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.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I am puzzled why you would so reveal the name of your Pastor and conference officials but not be willing to reveal your own name. Why are you hiding? What are you afraid of?
"The purpose of this blog is to openly speak the truth about this controversy."
You are not fulfilling the purpose of your blogs by failing to be open. It seems as if the comments seem to be negative and this is perhaps because readers do not see in your own writing the Christian spirit you want from others.
Are you not confident? Are you afraid that you if people knew who you were you would not be able to stand up?
"truth fears no question"
I have heard Takoma Park Church has been struggling for years. There have been a few, mainly white, wealthy and influential members who have controlled the church for years. They were not interested in evangelism, community or the things that any church of God would be do.
Are you part of that group?
People tell me this is about who will control God's church. It is sad that you would spend so much time on this.
Do you give Bible studies?
Have you led anyone to Jesus this year?
Do you visit the sick?
In my opinion he organizational structure of the SDA church is not a core belief of the SDA church. It's simply and organizational structure.
I hope you will respond
Pardeep.
Pardeep;
Thank You.
Michael
Pardeep,
When you read a biography, whom are you seeking information about - the author or the subject individual?
To the extent that the authors of this blog have done or said anything to impact the course of events pertaining to this issue those actions are described in The Epic in the same way as the actions of any other member of the Group or congregation at large. Nothing more about us is relevant.
Those who have chosen to make negative comments have been more persistent than those who voice support, but they do not appear to be more numerous. Of course, it's hard to tell for sure because most of them have chosen, ironically, to remain anonymous.
"There have been a few, mainly white, wealthy and influential members who have controlled the church for years. They were not interested in evangelism, community or the things that any church of God would be do."
We're not surprised that you would hear this, since it has been Pastor DeSilva's primary propaganda line to distract from the real issues. It isn't true, but from a strategic standpoint, it was a very effective move on his part. Nothing draws lines and closes minds in a dispute faster than to claim that race is involved. The Group is actually as racially diverse as the Takoma Park congregation, and would love nothing better than to see the Takoma Park Church united under a denomination-sanctioned governance system and reaching out to evangelize its community.
We do believe that proper governance is an essential part of that formula. It seems that we will just have to differ with you on that point.
R,L & J;
I have never seen such deluded individuals. You are not writing a bio, you are writing a long-length diatribe to those you disagree with.
Get over yourselves...
Michael
Thank you for the responce.
If I saw a biography in the library with no author I would be puzzled, Why the author refuses to reveal his identity. Does the author really know what he is talking about? Is the author true? Is he proud of his work?
I read a lot and the identity and author of a work is key. If I discovered that this blog was authored by Janson blair then ......
"To the extent that the authors of this blog have done or said anything to impact the course of events pertaining to this issue those actions are described in The Epic in the same way as the actions of any other member of the Group or congregation at large."
That is a very long sentence and I'm not sure what you are trying to say. "The epic is the same way" ????
I do suspect that not all church members have a blog such as yours.
'Nothing more about us is relevant."
Relevance definition = closely connected or appropriate to that matter at hand.
Do you say Jesus is irrelevant to the plan of salvation
"he is the author and finisher of our faith"
You are the authors! I
see that you in discussion with conference and Pastors. You do not observers only afterward but shape the events.
You did not answer the questions about Bible study and witness.
You use strong words like propganda. Are you saying that Pastor alone prevented the church from growing? That is not possible. Who were the influencial people that led the church before the troubles? Are any of them part of Group? Some things you say are not clear.
I do agree with governance but my words were about core belief. Show me where SDA structure is core believe. You cannot I think.
I will contact my friend and ask about DeSilver propoganda.
Does the church know about this blog?
thank you.
Pardeep,
Would you care to continue this discussion via email? It's a lot easier to use than these itty bitty comment boxes.
religiousandliberty@hotmail.com
The reason why this is relevant to me is because I care about what the Paul Borden style of church consulting has done to many churches. I work very closely with the church and from my years of experience, the way the Seventh-day Adventist Church is structured, according to the church manual, is divinely inspired. We are not governed like most churches and because of this we have a stronger ministry oriented church. We have a stronger missional church and we have a church that's base is it's grass roots.
I care about the Adventist church and I don't believe the Paul Borden style of governance has been beneficial to any church or conference.
This issue is a very specific issue and it is important! Thanks, Religious and Liberty for sharing. -k
I am happy to talk here. It is better public.
Let's be frank. There isn't an issue with the style of governance suggested by Paul Borden. In fact, as I have studied Borden and recently visited a church purposely to hear the results of an evaluation done by Borden, I was struck by how effortlessly it meshed with the organizational structures suggested by the manual and followed by most Adventist Churches.
I believe the one source most have a problem with is the methods of accountability that Borden suggests churches should have in place. He is right, there will be no measured response to goals, mission and vision with no accountability to measure if we are getting to our achievements. The church manual gives guidance to structure, not a commandment. What it does not give recommendations to is accountability for the suggested / recommended structure. In general I perceive people are reluctant to be held accountable, personally or in the church. They might be willing to be held accountable at work, evidenced by performance reviews and a desire to excel and progress in the company.
I have looked over the structure TP Church setup. It makes sense and it adheres to the church manual. The church manual itself says the manual gives recommendations for churches to follow, but based on culture or necessity may be different in the local church.
Paul Borden is not the enemy. As it once said, "we have found the enemy, and it's us."
k,
Thanks for the support.
Pardeep,
Many of the questions you have asked have been answered in previous posts and/or comment responses. Communicating via email would allow us to copy and paste these answers into a single location for you, which simply isn’t practical in this comment forum given its 4096 character limit. Since this doesn’t interest you we can only advise that you read all 98 posts and their associated comments for your answers.
One thing you won’t find there is the answer to your question about volunteer religious work (Bible studies, visitations, etc). The three primary contributors to this blog estimate that they have averaged four hours of volunteer religious work a week PER PERSON in the last year. How much volunteer religious work have YOU done lately?
Michael,
“Looking over” Takoma Park’s altered governance system cannot possibly give you an insider’s view of how the system actually functions (which, for the record, is NOT how the Manual says it ought to). It gives lip service to accountability, but in actual practice there has been no effort to follow through with that ideal. Having a “board” dedicated to that task is a joke when the pastor is a member of that board. We actually agree that there should be accountability, particularly regarding the performance of the pastor. They SHOULD receive performance evaluations from those who know best about their performance—their congregation. Oddly, you have been our most vocal critic in our efforts to bring our pastors to account for their performance.
The Church Manual isn’t just a set of recommendations. It is the law of the denomination. Like the laws of any society it can be changed through predetermined processes if a majority of its members believe a change to be appropriate, but the way it is at any given moment is what must be followed. The provision for local adaptation is meant to allow divisions to add regulations above and beyond that which is stipulated by the Manual. It is NOT meant to allow a congregation to disregard any part of the Manual. We actually have letters from the General Conference that we have not yet introduced which emphasize that the Church Manual is to be considered authoritative. We were waiting for their proper place in the timeline to introduce them within the Epic, but if you doubt their existence and content we are willing to publish them now.
I find an interesting aspect of your correspondence in the comments and in your blog. You ALWAYS find a way to turn things around on your "attacker" and never seem to fully accept responsibility for your actions.
As for the manual, if it's the law, then we are in trouble. I don't think the GC would ever expect us to think of the Church Manual as a law, but guidelines that are best followed in most circumstances. Some are non-negotiable, but structure within the local church is one that can be defined in the local church by reason of membership, needs, or culture.
Hello again.
Many SDA churches across the NAD have operations at variance with the church manual. Churches change to meet need of congregation and community.
To say the manual is "law" is not to understand the role of the manual church. In many times it serves as guide to church work.
Do you believe in censorship/disfellowship for fornication, working on sabbath, divorced people and many other things. Many do not like this in manual but love other things.
Do you go to movie? Do you listen to Jazz and rock? Do you wear jewels?
All these things are law for you or maybe they are guide?
Pardeep,
The goal should not be to break the standards down, but to raise ourselves with God's help to meet the standards. All of these standards are supported by statements from the Bible and/or the Spirit of Prophesy. Are these expressions of God's will also optional in your mind?
The Church Manual itself, pp. 1 & 2, makes it quite clear that it is intended to be treated as authoritative, not merely "guides."
"Church Authority in the Seventh-day Adventist Church
"The 1946 General Conference Session action that all 'changes or revisions of policy' in the Church Manual shall be 'authorized by the General Conference session' reflects a conception of the authoritative status of General Conference sessions that has long been held. In the 1877 session this action was taken:
"'Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience.'—Review and Herald, vol. 50, No. 14, p. 106.
"Ellen G. White wrote in 1909: '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.'—Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 260.
"Long before this—in 1875—Ellen G. White had written in the same vein: 'The church of Christ is in constant peril. Satan is seeking to destroy the people of God, and one man’s mind, one man’s judgment, is not sufficient to be trusted. Christ would have His followers brought together in church capacity, observing order, having rules and discipline, and all subject one to another, esteeming others better than themselves.'—Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 445.
"In these inspired words, in the 1877 General Conference action, and in the need for well-defined rules that are requisite to good order is found a basis for this Church Manual and its rightful claim upon us all, both ministry and laity.
"The content of the Church Manual is the expression of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s understanding of Christian life and church governance and discipline based on biblical principles. It expresses the authority of a duly assembled General Conference session. 'God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority.'—Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 261."
Amen! R&L, thanks for sharing with your readers on the above comments! I think many of us put our church manual on the shelf and let it gathered dust. Forget about letting someone like Paul Borden to tell us how to run a world church like ours! Listen to Christ's last warnings!
Anonymous and others who have such a beef in regards to Paul Borden; he has never challenged our way of structure, in fact he encourages us to work effectively in the structure. His primary contribution to change in the church is accountability to the mission. The mission, as defined by Christ, is to make disciples. How many churches are effectively making disciples? Not many. How many are growing? Not many? How many are dying? Many.
Why is this? Because they have never been held accountable to live out Christ's values and mission in their personal life and the life of the church. Keep the organizational structure, it's fine. But add accountability to see things through and put discipleship and kingdom growth first.
As I read this blog and analyze much of what has been stated, I see the same people I deal with on a daily basis; those afraid to change, and become outward focused, discipleship driven members of their church. Rather than face their fears and seeking to grow in their walk with God so they can be effectively reaching others, they attack what they believe is the source of their fears. In this case Paul Borden seems to be a common target. The other target by R&L is structure or perceived difference in the structure that is outside the mandates and authority of the church manual.
I concur the church manual should be followed. However, slight adjustments might be necessary in order to fit a smaller congregation or particular culture. And as we move into a new century, facing new cultural challenges with our generations today, who is to say that we might need to make even further adjustments to the church manual in the areas of administration and leadership within the local church?
I am a pastor in the Potomac Conference. I have worked with those who have rejected change and made myself, Paul Borden and Conference leaders the target of their fears, and eventually, hate. What saddens me is that if all of those individuals, who I still love, would use critical thinking and a genuine Christ-like spirit in dealing with the changes, much more would be accomplished and distrust and fear would be placed to rest.
Satan has done a very effective job of destroying the church today. He utilizes every crack in the wall and drives wedges where they don't belong. If all would take a break, and honestly seek to love our brothers and sisters so we can find the common ground, and solutions, we would get more resolved quickly than what is taking place now.
Yes, I am a pastor for the Potomac Conference. I have already been described in some of the comments of this blog. But I will not hide behind another name. The name you see posted is me. I love my church, I love the people in it and I love and respect Bill Miller, Jorge Ramirez, Ray Pichette, Glen Altermatt, Steve Wilson and the individuals in the conference who seek to serve God and grow His church. They may not be perfect, but they seek to challenge us all to become what God desires us to be; healthy churches, healthy people, effectively making disciples and reaching the lost for Christ.
Post a Comment