Is it acceptable to make church business decisions on Sabbath? As we described in the Epic, Pt. 47, Pastor DeSilva made the argument that it was acceptable to hold the vote on the vision statement on Sabbath during the worship service because it was no different than voting on a nominating committee report. This assertion merits some exploration, as does his companion argument that votes on Sabbath are better because there are more people to participate in the vote.
First we will look at the process for electing church officers and the portions of this business which are conducted on Sabbath. Election business is conducted differently from any other local business in the SDA church because it is business about people. As is seen regularly in contests for public office, the electoral process has the potential to become ugly very quickly. The Adventist system seeks to avoid this ugliness by taking the “competitive element” out of the process. This is done by delegating the primary decision making power of the business meeting to a small group known as the nominating committee.
The process begins with the creation of a committee usually known as the “large committee.” This group is formed either by taking verbal nominations from the floor on a Sabbath morning or including nomination blanks in the church’s bulletin on which each member can write several names. Under the latter method the forms are then collected and the results tabulated at a later time. This is the method used most frequently in North America. Once the large committee is formed its job is to nominate the nominating committee. They prepare a list of names which is then voted up or down in its entirety by the congregation. Unless there is some significant reason why a proposed name is unfit to serve the list is approved. Once the nominating committee is established it begins the work of nominating officers for the various positions in the church.
“With earnest prayer for guidance the committee should begin its work of preparing to submit to the church a list of names of officers and assistants comprised of members in regular standing on the roll of the church making the appointments. These will be placed in nomination for office and presented to the church at a Sabbath service or at a specially called business meeting of the church” (Church Manual, p.155).
This presentation of the list of proposed officers takes place over two Sabbaths. On the first Sabbath the list is presented, usually in written form. On the second Sabbath the list is voted up or down in its entirety. The delay of a week gives members an opportunity to make a discreet objection to the nominating committee if they believe that any of the proposed officers are unfit to serve. In such a case the nominating committee hears the objection, considers the evidence, and decides whether to make a substitution on the list. All of the nominating committee’s deliberations are considered confidential.
Membership transfers are also transacted with a first and second reading on separate Sabbaths in order to allow discreet objections, but no other type of business is conducted in this manner. Everything else is decided directly by the congregation in business meeting. In a properly conducted business meeting any member in regular standing (as opposed to being under discipline) may make a motion which, if seconded, is then discussed and voted on. Any motion not acted upon by either a vote or being tabled during the meeting in which it is made dies at the end of that meeting.
There are several significant differences between the process for choosing church officers and the way all other business decisions of the congregation are handled. First, the existence and function of the nominating committee constitute a delegating of the direct control over business decisions which is usually exercised by the business meeting. Second, with this delegated power the nominating committee is permitted to use its own discretion on whether or not to act on member input/objections which under the normal business meeting model would take the form of discussion and/or motions which could not be ignored. Finally, nominating committee reports are the only form of business besides membership transfers which the Church Manual specifically permits on Sabbath, and even then it allows the congregation to decide to conduct this business outside of the Sabbath hours.
“The report of this committee may be presented at the Sabbath service or at a specially called business meeting of the church” (Church Manual, p.157).
Now we get to Pastor DeSilva’s contention. His line of logic was that just as the nominating committee does its work outside of the Sabbath hours and brings the results to the church to be voted on on Sabbath, so the congregation was doing its work on the vision statement outside of the Sabbath and bringing the matter to a vote on Sabbath, and that separating the discussion from the vote made the vote acceptable Sabbath behavior. This logic breaks down instantly when one considers that the vision statement was three times discussed on Sabbath afternoons, thereby bringing the “work” into the Sabbath hours, but there are other more serious problems with this logic. While it fails to adhere to the nominating committee process in the way that Pastor DeSilva suggested, it is actually too close to the nominating committee process in other ways. The first of these is that it was created by a small group (of one), not by the congregation. The second is that the discussion meetings had no power. They were very clearly laid out as discussion only. Members of the congregation could talk until they were blue in the face and not make one wit of difference in the content of the vision statement because no motions, amendments, or votes were permitted in these meetings. Just as in the nominating process, the members’ role was purely observational—all actual decisions/changes occurred at the discretion of the small group (which in this case was the senior pastor).
And why is all of this a problem? There are two reasons. First, the church is supposed to operate on the basis of representative governance in which initiative and final power rests with the congregation in business meeting. (For an explanation of why the church is run this way, see the earlier post, “The Lord’s Anointed, Pt. 2.”) The nominating committee process is spelled out as an exception to this policy for specific reasons and a limited purpose. It is not meant to be taken as a pattern for other types of business.
Second, there is the concern that conducting business on the Sabbath—even if it is church business—violates God’s directive to keep the Sabbath holy. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has never created a rulebook on what is or is not acceptable on the Sabbath, preferring instead to leave such decisions to each individual’s conscience. The worldwide church does, however, place great emphasis on the need to take great care in preserving the holiness of the day. The following statement is made by the Church Manual in reference to the practice of distributing literature to the congregation on Sabbath, “Methods that are objectionable and that would tend to divert the attention of the congregation from true worship and reverence should be avoided on the Sabbath” (p.89). Even in a matter as innocuous as literature distribution, then, there is need for caution that the sanctity of the Sabbath and the worship experience not be violated! How much more cautious should we be about out-and-out business and voting on the Sabbath? Let’s refer back to the nominating committee process once more. As we have already quoted, even in that process where the Manual specifically permits the business to take place on Sabbath there is also provision for the business to take place outside of Sabbath hours if the congregation finds that to be preferable.
The principle behind this is to respect the sensitivities some members may have in this regard and not offend by requiring that they do something they find objectionable in order to participate in the decisions of the church. This principle is the same one Paul described in 1 Corinthians 8:9-12 when he was giving counsel on whether or not to eat meat which had been offered to idols, “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak… When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.” So in the matter of conducting business on Sabbath, even if the pastor genuinely believed that such action did not constitute a violation of the Sabbath’s holiness he should have respected the concerns of those who believed that it did and moved the vote to some other day of the week. Yet he would not, choosing instead to “wound their weak conscience.”
Finally, we come to the reason why Pastor DeSilva refused to move the vote. His argument was that votes on Sabbath are better because there are more people to participate in the vote. This sounds good on the surface, but it deserves some closer scrutiny. Yes, there are more members present during Sabbath morning services than at business meetings on other days of the week. Why is that? Too many other commitments? Lack of interest? Lack of faith in the process? Whatever the reasons the result is the same: a less-educated voting body. When it came to the discussions on the vision statement Pastor DeSilva claimed that many people saw no need to come because they agreed with it. So? The point of holding discussions is to exchange viewpoints. Someone who agreed with it might change their mind after hearing the objections of someone else just as someone who disagreed might come to support it upon hearing the perspective of someone who did. Of course, it is also possible that a position held before the meeting would only be strengthened for hearing the discussion, but even if that were true it would be a stronger, better-rounded opinion for having participated. The point is that participation in the “preliminaries” of the process makes better voters. So Pastor DeSilva’s argument boils down to one of quantity over quality. Yes, more people are “involved” if votes are held on Sabbath morning rather than at any other time, but is that involvement really beneficial to the final decision if the additional individuals haven’t taken the time to thoroughly educate themselves on the subject at hand?
The bottom line is that Pastor DeSilva held the vote on the vision statement on Sabbath because he wanted to, not because of procedural precedent indicating that it was the better thing to do.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 49
As the time for the vote on the vision statement grew near the Group was still gravely concerned about the prospect of a Sabbath vote with no discussion. A member of the Group called Elder Bediako and asked that he intercede for us with Pastor DeSilva to get the meeting moved. The response was that he would consider it. During the announcements Sabbath morning January 31, 2009 we were told that after consulting with Elder Bediako Pastor DeSilva had decided to move the vote to a business meeting to be held directly after the service instead of having it during the service itself. (We learned afterward that Elder Bediako had tried to convince Pastor DeSilva to move the vote to some other day, but after more than an hour of discussion the most he could convince Pastor DeSilva to do was to have the vote after the service.)
The meeting began at 12:40, and Pastor DeSilva declared that the meeting would be done by 1pm. At that meeting a motion was made to table the vote until the vision statement had been reviewed by the finance committee. Pastor DeSilva hemmed and hawed and squirmed and commented on this motion in such a way as to cast the idea in an unfavorable light, all under the guise of explaining a motion to table. When he finally got around to taking the vote the motion failed. Elder Bediako then got up to speak. He made a brief statement about preferring that the meeting not have been on Sabbath, and the importance of following proper process and procedure, and then expounded on the importance of the need for our congregation to do mission. When he got done it was four minutes to one.
Pastor DeSilva looked around for one last hand to recognize. There were far more hands in the air than could be recognized in the remaining time, but Sister L managed to catch his attention. She moved to amend the vision statement to state that it would not be binding regarding any financial expenditure until that specific expenditure had been approved by the finance committee and a duly called business meeting. The concern that the Group was attempting to address through this amendment was the possibility that Pastor DeSilva would use the vote approving the conceptual vision as full authorization for his favorite projects and not take the expenditures through the usual approval channels because they were "already approved." Pastor DeSilva refused to accept the motion, claiming that it was redundant to policy. Sister L asserted that if it were redundant there would be neither harm nor inconvenience in allowing it in order to ease worried minds. He still refused to allow action on the motion. Another speaker was recognized. When that speaker was done several Group members sought to be recognized on a point of order. (The point of order being that a chairman doesn’t have the right to refuse to recognize a duly made motion). Seeing this, Pastor DeSilva graciously decided to allow the motion made by Sister L to proceed. It failed. The vote on the vision statement was then taken and it passed.
Pastor DeSilva then asked Elder Bediako to close the meeting with prayer. When Elder Bediako got up he declared how pleased he was that the vision had passed. After the meeting several members of the Group clustered around him discussing what had just happened. There was a general sentiment that Elder Bediako had just done our efforts to restore proper governance significant harm by getting up and declaring what appeared to be such wholehearted support for the pastors and their plans. His response was "Oh no, no. You remember what I said at our meeting. I said we have to follow proper process and procedure."
Unfortunately, most members did not interpret Elder Bediako’s statement about proper process and procedure to be a statement in opposition to the change in structure. They took it as support for the new system of governance, particularly in the context of his gushing enthusiasm for the vision statement.
Next: The Meeting
Religious
The meeting began at 12:40, and Pastor DeSilva declared that the meeting would be done by 1pm. At that meeting a motion was made to table the vote until the vision statement had been reviewed by the finance committee. Pastor DeSilva hemmed and hawed and squirmed and commented on this motion in such a way as to cast the idea in an unfavorable light, all under the guise of explaining a motion to table. When he finally got around to taking the vote the motion failed. Elder Bediako then got up to speak. He made a brief statement about preferring that the meeting not have been on Sabbath, and the importance of following proper process and procedure, and then expounded on the importance of the need for our congregation to do mission. When he got done it was four minutes to one.
Pastor DeSilva looked around for one last hand to recognize. There were far more hands in the air than could be recognized in the remaining time, but Sister L managed to catch his attention. She moved to amend the vision statement to state that it would not be binding regarding any financial expenditure until that specific expenditure had been approved by the finance committee and a duly called business meeting. The concern that the Group was attempting to address through this amendment was the possibility that Pastor DeSilva would use the vote approving the conceptual vision as full authorization for his favorite projects and not take the expenditures through the usual approval channels because they were "already approved." Pastor DeSilva refused to accept the motion, claiming that it was redundant to policy. Sister L asserted that if it were redundant there would be neither harm nor inconvenience in allowing it in order to ease worried minds. He still refused to allow action on the motion. Another speaker was recognized. When that speaker was done several Group members sought to be recognized on a point of order. (The point of order being that a chairman doesn’t have the right to refuse to recognize a duly made motion). Seeing this, Pastor DeSilva graciously decided to allow the motion made by Sister L to proceed. It failed. The vote on the vision statement was then taken and it passed.
Pastor DeSilva then asked Elder Bediako to close the meeting with prayer. When Elder Bediako got up he declared how pleased he was that the vision had passed. After the meeting several members of the Group clustered around him discussing what had just happened. There was a general sentiment that Elder Bediako had just done our efforts to restore proper governance significant harm by getting up and declaring what appeared to be such wholehearted support for the pastors and their plans. His response was "Oh no, no. You remember what I said at our meeting. I said we have to follow proper process and procedure."
Unfortunately, most members did not interpret Elder Bediako’s statement about proper process and procedure to be a statement in opposition to the change in structure. They took it as support for the new system of governance, particularly in the context of his gushing enthusiasm for the vision statement.
Next: The Meeting
Religious
Monday, December 21, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 18
"There must be no pretense in the lives of those who have so sacred and solemn a message as we have been given to bear. The world is watching Seventh-day Adventists, because it knows something of their beliefs and of the high standard they have; and when it sees those who do not live up to their profession, it points at them with scorn. God's people should now make mighty intercession to him for help. It is the privilege of every believer, first to talk with God, and then, as God's mouthpiece, to talk with others. In order that we may have something to impart, we must daily receive light and blessing. Men and women who commune with God, who have an abiding Christ, who co-operate with holy angels, are needed at this time. The cause needs those who have power to draw with Christ, power to express the love of God. With wonderful, ennobling grace the Lord sanctifies the humble petitioner, giving him power to perform the most difficult duties. All that is undertaken is done as to the Lord, and this elevates and sanctifies the lowliest calling. It invests with new dignity every word and act, and links the humblest worker, the poorest of God's servants, with the highest of the angels in the heavenly courts" (Review and Herald, December 8, 1910 par. 6).
"The highest evidence of nobility in a Christian is self-control. He who can stand unmoved amid a storm of abuse is one of God's heroes" (Reflecting Christ, p. 292).
"The highest evidence of nobility in a Christian is self-control. He who can stand unmoved amid a storm of abuse is one of God's heroes" (Reflecting Christ, p. 292).
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 48
On January 19, 2009 a meeting took place between the Group and Elder Bediako, at his request. Elder Bediako is a member of the Takoma Park SDA Church and the Executive Secretary of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. The meeting took place at Elder B’s home, which was so packed for the occasion that people were sitting on the fireplace hearth for lack of other space. Elder Bediako was provided with a summary of the Group’s efforts to date. The floor was then opened for individual statements. Many took the opportunity to describe troubling behavior they had observed from the pastoral staff in the last few years. These testimonies described behavior such as Pastor DeSilva and the business manager misinforming the congregation on financial matters (particularly in regards to the loan for the a/c repair), Pastor DeSilva pressuring potential baptismal candidates, and expressions of jealousy from Pastor DeSilva that an associate pastor should be asked to perform the funerals of prominent members instead of him.
One individual questioned Elder Bediako about his position on the change in governance structure. (Even after the letter from Elder Bediako had circulated Pastor DeSilva continued to claim that he had Elder Bediako’s support. He claimed to have met privately with Elder Bediako after he had written the letter and been told that the Group had misinterpreted it. Mrs. DeSilva, likewise, claimed to have spoken directly with Elder Bediako and been told that he supported the new governance.) The Group wished to clear up this confusion once and for all, and was eager to hear his answer. His response was quite telling.
“The General Conference was 80 years at Takoma Park. When we left, nobody noticed. We were in our own circle—we didn’t go out. The need to reach the community, nobody will oppose it. I’m 100% in favor of that. I personally believe it should not be done only by Takoma Park. Sligo [SDA Church] is also in Takoma Park. The hospital, WAH, is there. The college is also there. Personally, I wish we were working together to really reach that community.
“I’ve met with Alan twice. If you were to see his outline, his diagram, I’ve made a lot of changes on it. And when he came to my office I took and made suggestions. …I’ve made corrections. Miller called me, and I said, ‘According to my suggestions, I would be 100% behind it because that’s Church Manual.’ He understands all that.
“My outfit is the one in charge of the Church Manual. I’m saying that Secretariat, of which I’m the head of it, is in charge of the Church Manual. If there are to be any changes, it comes through us, and we’ll work it out. Now, would I tear up and change what we have agreed upon? And that’s why Parmenter wrote that letter. I say, he’s the one responsible for that, he’s the secretary for the world Church Manual Committee, and I have approved it. For him [Pastor DeSilva] to say that I’m in favor of that, yes I’m in favor of that, according to my suggestions…
“The General Conference president doesn’t have that power [to unilaterally change the Church Manual]! …The Adventist Church is not like the pope—he speaks, and no one questions. To make that change it has to go to GC Session.
“The Church Board should appoint all other subcommittees, and should report to the church. Unfortunately, some of our ministers are going outside to learn how the church should grow. Even the church growth specialists are beginning to say that what has worked on the outside will not work in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, because our church is different.”
At the end of the meeting Elder Bediako expressed astonishment and disbelief that the Potomac Conference was allowing all of these things to happen at Takoma Park unchecked and acknowledged that the Group’s efforts were not about some personal agenda, but rather God’s agenda.
Next: Voting the Vision
Religious
One individual questioned Elder Bediako about his position on the change in governance structure. (Even after the letter from Elder Bediako had circulated Pastor DeSilva continued to claim that he had Elder Bediako’s support. He claimed to have met privately with Elder Bediako after he had written the letter and been told that the Group had misinterpreted it. Mrs. DeSilva, likewise, claimed to have spoken directly with Elder Bediako and been told that he supported the new governance.) The Group wished to clear up this confusion once and for all, and was eager to hear his answer. His response was quite telling.
“The General Conference was 80 years at Takoma Park. When we left, nobody noticed. We were in our own circle—we didn’t go out. The need to reach the community, nobody will oppose it. I’m 100% in favor of that. I personally believe it should not be done only by Takoma Park. Sligo [SDA Church] is also in Takoma Park. The hospital, WAH, is there. The college is also there. Personally, I wish we were working together to really reach that community.
“I’ve met with Alan twice. If you were to see his outline, his diagram, I’ve made a lot of changes on it. And when he came to my office I took and made suggestions. …I’ve made corrections. Miller called me, and I said, ‘According to my suggestions, I would be 100% behind it because that’s Church Manual.’ He understands all that.
“My outfit is the one in charge of the Church Manual. I’m saying that Secretariat, of which I’m the head of it, is in charge of the Church Manual. If there are to be any changes, it comes through us, and we’ll work it out. Now, would I tear up and change what we have agreed upon? And that’s why Parmenter wrote that letter. I say, he’s the one responsible for that, he’s the secretary for the world Church Manual Committee, and I have approved it. For him [Pastor DeSilva] to say that I’m in favor of that, yes I’m in favor of that, according to my suggestions…
“The General Conference president doesn’t have that power [to unilaterally change the Church Manual]! …The Adventist Church is not like the pope—he speaks, and no one questions. To make that change it has to go to GC Session.
“The Church Board should appoint all other subcommittees, and should report to the church. Unfortunately, some of our ministers are going outside to learn how the church should grow. Even the church growth specialists are beginning to say that what has worked on the outside will not work in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, because our church is different.”
At the end of the meeting Elder Bediako expressed astonishment and disbelief that the Potomac Conference was allowing all of these things to happen at Takoma Park unchecked and acknowledged that the Group’s efforts were not about some personal agenda, but rather God’s agenda.
Next: Voting the Vision
Religious
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 47
At an elders' meeting the next morning (January 18, 2009) there was great discussion regarding the appropriateness of the proposed vote regarding the vision Pastor DeSilva presented, both because of the lack of discussion opportunities and the because of the vote being scheduled on the Sabbath. Eventually the elders brought to a vote the matter of whether or not the decision should be made on Sabbath. Five elders voted in favor of the vote being on Sabbath, four opposed, and one abstained. It was agreed that the vote would not occur until January 31, and that two additional discussion meetings would be held, one on the afternoon of the 24th and the other the following Wednesday evening.
The first Wednesday night meeting was held as scheduled, attended by only seven people. The Sabbath afternoon meeting drew a larger crowd, though still not large. Pastor DeSilva began by stating that the meeting was only going to last an hour. He spent the first 35 minutes rereading the vision statement and talking about it.
When the floor was finally opened to comment the communications director stood up to speak to some of the substantial expenditure items. She explained that since the ministries board meeting on the 17th, she had done some research on exactly what it would cost to set up the envisioned videography program. Her numbers were based on discussions with other SDA churches with video recording programs like the one Pastor DeSilva proposed. The likely figure was $1.5 million. When the communications director finished the chair of the finance committee jumped up to speak and, without any substantiating numbers of his own, said there was no way it was going to cost that much. Pastor DeSilva echoed the belief (again without any documentation).
Six other people spoke (two of which were asking for unity among the church members, three who were likewise concerned by the document, and one in support) and then Pastor DeSilva declared that the meeting had to end because the hour was up. There was some protest at this because others wished to speak who had not been recognized, and two more were allowed to speak before the meeting was formally closed.
The second Wednesday night meeting included a protracted discussion on the appropriateness of business votes on Sabbath, but Pastor DeSilva would not change his mind about the vote taking place on the Sabbath morning during the Divine Service. He contended that to vote on the vision statement on Sabbath was no different than voting on a nominating committee report on Sabbath. This issue will be explored in a separate post.
Next: The Straight Story
Religious
The first Wednesday night meeting was held as scheduled, attended by only seven people. The Sabbath afternoon meeting drew a larger crowd, though still not large. Pastor DeSilva began by stating that the meeting was only going to last an hour. He spent the first 35 minutes rereading the vision statement and talking about it.
When the floor was finally opened to comment the communications director stood up to speak to some of the substantial expenditure items. She explained that since the ministries board meeting on the 17th, she had done some research on exactly what it would cost to set up the envisioned videography program. Her numbers were based on discussions with other SDA churches with video recording programs like the one Pastor DeSilva proposed. The likely figure was $1.5 million. When the communications director finished the chair of the finance committee jumped up to speak and, without any substantiating numbers of his own, said there was no way it was going to cost that much. Pastor DeSilva echoed the belief (again without any documentation).
Six other people spoke (two of which were asking for unity among the church members, three who were likewise concerned by the document, and one in support) and then Pastor DeSilva declared that the meeting had to end because the hour was up. There was some protest at this because others wished to speak who had not been recognized, and two more were allowed to speak before the meeting was formally closed.
The second Wednesday night meeting included a protracted discussion on the appropriateness of business votes on Sabbath, but Pastor DeSilva would not change his mind about the vote taking place on the Sabbath morning during the Divine Service. He contended that to vote on the vision statement on Sabbath was no different than voting on a nominating committee report on Sabbath. This issue will be explored in a separate post.
Next: The Straight Story
Religious
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 46
The following announcement appeared in the Takoma Park bulletin on Sabbath morning, January 17, 2009, "The Church Ministry Board has completed their work on the Mission, Vision and Core Values statements. You should receive a copy before you leave today. Please review them carefully. Pastor DeSilva will be at church Wednesday, January 21st from 6:00 to 7:00 pm for any clarification you may have. Next Sabbath, January 24th during the service, we will take a vote without discussion."
Remember, on the previous Sabbath afternoon Pastor DeSilva had said that the "vision" would be discussed and voted on by the ministry board at its February meeting before being presented to the church for a vote. It is worth noting that the proposed meetings were only for "clarification," not objection or amendment. Also, Pastor DeSilva was once again choosing to schedule business decisions on Sabbath, just as he did with the vote to adopt the Borden Report and change our governance structure.
During the announcements that morning Pastor DeSilva stated that he had intended to distribute printed copies of his vision statement that morning, but in looking at the printed copies had noticed that they were "not the correct version," so he didn't want them distributed. They had, however, been made available to the people that attended first service. He also said that the vote might be postponed a week so that the corrections could be made and the corrected copies distributed but he wasn't quite sure how we were going to make it all work. At the end of his sermon that morning he read through the entire written vision statement, which was about four pages long.
When Pastor DeSilva concluded his reading he invited the congregation to bow their heads for prayer. He had only gotten as far as "Our Father" when he was interrupted by a member not associated with the Group who seemed to have objections to the vision statement. The man had risen from his seat and stood in front of the podium trying to make his point to Pastor DeSilva. Much of what the gentleman said was unintelligible in the audience, but one of the statements that could be made out was to the effect that the vision was Pastor DeSilva's, not God's.
Needless to say, this outburst during prayer brought a change in the mood of the service. Pastor DeSilva was trying to maintain his pastoral persona, but everyone could see his anger rising as he tried to quiet the man. His final exclamation of "Submit yourself!" silenced the gentleman long enough for the pastor to finish the prayer, but then the man started up again. At this Pastor DeSilva and the other gentleman on the platform came down and tried to physically calm the objector as Pastor DeSilva called for the closing hymn. The platform party was joined by the head elder, head deacon, and several others who tried to forcibly escort the man out of the sanctuary. The man turned his attention to the congregation, grabbed a hold of the back of the front pew, and continued to try to speak. Eventually the group of men overpowered him and he was led out of the sanctuary.
Next: Talk
Religious
Remember, on the previous Sabbath afternoon Pastor DeSilva had said that the "vision" would be discussed and voted on by the ministry board at its February meeting before being presented to the church for a vote. It is worth noting that the proposed meetings were only for "clarification," not objection or amendment. Also, Pastor DeSilva was once again choosing to schedule business decisions on Sabbath, just as he did with the vote to adopt the Borden Report and change our governance structure.
During the announcements that morning Pastor DeSilva stated that he had intended to distribute printed copies of his vision statement that morning, but in looking at the printed copies had noticed that they were "not the correct version," so he didn't want them distributed. They had, however, been made available to the people that attended first service. He also said that the vote might be postponed a week so that the corrections could be made and the corrected copies distributed but he wasn't quite sure how we were going to make it all work. At the end of his sermon that morning he read through the entire written vision statement, which was about four pages long.
When Pastor DeSilva concluded his reading he invited the congregation to bow their heads for prayer. He had only gotten as far as "Our Father" when he was interrupted by a member not associated with the Group who seemed to have objections to the vision statement. The man had risen from his seat and stood in front of the podium trying to make his point to Pastor DeSilva. Much of what the gentleman said was unintelligible in the audience, but one of the statements that could be made out was to the effect that the vision was Pastor DeSilva's, not God's.
Needless to say, this outburst during prayer brought a change in the mood of the service. Pastor DeSilva was trying to maintain his pastoral persona, but everyone could see his anger rising as he tried to quiet the man. His final exclamation of "Submit yourself!" silenced the gentleman long enough for the pastor to finish the prayer, but then the man started up again. At this Pastor DeSilva and the other gentleman on the platform came down and tried to physically calm the objector as Pastor DeSilva called for the closing hymn. The platform party was joined by the head elder, head deacon, and several others who tried to forcibly escort the man out of the sanctuary. The man turned his attention to the congregation, grabbed a hold of the back of the front pew, and continued to try to speak. Eventually the group of men overpowered him and he was led out of the sanctuary.
Next: Talk
Religious
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 45
A special Ministries Board meeting was held on Sabbath afternoon, January 10, 2009, after a potluck for its members and their families. The purpose of this meeting was to create new mission and vision statements for the church.
This meeting had six segments. In the first segment Pastor DeSilva offered an explanation of what a mission statement is supposed to be. One of the prime criteria listed was that it ought to be short enough to fit on a T-shirt. The second segment consisted of the board members being broken up into groups by tables to come up with mission statement suggestions. The recommendations were then collected, discussed, edited, and voted on in the third segment. "We seek to know Christ and lead our community into a relationship with Him" was the mission statement that was ultimately chosen. After the third segment was finished Pastor DeSilva announced a five minute break, at which time many board members left. This was not especially surprising since it was getting close to 4 pm and many had family members with them, including small children.
The fourth segment featured Pastor James (the youth pastor at that time) describing the properties of a vision statement. Pastor James’ presentation dealt with the spiritual components that should be included in a church’s vision statement. He did not discuss how the vision statement should grow out of the mission statement. He then told us that the ministries board would not be working on the vision statement. Pastor DeSilva would be solely responsible for the creation of the vision statement.
Then Pastor DeSilva got up for the fifth segment to "cast the vision." This was to be a five year plan. He stated as he began that this vision was not yet in a written form, and that the office manager (who serves as recording secretary) would be writing it down as he presented it and that the written version would be reviewed at the next ministries board meeting. Some of the vision Pastor DeSilva presented was reasonable, doable, and even admirable, but it also included some high priced items, including beginning to produce DVDs of our services, live web streaming, and the introduction of two giant screens at the front of the sanctuary. (We presently do not have the technology or specialized expertise to accomplish any of those goals, so substantial financial expenditure would be required to develop the infrastructure and train personnel.)
When Pastor DeSilva finished "casting" his vision for the church, he invited questions from the ministries board. One of the first hands up in this final segment of the meeting was that of the communications leader. She expressed concern about the financial requirements of the vision that pertained to her department (which oversees all things electronic in the sanctuary) and questioned whether all of this technology investment was truly beneficial to the church or just a form of "keeping up with the Joneses." She also expressed disappointment that Pastor DeSilva had not shown her the courtesy of discussing these plans with her before bringing them to the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva responded to this that he had not spoken to anyone about anything he presented in the vision before presenting it to the ministries board just then.
The communications leader did not challenge this assertion in the meeting but she remarked to members of the Group afterward that she knew this statement to be a lie on two counts. First, several weeks before as she was leaving the church after closing up a/v operations for that Sabbath she paused in the entry just outside the sanctuary to listen to a conversation in the sanctuary because it seemed to pertain to her department. What she heard was Pastor DeSilva describing to someone the technological additions he wanted to make to the sanctuary. As she described it what she overheard that day was exactly the same pitch made by Pastor DeSilva in the ministries board meeting, almost word-for-word. Second, she stated that during the potluck on the afternoon of the meeting another department head had remarked to her that Pastor DeSilva had discussed potential plans for that department with that department head. In short, Pastor DeSilva had not only discussed plans for other departments with their department heads, but had also discussed his plans for the communications department with individuals other than the communications leader, so his assertion in the meeting that he had spoken to no one about the content of the vision in advance of its presentation was incorrect.
Next: Change of Plan
Religious
This meeting had six segments. In the first segment Pastor DeSilva offered an explanation of what a mission statement is supposed to be. One of the prime criteria listed was that it ought to be short enough to fit on a T-shirt. The second segment consisted of the board members being broken up into groups by tables to come up with mission statement suggestions. The recommendations were then collected, discussed, edited, and voted on in the third segment. "We seek to know Christ and lead our community into a relationship with Him" was the mission statement that was ultimately chosen. After the third segment was finished Pastor DeSilva announced a five minute break, at which time many board members left. This was not especially surprising since it was getting close to 4 pm and many had family members with them, including small children.
The fourth segment featured Pastor James (the youth pastor at that time) describing the properties of a vision statement. Pastor James’ presentation dealt with the spiritual components that should be included in a church’s vision statement. He did not discuss how the vision statement should grow out of the mission statement. He then told us that the ministries board would not be working on the vision statement. Pastor DeSilva would be solely responsible for the creation of the vision statement.
Then Pastor DeSilva got up for the fifth segment to "cast the vision." This was to be a five year plan. He stated as he began that this vision was not yet in a written form, and that the office manager (who serves as recording secretary) would be writing it down as he presented it and that the written version would be reviewed at the next ministries board meeting. Some of the vision Pastor DeSilva presented was reasonable, doable, and even admirable, but it also included some high priced items, including beginning to produce DVDs of our services, live web streaming, and the introduction of two giant screens at the front of the sanctuary. (We presently do not have the technology or specialized expertise to accomplish any of those goals, so substantial financial expenditure would be required to develop the infrastructure and train personnel.)
When Pastor DeSilva finished "casting" his vision for the church, he invited questions from the ministries board. One of the first hands up in this final segment of the meeting was that of the communications leader. She expressed concern about the financial requirements of the vision that pertained to her department (which oversees all things electronic in the sanctuary) and questioned whether all of this technology investment was truly beneficial to the church or just a form of "keeping up with the Joneses." She also expressed disappointment that Pastor DeSilva had not shown her the courtesy of discussing these plans with her before bringing them to the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva responded to this that he had not spoken to anyone about anything he presented in the vision before presenting it to the ministries board just then.
The communications leader did not challenge this assertion in the meeting but she remarked to members of the Group afterward that she knew this statement to be a lie on two counts. First, several weeks before as she was leaving the church after closing up a/v operations for that Sabbath she paused in the entry just outside the sanctuary to listen to a conversation in the sanctuary because it seemed to pertain to her department. What she heard was Pastor DeSilva describing to someone the technological additions he wanted to make to the sanctuary. As she described it what she overheard that day was exactly the same pitch made by Pastor DeSilva in the ministries board meeting, almost word-for-word. Second, she stated that during the potluck on the afternoon of the meeting another department head had remarked to her that Pastor DeSilva had discussed potential plans for that department with that department head. In short, Pastor DeSilva had not only discussed plans for other departments with their department heads, but had also discussed his plans for the communications department with individuals other than the communications leader, so his assertion in the meeting that he had spoken to no one about the content of the vision in advance of its presentation was incorrect.
Next: Change of Plan
Religious
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Lord's Anointed, Pt. 3
“And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, ‘Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!’” (Rev. 22:8, 9).
This series began with a consideration of the concept that laity “cannot touch the Lord’s anointed.” In this final post of this series we come full circle to look at the dangers of this mindset.
The first and most obvious danger is that it confuses the messenger with the message. God’s message is holy and perfect. His messengers, presumably, strive for holiness and seek to set a good example for others, but no one is going to fully achieve that goal this side of heaven. Even the sinless angels shied away from being equated with the messages they carried to humans, as seen in the text above.
“Again: those who do accept the truth naturally expect that the one who presents it to them is right in his ideas of general principles and of what constitutes Christian character. When associated with him, they incline to do as he does. If his practices are wrong, they almost imperceptibly become partakers of the evil. His defects are reproduced in their religious experience. Often, through their love and reverence for him, some objectionable feature of his character is even copied by them as a virtue. If the one who is thus misrepresenting Christ could know what harm has been wrought by the faults of character which he has excused and cherished, he would be filled with horror” (Review and Herald, April 12, 1892, par. 5).
The best defense against this danger, quite simply, is to not put the messenger “up on a pedestal.”
The next danger is that this mindset encourages people to let the pastor do their thinking for them. To bring this home to the situation at Takoma Park, a member of the Ministries Board was once asked why she did not speak up to correct the pastor when he misrepresented the results of a meeting of the committee she represented. Her response was, “I’m going to do what the pastor wants.” The committee had decided something very different than what the pastor claimed, but this individual thought that the pastor’s opinion was more important than that of the committee, and accepted it without question.
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).
God doesn’t accept a borrowed relationship with Him. He insists that each of His followers seek Him and know Him for themselves. This includes thinking through matters for themselves rather than blindly accepting the opinion of the pastor. It is, fundamentally, a difference in the level of knowing. A child can know that it isn’t good to touch a hot stove because their mother told them so, or they can know because they actually touched the hot stove and experienced that it wasn’t good. In matters like hot stoves it is not only acceptable but preferable to get by with a lesser level of knowing—the mother’s warning. In the matter of knowing God nothing less than a first-hand knowing, experiencing, and understanding is acceptable. This sort of knowing cannot happen unless each individual thinks through these matters for themselves.
The third danger inherent in this mindset builds on the second: if individuals rely on their pastors to do their thinking for them they can be led astray.
“Many will show that they are not one with Christ, that they are not dead to the world, that they may live with Him; and frequent will be the apostasies of men who have occupied responsible positions” (Review and Herald, Sept. 11, 1888).
"Men whom He has greatly honored will, in the closing scenes of this earth's history, pattern after ancient Israel. . . . A departure from the great principles Christ has laid down in His teachings, a working out of human projects, using the Scriptures to justify a wrong course of action under the perverse working of Lucifer, will confirm men in misunderstanding, and the truth that they need to keep them from wrong practices will leak out of the soul like water from a leaky vessel” (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 13, pp. 379, 381).
And how does all of this relate to the situation at Takoma Park?
Takoma Park has seen many instances of an overreaching of pastoral power in order to facilitate, and in the wake of, the change in governance structure. This list includes overriding the decision of the business meeting that the change in structure not be included in the vote on the Paul Borden Report, choosing not to recognize motions made by members in business meetings, telling members not to meet to informally discuss church issues without pastoral approval, reassigning subcommittees from one committee to another, and appointing lay leadership instead of following election protocols. These actions have gone unchallenged by many in the congregation because of the mindset that the “Lord’s anointed” cannot be touched.
As we pointed out in part two of this series, God intends that the church utilize a representative form of governance in which all members have a voice to contribute to the collective wisdom which guides the church. All of the pastoral actions listed above fly in the face of the nature and function of representative governance as well as realizing the dangers of allowing the pastor to do the thinking for the congregation and the resulting risk of being led astray.
The events detailed at the end of the Epic, Pt. 37 are a perfect example. Just to refresh everyone’s memory, at the end of a business meeting on Sept. 28, 2008 Pastor DeSilva announced a plan for conducting a spiritual revival within the church during the final quarter of 2008. This revival was to include the visitation of every active member by a pastor and/or elder during the quarter. The plan further called for a day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter to determine whether the spiritual renewal of the congregation had been successful. If the answer was “no,” the program was to be continued a while longer until the answer changed to “yes.” The visitation program fell apart about as soon as it began, with only a handful of members ever receiving visits. This failure didn’t stop the pastoral staff from declaring great success during the day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter.
Now, we got slammed in the comments after describing the failure of the visitation program because it was supposedly a personal attack that had nothing to do with governance. If a serious illness was misdiagnosed, or an implement left inside a patient during surgery, or a prescription written for the wrong medication, would complaining about such things be a personal attack against the doctor? If a lawyer were lazy and inattentive during a trial, would complaining about this behavior be a personal attack or a professional critique? Being a pastor is as much a profession as being a doctor or a lawyer. If a pastor sets a goal in his work for the church and fails to reach that goal pointing this out is a professional critique, not a personal attack. With that in mind, there were several aspects of the failure of the visitation program and the way the pastors dealt with it that pertain to governance and the way clergy and laity relate.
First, there was no public analysis of success as was promised when Pastor DeSilva initially described the effort. Rather than asking the congregation whether it felt spiritually renewed, as they had promised to do, the pastors made the judgment. Whether or not they needed to make such a promise in the first place they chose to do so—and then broke it—preferring instead to once again do the thinking for the congregation.
Second, the pastors put on a front of success which did not reflect reality. The failure of the spiritual renewal campaign was not limited to the incomplete visitation program. The congregation was in just as much of an uproar after the campaign as before but the pastors, knowing that the Group was in communication with the Potomac Conference, were desperately looking for anything they could claim as evidence of their evangelistic progress and good leadership. So they claimed that the spiritual renewal campaign had been a grand success even though it hadn’t. In doing so they misrepresented the true state of things to both the congregation and the conference.
Third, the accountability board failed to do its job in holding the pastors accountable for failing to complete the visitation program. Pastor DeSilva himself has said many times that if a church leader or department fails to complete a goal they set out for themselves that it is the job of the accountability board to ask why the goal wasn’t reached and to look for ways to facilitate the accomplishment of that goal. In the case of the failed visitation program we would have expected the accountability board to consider the matter and ask questions such as, “Were people too busy to receive visitors because of the holidays? Were there just too many people to get to in that amount of time? Did some emergency come up which diverted the pastors’ attention?” No such investigation took place, nor was there any effort to facilitate completion of the goal.
Having a panel devoted to accountability sounds good in theory, but it is useless if it doesn’t actually do what it is supposed to. As we have discussed in numerous previous posts, Takoma Park’s accountability board has the senior pastor as a member, which makes it impossible for that body to render impartial decisions regarding pastoral performance. Further, the accountability board meets only when the senior pastor asks it to and on the agenda the pastor puts forth. And here we truly come back to the starting point of our circle, because the reason for this lack of independent thinking is that the accountability board chairman is of the “Lord’s anointed” mindset.
Failure to adhere to the Church Manual, particularly in matters of governance, is the problem the Takoma Park Church faces. The “Lord’s anointed” mindset is what enables this problem.
“How to Exercise Authority.--God will not vindicate any device whereby man shall in the slightest degree rule or oppress his fellow man. The only hope for fallen man is to look to Jesus, and receive Him as the only Saviour. As soon as man begins to make an iron rule for other men, as soon as he begins to harness up and drive men according to his own mind, he dishonors God, and imperils his own soul and the souls of his brethren...
“He [God] expects His workers to be tenderhearted. How merciful are the ways of God! (See Deut. 10:17-20; 2 Chron. 20:5-7, 9; 1 Peter 1:17.) But the rules God has given have been disregarded, and strange fire has been offered before the Lord...
“If a man is sanguine of his own powers, and seeks to exercise dominion over his brethren, feeling that he is invested with authority to make his will the ruling power, the best and only safe course is to remove him, lest great harm be done, and he lose his own soul, and imperil the souls of others” (The Publishing Ministry, p. 139).
Accountability is needed—real accountability, not mere lip service. This can be done without deviating from the system of governance stipulated by the Church Manual, but only if everyone concerned is serious about making it work. This requires letting go of the “Lord’s anointed” mindset and requiring that pastors do, indeed, practice what they preach. Failure to hold pastors to the same standard of behavior that they require of others carries the greatest danger of all—that prospective new citizens of the kingdom will be so turned off by this duplicity that they will refuse to accept the God we claim to be following.
“The Highhanded Use of Power.--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).
This series began with a consideration of the concept that laity “cannot touch the Lord’s anointed.” In this final post of this series we come full circle to look at the dangers of this mindset.
The first and most obvious danger is that it confuses the messenger with the message. God’s message is holy and perfect. His messengers, presumably, strive for holiness and seek to set a good example for others, but no one is going to fully achieve that goal this side of heaven. Even the sinless angels shied away from being equated with the messages they carried to humans, as seen in the text above.
“Again: those who do accept the truth naturally expect that the one who presents it to them is right in his ideas of general principles and of what constitutes Christian character. When associated with him, they incline to do as he does. If his practices are wrong, they almost imperceptibly become partakers of the evil. His defects are reproduced in their religious experience. Often, through their love and reverence for him, some objectionable feature of his character is even copied by them as a virtue. If the one who is thus misrepresenting Christ could know what harm has been wrought by the faults of character which he has excused and cherished, he would be filled with horror” (Review and Herald, April 12, 1892, par. 5).
The best defense against this danger, quite simply, is to not put the messenger “up on a pedestal.”
The next danger is that this mindset encourages people to let the pastor do their thinking for them. To bring this home to the situation at Takoma Park, a member of the Ministries Board was once asked why she did not speak up to correct the pastor when he misrepresented the results of a meeting of the committee she represented. Her response was, “I’m going to do what the pastor wants.” The committee had decided something very different than what the pastor claimed, but this individual thought that the pastor’s opinion was more important than that of the committee, and accepted it without question.
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).
God doesn’t accept a borrowed relationship with Him. He insists that each of His followers seek Him and know Him for themselves. This includes thinking through matters for themselves rather than blindly accepting the opinion of the pastor. It is, fundamentally, a difference in the level of knowing. A child can know that it isn’t good to touch a hot stove because their mother told them so, or they can know because they actually touched the hot stove and experienced that it wasn’t good. In matters like hot stoves it is not only acceptable but preferable to get by with a lesser level of knowing—the mother’s warning. In the matter of knowing God nothing less than a first-hand knowing, experiencing, and understanding is acceptable. This sort of knowing cannot happen unless each individual thinks through these matters for themselves.
The third danger inherent in this mindset builds on the second: if individuals rely on their pastors to do their thinking for them they can be led astray.
“Many will show that they are not one with Christ, that they are not dead to the world, that they may live with Him; and frequent will be the apostasies of men who have occupied responsible positions” (Review and Herald, Sept. 11, 1888).
"Men whom He has greatly honored will, in the closing scenes of this earth's history, pattern after ancient Israel. . . . A departure from the great principles Christ has laid down in His teachings, a working out of human projects, using the Scriptures to justify a wrong course of action under the perverse working of Lucifer, will confirm men in misunderstanding, and the truth that they need to keep them from wrong practices will leak out of the soul like water from a leaky vessel” (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 13, pp. 379, 381).
And how does all of this relate to the situation at Takoma Park?
Takoma Park has seen many instances of an overreaching of pastoral power in order to facilitate, and in the wake of, the change in governance structure. This list includes overriding the decision of the business meeting that the change in structure not be included in the vote on the Paul Borden Report, choosing not to recognize motions made by members in business meetings, telling members not to meet to informally discuss church issues without pastoral approval, reassigning subcommittees from one committee to another, and appointing lay leadership instead of following election protocols. These actions have gone unchallenged by many in the congregation because of the mindset that the “Lord’s anointed” cannot be touched.
As we pointed out in part two of this series, God intends that the church utilize a representative form of governance in which all members have a voice to contribute to the collective wisdom which guides the church. All of the pastoral actions listed above fly in the face of the nature and function of representative governance as well as realizing the dangers of allowing the pastor to do the thinking for the congregation and the resulting risk of being led astray.
The events detailed at the end of the Epic, Pt. 37 are a perfect example. Just to refresh everyone’s memory, at the end of a business meeting on Sept. 28, 2008 Pastor DeSilva announced a plan for conducting a spiritual revival within the church during the final quarter of 2008. This revival was to include the visitation of every active member by a pastor and/or elder during the quarter. The plan further called for a day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter to determine whether the spiritual renewal of the congregation had been successful. If the answer was “no,” the program was to be continued a while longer until the answer changed to “yes.” The visitation program fell apart about as soon as it began, with only a handful of members ever receiving visits. This failure didn’t stop the pastoral staff from declaring great success during the day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter.
Now, we got slammed in the comments after describing the failure of the visitation program because it was supposedly a personal attack that had nothing to do with governance. If a serious illness was misdiagnosed, or an implement left inside a patient during surgery, or a prescription written for the wrong medication, would complaining about such things be a personal attack against the doctor? If a lawyer were lazy and inattentive during a trial, would complaining about this behavior be a personal attack or a professional critique? Being a pastor is as much a profession as being a doctor or a lawyer. If a pastor sets a goal in his work for the church and fails to reach that goal pointing this out is a professional critique, not a personal attack. With that in mind, there were several aspects of the failure of the visitation program and the way the pastors dealt with it that pertain to governance and the way clergy and laity relate.
First, there was no public analysis of success as was promised when Pastor DeSilva initially described the effort. Rather than asking the congregation whether it felt spiritually renewed, as they had promised to do, the pastors made the judgment. Whether or not they needed to make such a promise in the first place they chose to do so—and then broke it—preferring instead to once again do the thinking for the congregation.
Second, the pastors put on a front of success which did not reflect reality. The failure of the spiritual renewal campaign was not limited to the incomplete visitation program. The congregation was in just as much of an uproar after the campaign as before but the pastors, knowing that the Group was in communication with the Potomac Conference, were desperately looking for anything they could claim as evidence of their evangelistic progress and good leadership. So they claimed that the spiritual renewal campaign had been a grand success even though it hadn’t. In doing so they misrepresented the true state of things to both the congregation and the conference.
Third, the accountability board failed to do its job in holding the pastors accountable for failing to complete the visitation program. Pastor DeSilva himself has said many times that if a church leader or department fails to complete a goal they set out for themselves that it is the job of the accountability board to ask why the goal wasn’t reached and to look for ways to facilitate the accomplishment of that goal. In the case of the failed visitation program we would have expected the accountability board to consider the matter and ask questions such as, “Were people too busy to receive visitors because of the holidays? Were there just too many people to get to in that amount of time? Did some emergency come up which diverted the pastors’ attention?” No such investigation took place, nor was there any effort to facilitate completion of the goal.
Having a panel devoted to accountability sounds good in theory, but it is useless if it doesn’t actually do what it is supposed to. As we have discussed in numerous previous posts, Takoma Park’s accountability board has the senior pastor as a member, which makes it impossible for that body to render impartial decisions regarding pastoral performance. Further, the accountability board meets only when the senior pastor asks it to and on the agenda the pastor puts forth. And here we truly come back to the starting point of our circle, because the reason for this lack of independent thinking is that the accountability board chairman is of the “Lord’s anointed” mindset.
Failure to adhere to the Church Manual, particularly in matters of governance, is the problem the Takoma Park Church faces. The “Lord’s anointed” mindset is what enables this problem.
“How to Exercise Authority.--God will not vindicate any device whereby man shall in the slightest degree rule or oppress his fellow man. The only hope for fallen man is to look to Jesus, and receive Him as the only Saviour. As soon as man begins to make an iron rule for other men, as soon as he begins to harness up and drive men according to his own mind, he dishonors God, and imperils his own soul and the souls of his brethren...
“He [God] expects His workers to be tenderhearted. How merciful are the ways of God! (See Deut. 10:17-20; 2 Chron. 20:5-7, 9; 1 Peter 1:17.) But the rules God has given have been disregarded, and strange fire has been offered before the Lord...
“If a man is sanguine of his own powers, and seeks to exercise dominion over his brethren, feeling that he is invested with authority to make his will the ruling power, the best and only safe course is to remove him, lest great harm be done, and he lose his own soul, and imperil the souls of others” (The Publishing Ministry, p. 139).
Accountability is needed—real accountability, not mere lip service. This can be done without deviating from the system of governance stipulated by the Church Manual, but only if everyone concerned is serious about making it work. This requires letting go of the “Lord’s anointed” mindset and requiring that pastors do, indeed, practice what they preach. Failure to hold pastors to the same standard of behavior that they require of others carries the greatest danger of all—that prospective new citizens of the kingdom will be so turned off by this duplicity that they will refuse to accept the God we claim to be following.
“The Highhanded Use of Power.--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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)