above all human legislation. A "Thus saith the Lord" is not to be set aside for a "Thus saith the church" or a "Thus saith the state." The crown of Christ is to be lifted above the diadems of earthly potentates” (Gospel Workers, pp.389, 390).
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 43
Our pastors declared that in order to proceed with becoming “missionally focused” the church must first “discover its core values.” They chose to begin this process at the Ministry Board meeting on November 9, 2008. This was done by means of a survey sheet (see below) which was handed out in the meeting for the ministry board members to complete. This survey listed 25 potential core values and asked that each be ranked on a scale of 1 to 4 to indicate their importance. Here is just one rather scary example of these potential core values, “Obedience: A willingness to do what God or others ask.” We certainly have no issue with doing anything God asks of us, but that obedience does not, should not, automatically extend to unspecified “others.” You can see, however, how a pastor could use this line of reasoning to demand unquestioning obedience of his congregation rather than allowing members to exercise individual judgment.
This exercise in the ministry board meeting was recorded in the minutes that. “Church Ministry Core Values Audit forms were handed out to each CMB member to see what the CMB members assess as our core values. These forms will be tabulated and compared to the tabulation of the forms when they are given to the church membership to see if the CMB and the general membership agree as to core values.” No such comparison was made, or at least not presented to the ministries board, but survey forms were mailed out to the congregation shortly after this meeting. With the forms went a letter encouraging members to duplicate the forms as needed to ensure that each family member could submit a copy. Boxes were placed in the lobbies of the church to collect the completed forms. It was noted how easily such a system could be abused if someone wanted to pack the vote, but there wasn’t really anything anyone could do about it.
At the end of the Nov. 9 ministry board meeting Pastor DeSilva offered to any who wanted them a list of examples of “values statements” from other churches, and urged members to consider them in thinking about how our own should read. These examples came from Northwood Community Church (Dallas, TX), The Jerusalem Church (Jerusalem, Israel), Fellowship Bible Church (Dallas, TX), Lakeview Community Church (Cedar Hill, TX) Willow Creek Community Church (South Barrington, IL), Parkview Evangelical Free Church (Iowa City, IA), and Grace Bible Church (Laredo, TX).
The results of the core values survey were presented to the ministries board on December 7, 2008. The presentation did not include any exact data about how many points each option had received. A list of nine core values was presented. Pastor DeSilva declared that he wanted to narrow it down to six. (How he came to decide that nine was the ideal number of options to present or that six was the perfect number of values for the church to hold is unknown.) The nine values presented were prayer, Bible knowledge, excellence, worship, evangelism, community, encouragement, preaching, and obedience. Pastor DeSilva suggested that excellence be taken out of the running to be listed as a stand-alone value, because it was really a part of all of the others (excellence in worship, excellence in encouragement, etc.). It was agreed. In order to eliminate two more of the values to achieve the six each ministries board member was handed six colored sticky dots. Each of the remaining eight values was written on a separate piece of marker board and taped to the wall. Members were asked to vote by placing their sticky dots on the values they wanted to vote for. In this manner preaching and obedience were eliminated.
Next: Making a Statement
Religious
Friday, November 20, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 17
“Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition. 'Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.' John 3:20. As men see that they cannot maintain their position by the Scriptures, many determine to maintain it at all hazards, and with a malicious spirit they assail the character and motives of those who stand in defense of unpopular truth. It is the same policy which has been pursued in all ages. Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic. Multitudes who are too unbelieving to accept the sure word of prophecy will receive with unquestioning credulity an accusation against those who dare to reprove fashionable sins. This spirit will increase more and more...
“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers. The confession of faith made by saints and martyrs was recorded for the benefit of succeeding generations. Those living examples of holiness and steadfast integrity have come down to inspire courage in those who are now called to stand as witnesses for God. They received grace and truth, not for themselves alone, but that, through them, the knowledge of God might enlighten the earth. Has God given light to His servants in this generation? Then they should let it shine forth to the world” (The Great Controversy, pp. 458, 459).
“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers. The confession of faith made by saints and martyrs was recorded for the benefit of succeeding generations. Those living examples of holiness and steadfast integrity have come down to inspire courage in those who are now called to stand as witnesses for God. They received grace and truth, not for themselves alone, but that, through them, the knowledge of God might enlighten the earth. Has God given light to His servants in this generation? Then they should let it shine forth to the world” (The Great Controversy, pp. 458, 459).
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Lord's Anointed, Pt. 1
Pastors are people too. They are human beings just like the laity. They are fallible just like the rest of us. They make mistakes and need to learn from those mistakes. Pastors need to serve their congregations with a sense of humility.
I bring this up because of one of the most common arguments we have encountered throughout this experience has been, "Yes, the pastor may be wrong, but if he is God will deal with him. We cannot touch 'the Lord's anointed.'" God does deal with His anointed. At times God does this by sending members of the congregation to talk with the pastor when the members feel the pastor is on the wrong course. Pastors need to be willing to listen to their church leaders and parishioners. They need to be willing to accept wise council.
We will consider this subject in three sections. The first will explore the scriptural justification of the “Lord’s anointed” theory and the accuracy of this common interpretation. The second will seek a balanced interpretation of instructions from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy regarding proper attitudes/relations with clergy. The third will consider the dangers inherent in misinterpretation of these relations and explain how all of this pertains to issues of adhering to the Church Manual.
Let’s start this analysis with a look at the text the concept of “the Lord’s anointed” springs from. This terminology is used by David when referring to King Saul. It appears in 1 Samuel 24, and again in 1 Samuel 26:8 & 9, “Then Abishai said to David, 'God has delivered your enemy into your hand this day. Now therefore, please, let me strike him at once with the spear, right to the earth; and I will not have to strike him a second time!'
“But David said to Abishai, 'Do not destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?'”
Notice that what David is refusing to do is kill Saul. He is not refusing to disagree with Saul, or tell Saul that he is wrong, or point out to Saul that he has been treated unfairly. He is refusing to murder Saul. The SDA Bible Commentaries don’t have anything to say about the instance of this phrase in chapter 24. Of the situation quoted above from chapter 26, they offer the following observations, “David exercised independent thought. He was above taking any living man as his criterion for conduct. He had developed his philosophy of life, not from tradition, but from the principles laid down in divine revelation. Among the precepts of the Mosaic law, with which David had familiarized himself, was the following: “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (Ex. 22:28, RSV). David possessed keen spiritual discernment and understood this law to prohibit such action against the king as Abishai advocated…” (Vol. 2, p.578).
Further investigation of Exodus 22:28 helps to shed light on the meaning of this encounter in 1 Samuel. The Commentaries have this to say, “It is in the divine order that we should respect the authority of those placed over us, in both church and state” (Vol. 1, p.624).
Two other texts are mentioned by the Commentaries on Ex. 22:28 which help us further understand this concept, Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7).
“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17).
Both of these texts speak not to some radical or revolutionary concept of unquestioning devotion, but to a common sense continuation of respect for those in authority inherent in any civilized society. “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” The underlying notion is that being under the law of God does not exempt the Christian from the laws of civil society—taxes should still be paid and civic leaders should still be acknowledged.
It is also worth noting that none of these texts differentiate between secular and religious leaders—what applies to one would seem to apply equally to the other. If we assume for the sake of argument that these texts do demand unquestioning devotion and obedience to religious leaders then the same must be true for secular leaders as well. Following this line of logic to its conclusion, the following secular activities must therefore be wrong: voting in elections, holding protests against disagreeable laws, and impeaching or prosecuting corrupt officials. Again, by this logic, since God “removes kings and sets up kings,” all of these actions would be interference in God’s prerogative to set up and remove leaders, or would be attacking God’s servants.
Let’s go back to 1 Samuel. “David said furthermore, “As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall go out to battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 26:10 & 11).
“David was content to leave all in God’s hands, and in no way try to prescribe the course for God to follow… While expecting God to do great things for him, he knew that he too had a part to act in the present situation” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 578).
In other words, David’s reluctance to kill Saul as Abishai recommended was due to an uncertainty that this was what God wanted him to do. If God had clearly instructed David to assassinate Saul he would have done so (as happened with Ehud and King Eglon of Moab, Judges 3:14-25), but in the absence of such a clear directive David chose to err on the side of safety out of respect for Saul as the king God had appointed for Israel.
The principle to take away from these verses, then, is not one of absolute deference to clergy. It is a general call for reasonable respect of all authority figures and a caution to be certain that the course of action you embark on is what God wants you to do.
I bring this up because of one of the most common arguments we have encountered throughout this experience has been, "Yes, the pastor may be wrong, but if he is God will deal with him. We cannot touch 'the Lord's anointed.'" God does deal with His anointed. At times God does this by sending members of the congregation to talk with the pastor when the members feel the pastor is on the wrong course. Pastors need to be willing to listen to their church leaders and parishioners. They need to be willing to accept wise council.
We will consider this subject in three sections. The first will explore the scriptural justification of the “Lord’s anointed” theory and the accuracy of this common interpretation. The second will seek a balanced interpretation of instructions from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy regarding proper attitudes/relations with clergy. The third will consider the dangers inherent in misinterpretation of these relations and explain how all of this pertains to issues of adhering to the Church Manual.
Let’s start this analysis with a look at the text the concept of “the Lord’s anointed” springs from. This terminology is used by David when referring to King Saul. It appears in 1 Samuel 24, and again in 1 Samuel 26:8 & 9, “Then Abishai said to David, 'God has delivered your enemy into your hand this day. Now therefore, please, let me strike him at once with the spear, right to the earth; and I will not have to strike him a second time!'
“But David said to Abishai, 'Do not destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?'”
Notice that what David is refusing to do is kill Saul. He is not refusing to disagree with Saul, or tell Saul that he is wrong, or point out to Saul that he has been treated unfairly. He is refusing to murder Saul. The SDA Bible Commentaries don’t have anything to say about the instance of this phrase in chapter 24. Of the situation quoted above from chapter 26, they offer the following observations, “David exercised independent thought. He was above taking any living man as his criterion for conduct. He had developed his philosophy of life, not from tradition, but from the principles laid down in divine revelation. Among the precepts of the Mosaic law, with which David had familiarized himself, was the following: “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (Ex. 22:28, RSV). David possessed keen spiritual discernment and understood this law to prohibit such action against the king as Abishai advocated…” (Vol. 2, p.578).
Further investigation of Exodus 22:28 helps to shed light on the meaning of this encounter in 1 Samuel. The Commentaries have this to say, “It is in the divine order that we should respect the authority of those placed over us, in both church and state” (Vol. 1, p.624).
Two other texts are mentioned by the Commentaries on Ex. 22:28 which help us further understand this concept, Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7).
“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17).
Both of these texts speak not to some radical or revolutionary concept of unquestioning devotion, but to a common sense continuation of respect for those in authority inherent in any civilized society. “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” The underlying notion is that being under the law of God does not exempt the Christian from the laws of civil society—taxes should still be paid and civic leaders should still be acknowledged.
It is also worth noting that none of these texts differentiate between secular and religious leaders—what applies to one would seem to apply equally to the other. If we assume for the sake of argument that these texts do demand unquestioning devotion and obedience to religious leaders then the same must be true for secular leaders as well. Following this line of logic to its conclusion, the following secular activities must therefore be wrong: voting in elections, holding protests against disagreeable laws, and impeaching or prosecuting corrupt officials. Again, by this logic, since God “removes kings and sets up kings,” all of these actions would be interference in God’s prerogative to set up and remove leaders, or would be attacking God’s servants.
Let’s go back to 1 Samuel. “David said furthermore, “As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall go out to battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 26:10 & 11).
“David was content to leave all in God’s hands, and in no way try to prescribe the course for God to follow… While expecting God to do great things for him, he knew that he too had a part to act in the present situation” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 578).
In other words, David’s reluctance to kill Saul as Abishai recommended was due to an uncertainty that this was what God wanted him to do. If God had clearly instructed David to assassinate Saul he would have done so (as happened with Ehud and King Eglon of Moab, Judges 3:14-25), but in the absence of such a clear directive David chose to err on the side of safety out of respect for Saul as the king God had appointed for Israel.
The principle to take away from these verses, then, is not one of absolute deference to clergy. It is a general call for reasonable respect of all authority figures and a caution to be certain that the course of action you embark on is what God wants you to do.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 42
In early November of 2008 two couples got up during the announcements one Sabbath and declared that they were the new leaders of the family ministries and social departments. This came as quite a surprise because the leadership positions they were claiming were supposed to be elected positions. There had been no report from the standing nominating committee, no vote from the church, yet here they were assuming the titles. We could only conclude that Pastor DeSilva, in yet another act of dictatorship, had placed them in these positions by executive order.
To be clear, we have nothing against these individuals personally. To the best of our knowledge they are fine, upstanding Christians who have done their best to fulfill the responsibilities of the positions they were placed in, but ends do not justify means. Pastors do not have the right to make political appointments. For Pastor DeSilva to have done so is an insult to the congregation’s right to make those decisions.
Next: Choosing Values
Religious
To be clear, we have nothing against these individuals personally. To the best of our knowledge they are fine, upstanding Christians who have done their best to fulfill the responsibilities of the positions they were placed in, but ends do not justify means. Pastors do not have the right to make political appointments. For Pastor DeSilva to have done so is an insult to the congregation’s right to make those decisions.
Next: Choosing Values
Religious
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 41
By this stage in the process it was painfully clear that the Group’s interpretation of Matthew 18 was substantially at odds with that of the Potomac Conference. It was also painfully clear that the Potomac Conference didn’t consider our interpretation worthy of consideration. Since the matter of “process” as defined by the conference hinged on this interpretation of Matthew 18 some of the Group got to thinking that we ought to solicit a third-party interpretation from someone the conference would take seriously. This sounded to us like a job for the Biblical Research Institute (BRI), the department of the General Conference that does nothing but biblical research.
BRI was contacted, but they declined to offer an interpretation. While sympathetic about the situation they felt that it was an administrative matter which they, as theologians, should not involve themselves in.
BRI was contacted, but they declined to offer an interpretation. While sympathetic about the situation they felt that it was an administrative matter which they, as theologians, should not involve themselves in.
The Enormous Tiny Word
The enormous tiny word on which a proper understanding of Matthew 18 hangs is IF.
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (Matthew 18:15-17).
Let's follow the trail of "ifs."
First, "If your brother sins against you." This text applies only to situations in which one brother has committed a sin against the other. So is deviating from acceptable governance practices a sin? Not in and of itself, though it is troubling and can lead to other issues. That fact alone disqualifies Matthew 18 from being directly applicable to the present situation.
Second, "If he listens to you, you have won your brother over," and third, "if he will not listen, take one or two others along." Quite simply, the power of choice is involved. Going through the process of Matthew 18 does not guarantee gaining your brother, because your brother can choose not to be gained. Neither does the text call for endless repetition of this step in the hope of compelling the guilty party to be gained. Should the guilty party make such a choice the injured party's only option is to proceed to the next step.
Fourth, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." Once again, the guilty party can choose not to listen. In this step also, the text does not call for endless repetition, but rather a single visit. The guilty party might listen to reason, and then again, might not. If not, the process again moves forward.
Fifth and finally, "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." It is possible for the Matthew 18 process to be fulfilled without having gained your brother. If/when that happens the response demanded by the Bible is that the offending party be extricated from the church. "And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" (1 Corinthians 5:2).
In conclusion, Matthew 18 requires a sum total of three (3) attempts to reason with the guilty party. If none are successful it is the duty of the church to remove that person from membership. The story doesn't end there. Such action removes the sinful influence from the church, but it also hopes that the drastic measure will finally cause the guilty party to realize that they have a problem. In such a happy eventuality the church can work with the person to bring them back into membership.
As previously stated, Matthew 18 simply doesn't apply to the case of the Group's dealings with Takoma Park's pastors because the matter of proper governance isn't a matter of sin. Even if you choose to apply the text to situations that do not rise to the level of involving sin, all of the steps of Matthew 18 have been followed in this situation except for the removal from membership. The ideal of "gaining our brother" was not achieved, but not for lack of effort on our part.
As an example, one of the many Matthew 18 visits we have refenced took place on Oct. 27, 2007, before the vote to implement this change in structure. The reason presented for needing this change in the first place was that it would facilitate better evangelism. During that visit Brothers H and R presented to Pastor DeSilva the North American Division's plan book for evangelism, demonstrating how this goal could be accomplished without changing the governance and pleading with the pastor not to go through with the change. The conversation ended with Pastor DeSilva warning, "Don't fight me on this."
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (Matthew 18:15-17).
Let's follow the trail of "ifs."
First, "If your brother sins against you." This text applies only to situations in which one brother has committed a sin against the other. So is deviating from acceptable governance practices a sin? Not in and of itself, though it is troubling and can lead to other issues. That fact alone disqualifies Matthew 18 from being directly applicable to the present situation.
Second, "If he listens to you, you have won your brother over," and third, "if he will not listen, take one or two others along." Quite simply, the power of choice is involved. Going through the process of Matthew 18 does not guarantee gaining your brother, because your brother can choose not to be gained. Neither does the text call for endless repetition of this step in the hope of compelling the guilty party to be gained. Should the guilty party make such a choice the injured party's only option is to proceed to the next step.
Fourth, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." Once again, the guilty party can choose not to listen. In this step also, the text does not call for endless repetition, but rather a single visit. The guilty party might listen to reason, and then again, might not. If not, the process again moves forward.
Fifth and finally, "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." It is possible for the Matthew 18 process to be fulfilled without having gained your brother. If/when that happens the response demanded by the Bible is that the offending party be extricated from the church. "And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" (1 Corinthians 5:2).
In conclusion, Matthew 18 requires a sum total of three (3) attempts to reason with the guilty party. If none are successful it is the duty of the church to remove that person from membership. The story doesn't end there. Such action removes the sinful influence from the church, but it also hopes that the drastic measure will finally cause the guilty party to realize that they have a problem. In such a happy eventuality the church can work with the person to bring them back into membership.
As previously stated, Matthew 18 simply doesn't apply to the case of the Group's dealings with Takoma Park's pastors because the matter of proper governance isn't a matter of sin. Even if you choose to apply the text to situations that do not rise to the level of involving sin, all of the steps of Matthew 18 have been followed in this situation except for the removal from membership. The ideal of "gaining our brother" was not achieved, but not for lack of effort on our part.
As an example, one of the many Matthew 18 visits we have refenced took place on Oct. 27, 2007, before the vote to implement this change in structure. The reason presented for needing this change in the first place was that it would facilitate better evangelism. During that visit Brothers H and R presented to Pastor DeSilva the North American Division's plan book for evangelism, demonstrating how this goal could be accomplished without changing the governance and pleading with the pastor not to go through with the change. The conversation ended with Pastor DeSilva warning, "Don't fight me on this."
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 40
A week and a half after the phone call between Elder Ramirez and Brother G we were surprised by the following letter from Elder Ramirez.
“October 30, 2008
“Dear [Brother G],
“This is to inform you that administration has considered your request and in light of the agreed process on October 9, 2008 we feel that it is imperative that we continue to follow this process before we agree to submit this issue to the Executive Committee.
“As I shared with you in a recent phone conversation, I have talked with pastor Alan DeSilva and he is willing to meet with you to talk about the issues. So the next step in this process is for you to engage in a one on one dialogue with Alan DeSilva to discuss the issues according to Matthew 18, and to give pastor DeSilva and his board of elders a chance to respond to the issues. But before you do this, it is important that you and the group write a document outlining all the issues at hand so that this document can serve as the basis for this dialogue. I will need a copy of this written document for the record.
“Should this dialogue not be productive in resolving all the issues, then the next step will be to hold a meeting (or meetings, as the Holy Spirit sees fit) with 2-3 individuals from each group to continue a dialogue in prayer. Now, it is very important that during this process, you all keep in mind that the purpose of all this according to Matthew 18 is “to gain a brother.” “To gain a brother” is what this is all about. God is in the business of restoring broken relationships and we must not loose sight of that.
“[Brother G], I invite you and your group to pray and humble yourselves before the Lord as we seek His will through this process. Remember that God is bigger than anyone of us and He can restore any broken relationship, if we give Him a chance. This was my plea to you as we concluded our meeting and it is my plea again, as I seek to re-emphasize the importance of this process. Please give God a chance.
“Finally, the last step in this process should nothing be resolved, then will be to bring the issues before the executive committee, and the Potomac Conference administration is willing to do that. However, please understand that unless the above process is followed, the meeting with the executive committee will not take place.
“It is my prayer that you will trust in the redeeming power of God and will reconsider your position.
“Sincerely,
“Jorge A. Ramirez
“Vice President for Administration
“Potomac Conference”
For the record, the only statements that in any way resembled a process discussion at the October 9 meeting was Elder Ramirez stating that he would have a similar meeting with Pastor DeSilva and then be in touch with us. There was no “agreed process” of any kind, much less one that resembled the steps specified in this letter.
Next: No Involvement
Religious
“October 30, 2008
“Dear [Brother G],
“This is to inform you that administration has considered your request and in light of the agreed process on October 9, 2008 we feel that it is imperative that we continue to follow this process before we agree to submit this issue to the Executive Committee.
“As I shared with you in a recent phone conversation, I have talked with pastor Alan DeSilva and he is willing to meet with you to talk about the issues. So the next step in this process is for you to engage in a one on one dialogue with Alan DeSilva to discuss the issues according to Matthew 18, and to give pastor DeSilva and his board of elders a chance to respond to the issues. But before you do this, it is important that you and the group write a document outlining all the issues at hand so that this document can serve as the basis for this dialogue. I will need a copy of this written document for the record.
“Should this dialogue not be productive in resolving all the issues, then the next step will be to hold a meeting (or meetings, as the Holy Spirit sees fit) with 2-3 individuals from each group to continue a dialogue in prayer. Now, it is very important that during this process, you all keep in mind that the purpose of all this according to Matthew 18 is “to gain a brother.” “To gain a brother” is what this is all about. God is in the business of restoring broken relationships and we must not loose sight of that.
“[Brother G], I invite you and your group to pray and humble yourselves before the Lord as we seek His will through this process. Remember that God is bigger than anyone of us and He can restore any broken relationship, if we give Him a chance. This was my plea to you as we concluded our meeting and it is my plea again, as I seek to re-emphasize the importance of this process. Please give God a chance.
“Finally, the last step in this process should nothing be resolved, then will be to bring the issues before the executive committee, and the Potomac Conference administration is willing to do that. However, please understand that unless the above process is followed, the meeting with the executive committee will not take place.
“It is my prayer that you will trust in the redeeming power of God and will reconsider your position.
“Sincerely,
“Jorge A. Ramirez
“Vice President for Administration
“Potomac Conference”
For the record, the only statements that in any way resembled a process discussion at the October 9 meeting was Elder Ramirez stating that he would have a similar meeting with Pastor DeSilva and then be in touch with us. There was no “agreed process” of any kind, much less one that resembled the steps specified in this letter.
Next: No Involvement
Religious
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 39
The follow-up contact from Elder Ramirez took the form of a phone call to Brother G on October 20, 2008. During this conversation Elder Ramirez asked again whether the Group would be willing to meet again with Pastor DeSilva. Having polled the Group on the matter in the intervening time, Brother G responded that the Group did not believe that another such meeting would be productive.
Elder Ramirez jumped on this and tried to get Brother G to say that the Group was unwilling to meet further with Pastor DeSilva. Brother G tried to explain that it was not a question of willingness. If we thought for one moment that Pastor DeSilva was genuinely interested in hearing our concerns and resolving the issues we would be the first ones at the table. Given how all of our previous overtures had been received, however, we did not believe that yet another meeting would make any difference. Elder Ramirez either couldn’t or wouldn’t understand this. He continued to paint this as a matter of willingness, and Brother G continued to try to explain that it wasn’t willingness, but doubt of productivity. Finally, Elder Ramirez asked that Brother G send him an email answering the question in writing. This Brother G agreed to do, and sent the following on October 21, 2008:
“Dear Jorge,
“Thank you for your phone call yesterday afternoon. After our meeting on October 9, 2008, and our phone conversation, we feel that further dialog with Alan DeSilva will not resolve any issues.
“Therefore, we, again, request to bring our urgent concerns to the Executive Committee, without further delay.
“With God’s blessing,
“[Brother G]”
Next: New Hurdles
Religious
Elder Ramirez jumped on this and tried to get Brother G to say that the Group was unwilling to meet further with Pastor DeSilva. Brother G tried to explain that it was not a question of willingness. If we thought for one moment that Pastor DeSilva was genuinely interested in hearing our concerns and resolving the issues we would be the first ones at the table. Given how all of our previous overtures had been received, however, we did not believe that yet another meeting would make any difference. Elder Ramirez either couldn’t or wouldn’t understand this. He continued to paint this as a matter of willingness, and Brother G continued to try to explain that it wasn’t willingness, but doubt of productivity. Finally, Elder Ramirez asked that Brother G send him an email answering the question in writing. This Brother G agreed to do, and sent the following on October 21, 2008:
“Dear Jorge,
“Thank you for your phone call yesterday afternoon. After our meeting on October 9, 2008, and our phone conversation, we feel that further dialog with Alan DeSilva will not resolve any issues.
“Therefore, we, again, request to bring our urgent concerns to the Executive Committee, without further delay.
“With God’s blessing,
“[Brother G]”
Next: New Hurdles
Religious
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 38
The “process” meeting between Elder Ramirez and Brother G took place on the afternoon of October 9, 2008. The meeting was two hours long, and consisted mostly of Elder Ramirez asking questions about the situation. These included, "Have you looked at Matthew 18?" That one absolutely flabbergasted us after the lengths to which we had already gone not only to follow Matthew 18 but to explain to the conference that we had followed it.
Elder Ramirez also asked whether the Group would be willing to sit down one-on-one with Pastor DeSilva to try to work things out. Brother G declined to speak for the Group, but observed that he didn't think it would do any good. Elder Ramirez also inquired whether things would be better at Takoma Park under new leadership. (The response given to that one was that although a change in leadership might be helpful, it would not completely resolve the problem, which was one of governance structure.)
Elder Ramirez acknowledged that we had the right to ask to appear before the executive committee, but didn't seem to understand why we would feel a need to. Brother G did not come away from the meeting with a firm commitment that we would be allowed to do so as yet. Elder Ramirez stated that his next step would be to meet with Pastor DeSilva and get his side of the story, after which he would contact us. The outside time limit he put on this was two weeks.
The appalling aspect of the meeting was that its content was exactly what Elder Ramirez had promised it would not be: issues. His explanation to Brother G was that before anyone could appear at the executive committee, the conference must go through the "process" of collecting information about why. To our way of thinking, however, Elder Ramirez lied to us, because the process of such data collection necessitated a discussion of what the issues were, which he swore would not be any part of this meeting.
Next: A Matter of Perspective
Religious
Elder Ramirez also asked whether the Group would be willing to sit down one-on-one with Pastor DeSilva to try to work things out. Brother G declined to speak for the Group, but observed that he didn't think it would do any good. Elder Ramirez also inquired whether things would be better at Takoma Park under new leadership. (The response given to that one was that although a change in leadership might be helpful, it would not completely resolve the problem, which was one of governance structure.)
Elder Ramirez acknowledged that we had the right to ask to appear before the executive committee, but didn't seem to understand why we would feel a need to. Brother G did not come away from the meeting with a firm commitment that we would be allowed to do so as yet. Elder Ramirez stated that his next step would be to meet with Pastor DeSilva and get his side of the story, after which he would contact us. The outside time limit he put on this was two weeks.
The appalling aspect of the meeting was that its content was exactly what Elder Ramirez had promised it would not be: issues. His explanation to Brother G was that before anyone could appear at the executive committee, the conference must go through the "process" of collecting information about why. To our way of thinking, however, Elder Ramirez lied to us, because the process of such data collection necessitated a discussion of what the issues were, which he swore would not be any part of this meeting.
Next: A Matter of Perspective
Religious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)