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
Monday, November 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I find Elder Ramirez to be honest, refreshing, accurate and Biblical. His approach is correct and effective. Done in the manner he suggests and recommends, with an honest sincere heart by all involved, would lead to all issues being resolved.
While the Epic is a year old, I can imagine the honest, Christ-like manner of "winning a brother" never took place as evidenced by the continuing airing of dirty laundry in the attempt to smear those who the authors don't like / agree with.
As you have set this out, the Conference proposed a process that was biblically-based and had as its goal the restoration of your relationship with the Pastor.
You didn't want to do it because you didn't think it would work. The goal of Biblical conflict resolution is the restoration of relationships and not to "win" the argument. You seem very interested in vindicating the principles of The Church Manual as you understand them. You are clearly less interested in restoring relationships with people with whom you disagree. I wonder which God thinks is more important?
I wish you could see how this looks to a disinterested observer.
Do you really think that God is glorified by what you are doing? You need to stop this.
Anonymous
May I ask a question......how many times are the parties to repeat the same biblical principle with the same outcome?
When does the next biblical step take place (IE.the two parties meeting with no resolve)?
I hope you except this question as an honest question as I am trying to ask it.
Thank You,
Deborah
Deborah, the next steps occur when they actually do the first steps.
A pastor came to a new church, preached a sermon. Everyone like it. Really like it!
The next Sabbath he preaches the same sermon. The following Sabbath after this he preached it again. Finally the head elder asked him when he was going to try a new sermon...
He replied to the Elder, "When they start doing what I preached about in the first sermon, then I will go on to the next."
Same applies here. For a casual observer, who would actually take the time to read EVERYTHING, it's obvious they haven't followed the first steps.
Strangely enough, the more information the blog writers reveal, the more we see the honesty and willingness of the conference to work things out in a manner that resolves it Biblically, while not surrendering to what God has called the church to do; be disciples and reach out to the world around us.
I would guess the same thing applies at the Chesapeake church too, don't you think? :)
Deborah:
I'm the Anonymous who actually wrote above. Thanks for your question.
That having been said, I agree with what the other "Anonymous" said.
The authors of this Blog have heavily criticized their pastor and at least three Conference officials by name. If you read the Blog, they don't say ANYTHING positive about these men. They have included negative information that is totally irrelevant to the issues they are complaining about. (Example: That the Pastor didn't complete the visitation program. How many churches start a visitation program and don't complete it? Many.)
Why would they do this? The answer is simple: They want to make their targets look bad.
This is not God's way or the attitude that He shows toward us when we are in error. The Spirit of Matthew 18 is to restore relationships, to win back your brother. It's not about winning the argument.
God can defend His church. He doesn't need for us to adopt the methods of the enemy to do His job for Him. Gossip, which is what this Blog boils down to despite all the Spirit of Prophecy quotes, is not pleasing to God. (Romans 1:29)
As far as how many times you should try this, I suppose it depends on the situation. Embracing a Matthew 18 perspective means that you are committed to making peace, to reconciliation. Interesting how the last step in Matthew 18 is to treat the offending brother like a tax collector. How did Jesus treat tax collectors? How did the Shepherd treat the lost sheep or the woman the lost coin?
In this case, R&L went to the Conference and those Conference officials thought it would be beneficial for them to try again withe Pastor. They balked not out of principle but because they didn't think it would work. They want the Conference to intervene but only on their terms.
One more point regarding how many tijmes we should attempt reconcilation. How many times has God tried to restore His relationship with you? With me? With Religious and Liberty? I don't think they would like it very much it very much if God treated them like they have treated their pastor and the conference officials.
Anonymous(s):
1) We refer you to the conclusion of the Epic, Pt.33, where multiple instances of the completion of each step required by Matthew 18 are listed. Either present evidence that we have lied about those visits or quit making accusations about our having failed to follow Matthew 18.
If you were pulled over for speeding would you conclude that the problem was a failure in your relationship with the cop?
If your check failed to arrive on payday would you conclude that the problem was a failure in your relationship with your payroll administrator?
Some problems are practical, not relational. Even though the Group has gone to great lengths to follow Matthew 18 the bottom line is that this problem also is practical rather than relational. Gaining/ winning our brother has nothing to do with whether we are following the Church Manual.
2) When the conference insisted that we meet further with our pastors we disagreed about the usefulness, but we didn't "balk." The Group went through every single step stipulated by the conference; we just haven't gotten to that part of the story yet.
3) If you were reading as closely as you claim, you would have noted a compliment of Elder Miller's way of running Takoma Academy board meetings in the Epic, Pt. 34. If the positive statements are few and far between it is because we have precious little positive behavior from these gentlemen to report.
4) Failure of the visitation program is relevant and significant for several reasons, some of which will be elaborated in a later series of posts we promised and began to prepare when this objection was first raised. Suffice it to say at this juncture that this is relevant to the issues in that it reveals a failure of our new governance structure to function properly. If the Accountability Board actually functioned as it should instead of being a pastoral rubber stamp it would have looked into the matter. ("Why did the program fail? Were people too busy because of the holidays? Were there just too many people to get to in that amount of time? Perhaps you should extend the period of visitation and keep working at it so the goal can be accomplished.") Nothing like that happened. What good is an Accountability Board that is supposed to hold the pastor accountable for accomplishing the goals he sets if it doesn't do its job? So yes, details like failed visitation programs do pertain to proper governance of the church.
5)Gossip - "To talk idly, chatter, esp. about people." This "chatter" is about people, amongst other things, but it isn't idle. How can we explain how the principles of the Church Manual have been violated and why this is a problem unless we first explain the circumstances in which these issues began and evolved? Put another way, how can we talk about the WHY and the WHEREFORE without first explaining the WHAT?
"A man's position does not make him one jot or tittle greater in the sight of God; it is character alone that God values. The highhanded power that has been developed, as though positions had made men gods, makes me afraid, and ought to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. This lording it over God's heritage will create such a disgust of man's jurisdiction that a state of insubordination will result. The people are learning that men in high positions of responsibility cannot be trusted to mold and fashion other men's minds and characters. The result will be a loss of confidence even in the management of faithful men. But the Lord will raise up laborers who realize their own nothingness without special help from God" (The Publishing Ministry, p.127).
R&L:
1) I don't agree with your distinction between relationships and "practical" problems. That's a distinction you've created but it's not one that is not recognized in the Bible.
You can label it whatever you want but it's clear that your relationship with these men has broken down. God's goal is reconcilation.
It baffles me that you cannot see what you are doing. People are more important than The Church Manual. If your zeal to follow the Church Manual causes you to create this Blog in which you publicly criticize people over and over and over and over again, then perhaps you place too much emphasis on defending a book.
2) Well, I can only evaluate based upon what's before me at present.
3) I'm not reading all that closely. I read this to the extent that I do because I am concerned that people will be misled and believe that your approach is appropriate.
Having said that, I guess I missed your one compliment of Elder Miller. ONE compliment. In pages and pages and pages of posting. One compliment. Wow.
You wrote that these men do "precious little" worthy of a compliment. Do you really believe that? Do you really think that this issue of your church and the Manual is the end all be all of their ministry? That this defines them?
And how about you? Jesus said first to get the log out of your own eye. What are your shortcomings in this affair? In the interests of fairness, shouldn't you be at least as forthcoming about your own failures in this matter as you are about pointing the sins of others? So, let's see a post on those.
But that's not how this works. People who adopt causes like this typically do not discuss their part in the problem because it's a "practical" problem and the fault is all on the other side. That's the way it always is.
4) Did the Church ever try anything under the old system that failed? Did the Church Board system function well? All the time?
5) Of course it isn't idle. It's about saving the Adventist Church from its ministers. It's about something that's so valuable it's worth savaging men's reputations and sowing doubt about their characters in the minds of people who have nothing to do with the situation at hand. You're right: This isn't idle. Far from it. The Church Manual is so important that you're willing to sacrifice people on its altar.
Well, I'll follow my advice and confess something: I am incredibly frustrated by all of this. I do not for the life of me understand how you can do this to people or how you think God is calling you to do it.
But you are apparently resolved on going forward so I'll leave you to it.
Anonymous... I appreciate your comments. I think they are appropriate and represent critical thinking in a Christ-like manner.
Post a Comment