The Epic, Pt. 55

The following is the Group’s written response to Pastor DeSilva’s proposal which was formally presented at the meeting on April 16, 2009 between Elder Ramirez, Brother G, Elder C, Brother X, Pastor DeSilva, Elder J, and Elder D.

“Response to Pastor DeSilva’s Proposal

“It should be clear that this is and always has been an issue of proper adherence to the standard accepted operating policies of the Seventh-day Adventist World Church. This is not and never has been a campaign of personal interest, issue, or power.

“Our goal is to reestablish at the Takoma Park Church a system of governance which is wholly in accordance with the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual both on paper and in practice.

“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as showed in a flow chart.’

“A. Joining the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board does not reinstate the Church Board with the complete authority stipulated in the Church Manual. The Terms of Reference and placement of the two boards in the Organizational Flow Charts which were prepared by Pastor DeSilva after the acceptance of the 'Paul Borden Report' and distributed to the Church Ministries and Support and Accountability Boards clearly indicate that neither board nor a combination of both boards into one would have the same authority as mandated by the Church Manual for the local Church Board. Refer to Church Manual pp. 90-91.

“B. To suggest that the Support and Accountability Board be added to the Church Ministries Board to constitute the Church Board is an admission that the Takoma Park Church is operating without a properly constituted Church Board and, therefore, is not in harmony with the Church Manual.

“‘This proposal is subject to the following conditions:

Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess (sp.) structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual.’

“C. We disagree. The charts issued by Pastor DeSilva clearly indicate that the present Takoma Park Church structure is 'outside' the boundaries of the Church Manual. We also point out that not one of several charts has ever been approved by the Church in Business Meeting.

“D. The executive power which Pastor DeSilva has wielded in specific instances such as 'vision casting,' issuing organizational charts without congregational approval, manipulating committees to achieve predetermined outcomes, and placing his position between the Ministries Board and the Church Business Meeting is in contradiction to the Church Manual and general Seventh-day Adventist governance principles. All committees, including the Finance Committee, should report directly to the Church Board and/or the Church Business Meeting, not to the Pastor. See Church Manual, pp.25-26.

“E. The actions taken to implement the 'Paul Borden Report' and subsequent policy changes such as the 'Code of Ethics' are not in harmony with the Church Manual.

‘This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the
Takoma Park Church in business session.’

“F. In order to resolve this situation, an agreement for resolution must do the following:

“1. Acknowledge that a local church is not at liberty to establish its own system of organization and that any change in the membership, responsibilities or function of the Church Board is solely the responsibility of the world church.
“2. Affirm a literal interpretation of the Church Manual as the ultimate authority in matters of church governance.
“3. Rescind the action to adopt the Paul Borden Report.
“4. Adopt an action plan for evangelism in the Takoma Park Church.
“5. Reinstate the Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual, pp. 90 and 91, thereby eliminating the Accountability Board and Church Ministries Board.
“6. Acknowledge that all departments and ministries are accountable to the Church Board, not to the staff or any other person or entity.
“7. If an evaluation group is desired, its title should not use the term 'accountability.' It should be a subcommittee of the Church Board, serve in a purely advisory capacity, and be accountable to the Church Board.
“8. A Church Ministries body is most desirable. However, it should be a subcommittee of the Church Board, report directly to the Church Board, and be referred to as Church Ministries Council or Committee.
“9. Rescind the vote to adopt the 'Code of Ethics' which was widely interpreted as a loyalty oath and an effort to discourage legitimate, healthy discussion.
“10. Include a plan for the remediation of all related governance problems.
“11. Administrative observers from the Potomac Conference, Columbia Union Conference, North American Division, and General Conference are to certify that the new actions are in harmony with the Church Manual.
“12. Because of the present tensions now prevailing in the Takoma Park Church which have destroyed confidence and credibility, a neutral mutually-agreed-upon church official shall be appointed for observation and/or intervention purposes, to ensure that future actions are in harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual.”

This meeting was supposed to last one hour but ran into nearly three. In the course of the discussion the subject of appearing before the conference executive committee was brought up and one of the Group’s representatives observed that that had been the Group’s goal all along. Pastor DeSilva’s response to this observation was, "Then why am I wasting my time in this meeting? I came here tonight because I thought this was going to be the end of this situation. If you want to go to the executive committee let's go and they'll tell you you're wrong and we'll be done with this." Elder Ramirez tentatively agreed that it was time to take this matter before the conference executive committee. The conclusion of the meeting was that he would follow up in an email with specifics about meeting with the executive committee.

Next: Minutes, Version 1

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 54

Elder Ramirez continued the email dialogue on March 10, 2009.

“Dear [Brother G],

“I have carefully reviewed your response and feel that we are ready to take the next step. I will contact pastor DeSilva to set up the meeting as soon as possible. However, I still need from you the names of the two individuals who will be joining you for this meeting. I will ask the same of pastor DeSilva so that we can have consistency in this process. Please remember that the agenda for this meeting is to respond to pastor DeSilva’s proposal. You have stated that you have objections to his proposal, and so these objections must be clearly stated in this meeting.

“Finally, as to the spelling issue, I have simply copied what was sent to me by [Elder B] on December 12… I have tried to keep this as original as possible so that there would be consistency in our process.. Thank you for your interest in seeing this issue resolved. I look forward to receiving the requested information. Have a blessed day.

“Jorge A. Ramírez”

In the months since the Group’s spokesgroup had initially been formed circumstances had changed for some of its members, who found that they could not continue in the role. So the Group made some changes in the membership of the spokesgroup in preparation for the next meeting with the conference. Brother G continued to be part of the spokesgroup. Brothers H and R were replaced by Brother X and Elder C. Sister L became an alternate. The names of the reconstituted spokesgroup were sent to the conference on March 17.

April 16 was set as the date for the next meeting. In confirmation of this and the other meeting arrangements Elder Ramirez sent the following message on April 8, 2009.

“Dear [Brother G] and pastor DeSilva,

“It appears that we are set to have our next meeting on Thursday, April 16, at 6 pm. We will meet at the Buccaneer House. The purpose of the meeting will be to give specific details of the group’s objection to pastor DeSilva’s proposal, presented during our last meeting in February. During that meeting, pastor DeSilva made the following proposal:

“Pastor DeSilva submits the following proposal for discussion and as a possible solution to the disagreement between current church leadership and a group of members of the Takoma Park church, on the present governess structure:

“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.’

“This proposal is subject to the following conditions:
"1. Proposal does not in any way suggest that the present governess structure has been outside the church manual boundaries.

“2. This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.

“[Brother G], please understand that this meeting is for the sole purpose of presenting your objections to this proposal. I would encourage you to have an outline, clearly indicating your objections. You and the two other representatives will have 20 minutes to present your case. At the end of the 20 minutes, pastor DeSilva and his two members of the church leadership will have 20 minutes to respond to your objections. After their turn, you will have an additional 10 minutes to add any closing remarks. Pastor DeSilva/members of the church leadership will have the final 10 minutes.

“In closing, please remember that the purpose of this process as outlined in Matthew 18 is to ‘gain a brother.’ While we may disagree on some issues, God’s church cannot be divided. I pray that the Holy Spirit will prepare our hearts as we come together seeking harmony. Thank you for working with me on this issue. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. ;I wish you all a blessed day.

“Jorge A. Ramírez”

Next: The Objections

Religious

The Sins of the Conference, Pt. 4

Elder Ramirez required that the Group provide advance written documentation as a prerequisite for proceeding with the next meeting. The Group promised to provide the desired document at the time of the next meeting, but Elder Ramirez continued to insist on having the document in advance. “All that I am asking is for you to submit to me a written outline of your objections to Pastor DeSilva’s proposal, so that we can continue with this process.”(1) Elder Ramirez provided no explanation of why he had to receive the document in advance rather than at the time of the meeting.

J) Elder Ramirez wronged us by adding burdensome and unnecessary conditions for proceeding with a process to which we have a right.

Elder Ramirez’s decision to require documentation in advance of the meeting demonstrated a clear double standard between what he expected of us and what he expected of himself. When the Group was in discussions with him regarding the initial “process meeting” we asked repeatedly for a more detailed description of the intended agenda. “Is there any particular of procedure that you wish to arrange which absolutely necessitates an in-person conversation?” “We are baffled by your continued insistence that there is yet more process to discuss, especially since you have yet to provide a specific list of what still needs to be resolved…the only thing which remains is for you to provide us with a list of specific aspects of process that you wish to discuss.”(2) These requests were ignored.

When Elder Ramirez first requested a description of our objections to serve as agenda for the next meeting we provided him with the following statement, “Regarding an agenda for the next meeting, we intend to address Pastor DeSilva's proposal point by point, explaining what we find objectionable and why and what we believe to be necessary for the implementation of an eventual solution.”(3) Despite this statement being far more detailed than those he provided to us Elder Ramirez was not satisfied with it, as stated above.

K) Elder Ramirez wronged us by requiring of us a different standard than he and the Potomac Conference were willing to meet.

(1) Email to Brother G dated Feb. 26, 2009, 11:48am
(2) Emails to Elder Ramirez dated Aug. 19, 2008, 1:04pm and Aug. 26, 2008, 10:31pm
(3) Email to Elder Ramirez dated Feb. 22, 2009, 6:53pm

Change

Change is a neutral word. It is not inherently good or bad. Whether change is good or bad depends on the situation, and in order to make such a determination there are several questions that must be answered. Does the situation require a change? If so, what sort of change is needed? What is the best method and timeframe for implementing an appropriate, needed change?

If changes are made when they aren't needed, or if changes are needed but the wrong sort of change is made, the change is a bad one. Even the right kind of change when change is truly needed can turn out to be a bad thing if not implemented well. When the context is a religious one, bad changes can have eternal consequences.

In a situation where a pastor or other church official makes a change that people object to there is a temptation to stereotype the matter as visionaries versus those with a vested interest in the status quo. As with most blanket statements, this represents a failure in the level of analysis. We won't make any blanket statements of our own and claim that this can never be true, but it is not the case with Takoma Park's situation.

The Group's efforts aren't about opposing all change or defending personal interests in the status quo. We don't even dispute that change is needed at Takoma Park. What we are saying is that what happened was the wrong kind of change for the situation. Instead of fixing Takoma Park's problems this change is making them worse. This particular change needs to be reversed to make way for the right kind of change.

The Epic, Pt. 53

The correspondence between the Group and the Conference continued on February 26, 2009.

“Dear [Brother G],

“I have carefully read the response sent by [Sister L] through you. However, while I understand that there may be some confusion as to the existence and interpretations of the two parts, I feel that it is important that we continue to address the issue that was submitted for discussion during our last meeting:

“‘The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual.’

“In my view, it is a very simple matter. Pastor DeSilva made a proposal intended to respond to the issue. If you have some objections or concerns to this proposal, you have the right to present them. All that I am asking is for you to submit to me a written outline of your objections to Pastor DeSilvas’s proposal, so that we can continue with this process. I believe this is not only important in any process, but also needed in order to maintain focus on the main issue. I pray that you will reconsider your position and allow this process to continue.

“I wish you a blessed day.

“Jorge A. Ramírez”

The Group responded on March 6, 2009. In this response the Group elaborated on its interpretation of the issue statement, which still did not seem to be clear to the conference.

“Dear Jorge,

“The previous message was not from any single individual. It was composed by group consensus as are all of our communications. We have reviewed your response carefully as a group. Our consensus at this time is that we are not impeding this process.

“Our issue is:

“‘The present governance structure of theTakoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.’

“Please note the corrected spelling. As you notice the issue is the governance structure of the Takoma Park Church, not only the absence of a church board. The interpretation that is being given to this is becoming an issue.

“We stated that our concern about the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Church is ‘notably reflected in the absence of a church board.’ However there are other governance matters related to the absence of a church board, including: 1) events leading up to this, 2) the interpretation by the church staff, 3)related actions that have been taken by the church, 4) the way the group, who have expressed their concerns to the pastor and the church, have been portrayed, and 5) Conference handling of this matter. Pastor DeSilva's proposal does not resolve the matter of the absence of a church board, nor does it address any of these related matters. There can be no solution to this whole situation if no regard is given to these related governance matters.

“Both the absence of a Church Board and the related governance matters should be given attention. We have provided a written statement outlining what we wish to talk about at the next meeting and have promised to provide additional documentation at the time of the meeting. Please accept this as our agenda and set up a meeting with the additional participants so that this process can continue.

“We, also, request that Pastor DeSilva not recommend action on his proposal at a church business meeting, or any other church forum. This would circumvent the process that is underway.

“Sincerely,

“[Brother G]”

Next: Details

Religious

The Sins of the Conference, Pt. 3

The purpose of the initial meeting between Elder Ramirez and Brother G was described by Elder Ramirez himself, “We talked about the need to have a meeting to address all the issues that are before us…however, before we do that…I need to have a meeting with one representative of your group to discuss process.”(1) From this we clearly understood that the described intent of the meeting separated matters of “issue” from matters of “process” and was to be exclusively about the matters of “process.” However, when the meeting actually took place it consisted almost entirely of Elder Ramirez asking “issue” questions. The only aspect of that meeting which even remotely resembled a discussion of “process” was when Elder Ramirez stated that he would next have a similar conversation with Pastor DeSilva and then have a phone call with our representative.

F) Elder Ramirez wronged us by misrepresenting the intended nature of that meeting.

Elders Miller and Ramirez accused us of failing to follow Matthew 18 in expressing our concerns. They persisted in this accusation despite being provided with a chart which included a partial list of the many private and semi-private conversations we had with Pastor DeSilva about our concern, per Matthew 18 guidelines. They further insisted that we must go through the Matthew 18 process again before the conference would even consider granting us our right to appear before the conference Executive Committee.

G) Elders Miller and Ramirez have wronged us by making accusations in spite of evidence to the contrary.

H) Elders Miller and Ramirez have wronged us by placing conditions on what the Church Manual stipulates as the unconditional right of every member to appear before the conference Executive Committee.

In accordance with the request made by Elder Ramirez in his letter of October 30, a statement was provided to him describing our concerns prior to the one on one meeting with Pastor DeSilva. In the email correspondence following the meeting our representative, Brother G, provided a synopsis of the meeting. Brother G observed that Pastor DeSilva made no reply to the observations he had made in the meeting. Elder Ramirez wrote back, “No where in your synopsis do you mention the issue at hand…Perhaps this is the reason why pastor DeSilva did not response to your other observations.”(2) This is our issue. It is ours to define what does or does not fall within it, and everything stated does fall within the provided statement when interpreted properly. For example, Brother G’s comments regarding the misinterpretation of Elder Bediako’s guidance speaks to the issue of whether or not Takoma Park is in harmony with the Church Manual because Elder Bediako is one of the foremost experts on the content and proper interpretation of the Church Manual. Brother G had pointed out that Elder Bediako had clearly told Pastor DeSilva that the current state of things at Takoma Park was not in harmony with the Manual. How could such testimony not pertain to the issue at hand?

To put it another way, suppose you were giving a Bible study on the book of Romans and the Apostle Paul were to walk into the room and tell you that your interpretation of what he had written was wrong. Would you ask him to correct you or contend that you had two thousand years of scholarly work to support your interpretation and he was wrong? The point here is that the author of what is written always knows better than anyone else what they meant in writing what they wrote. Elder Ramirez had no right to try to dictate to the Group the meaning of the Group’s own statement.

I) Elder Ramirez wronged us by attempting to dictate to us the nature and extent of what we are concerned about.

(1) Email to Sister L dated Aug. 18, 2008, 9:57am
(2) Email to Brother G dated Feb. 15, 2009, 10:49pm

The Epic, Pt. 52

Elder Ramirez responded to Brother G’s request to proceed with the next stipulated meeting on February 15, 2009.

“Dear [Brother G],

“I have reviewed your response to pastor DeSilva’s proposal and I am submitting the following comments for your consideration:

“1. No where in your synopsis do you mention the issue at hand that I introduced at the beginning of the meeting. This was the only item on the agenda:
“‘The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual.’

“Perhaps this is the reason why pastor DeSilva did not response to your other observations.

“2. Your request to meet again with a larger group is appropriate. Please select two additional representatives from your group and send their names to me. Also, I will need in writing from you, the objections that you and the group are raising in preparation for the next meeting. These objections will serve as the agenda.

“As soon as I get the above information, I will work with pastor DeSilva in scheduling the meeting date.

“Thank you for your interest in seeing this issue resolved. I wish you a blessed day.

“Jorge A. Ramírez”

The Group considered this message and felt that it reflected a misinterpretation of the issue statement which the Group had provided to the conference. Per standard Group procedure, a responding message was drafted, circulated among the Group membership for comment, amended, recirculated, and finally forwarded to the designated communicator in whose name it was written. In this instance Sister L had been the Group member tasked with coordinating the response preparation, and it was she who forwarded the completed message to Brother G. Upon receiving the message Brother G forwarded it to Elder Ramirez without bothering to remove the forwarding information from the body of the message, thereby leaving a “trail” of Sister L’s involvement in the preparation. (We mention all of this because in his response to this message Elder Ramirez referred to the message as “sent by [Sister L] through you.”) This message was sent on February 22, 2009.

“Dear Jorge,

“All systems of governance exist in two parts; 1) what is written down, and 2) how the leaders of that system implement what is written down. Both parts inform the observer as to the total nature of the system. Given the extremely limited nature of the written documentation in this situation the way in which it has been implemented becomes even more important to the understanding of the system. Everything said in the previous meeting spoke to one or the other of these two points. The charts that were provided clearly demonstrate that the present Takoma Park Church system of governance is not in compliance with the Church Manual on paper. The remainder of what was said addressed the way in which our pastoral staff has implemented the structure, and as such was absolutely relevant to the agenda.

“We are concerned by your decision to make continuation of the Matt. 18 process contingent upon receiving detailed, advance, written documentation from us. The verse itself places no such burden on either party. Please allow us to proceed with the scheduling of the next meeting without further delay.

“Regarding an agenda for the next meeting, we intend to address Pastor DeSilva's proposal point by point, explaining what we find objectionable and why and what we believe to be necessary for the implementation of an eventual solution. We prefer not to be more specific than that at this time because we wish to have the freedom to interpret our own written documents as we intend. The experience of the last meeting has shown that the written statement we provided was interpreted far more narrowly than we intended. We wish to be able to bring up all matters we believe to be relevant to the subject at hand, without restriction. We observe, for the record, that this agenda is far more specific and detailed than what was provided in the initial preparatory meeting, for which—despite repeated requests for greater specificity—you would only state that it would be about 'process and procedure.' We will be happy to provide a written document at the time of the meeting to serve as a guideline for the discussion.

“The specific identities of our additional attendees will vary depending on availability on the determined date. Please select a date which works for you and Pastor DeSilva. Once we have that information we will be able to determine our representatives.

“Sincerely, [Brother G]

“P.S. It has occurred to us that Takoma Park is due for a business meeting in the next few weeks. It has also occurred to us that Pastor DeSilva might choose to recommend action on his proposal in that forum. We would like to be clear that any such action will not in any way resolve our concerns, since to our minds the proposal does not satisfy them.”

Next: Having an Agenda

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 51

The proposal from Pastor DeSilva was sent through Elder Ramirez on February 9, 2009, at 5:40 pm.

“Dear [Brother G],
“Below is the proposal submitted to you and the group by pastor Alan DeSilva during our last meeting. Please review it prayerfully and submit your response to him in writing, with copy to me. I pray this is the beginning of a new day in the life of the Takoma Park church.

“Sincerely,

“Jorge A. Ramírez

“Pastor DeSilva submits the following proposal for discussion and as a possible solution to the disagreement between current church leadership and a group of members of the Takoma Park church, on the present governess structure:

“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as showed in a flow chart.’

“This pr oposal is subject to the following conditions:

“1. Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual.

“2. This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.”

On February 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm Brother G sent the requested response to Pastor DeSilva. He began with the meeting synopsis. Next he acknowledged having received Pastor DeSilva’s proposal and stated that the Group had some objections to it. Finally, he requested that the meeting Elder Ramirez had stipulated as the next step in the process—the one with 2-3 people from each side—be set up so that we could explain our concerns with the proposal.

Next: Too Narrow

Religious

In His Own Eyes

The statement below showed up in the comments recently and expresses a common misconception about the Church Manual that we keep running into, so we have decided to set the record straight.

“Thank you for sharing the documents, as I have wanted to see them for some time in regard to the structure of the proposed leadership team vs. one the church manual recommends. They seem to align quite well and I see no great variance that would not allow a church to function within the guidelines of the manual.

“As the church manual allows local churches to adjust slightly by need of culture, size or other variables, the local church does have some latitude in governing themselves. It is wise to adhere as closely to the manual as possible, as there is "safety" in doing so. However, sometimes it is necessary to streamline things so they accomplish more in a local church. No doubt this is what Pastor DeSilva and others have in mind as they prayerfully seek to move Takoma Park forward.”
There are actually two misconceptions about the Church Manual in this statement. The first is that the Manual constitutes only recommendations and guidelines. The second is that the Manual permits local churches to deviate from its specifications. Let’s look at what the Church Manual itself says on these subjects.

“The content of this Church Manual, as it is presented in chapters and sections within chapters, is divided into two types of material. The main content of each chapter is of worldwide value and applicable to every church. Recognizing the need for some variations, additional material which is explanatory in nature appears as Notes at the end of some chapters and is given as guidance” (Church Manual, p.xxi).

If the entire Manual was merely guidance there would be no need to specify that the Notes were merely guidance, as such a statement would be redundant. In other words, some of it is guidance and some of it is mandatory. The two types of information are clearly separated, with the sections that are merely guidance being definitively labeled as “Notes.” The sections which pertain to governance and the church board are part of the content which is mandatory.

“…local conditions in different parts of the world sometimes call for special actions. Accordingly, the 1948 Autumn Council …voted:

“‘That each division, including the North American Division of the world field, prepare a ‘Supplement’ to the new Church Manual not in any way modifying it but containing such additional matter as is applicable to the conditions and circumstances prevailing in the division; the manuscripts for these Supplements to be submitted to the General Conference Committee for endorsement before being printed.’—Autumn Council Actions, 1948, p.19” (Church Manual, p.xxi, emphasis supplied).

The Manual does provide for adaptation to local conditions. However, that provision is not an all-access pass for the local church to do whatever it wants to. There are three conditions to this provision which the proponents of the “all-access” theory ignore. First, this provision is granted only to the divisions, not to the local church, the conference, or even the union. Second, this adaptation cannot in any way modify the Manual’s content, only add to it. Third, these adaptations must be approved by the General Conference Committee.

The Church Manual does provide the following latitude to the local church in arranging its own governance:

“Committees of the Board—The church board should permit no other business to interfere with planning for evangelism. Should other business be too time-consuming, the board may appoint committees to care for specific areas of church business, such as finance or church building projects. Such committees will then make recommendations to the church board” (Church Manual, p.92).

The one and only thing the local church is permitted to do by way of customizing its governance is to create subcommittees of the church board. That is not what happened at Takoma Park. Our situation is that the proper church board has been splintered. Neither of the two new “boards” fits the definition of a proper church board. Even if the two were put together there would still be holes. It is as if someone took a bicycle, disassembled it into its component parts, separated the parts into three piles, pointed to one of the piles, and said, “See, it’s a bicycle!” There might indeed be a bicycle seat or chain or gear in the pile, but that doesn’t make the pile a bicycle. It is only when all the parts are gathered together and assembled into working order that you may truly say that you have a bicycle (or a church board).

If a local church decides to ignore the mandatory nature of the Church Manual’s statements on governance and go its own way it is taking on the attitude of the Israelites in Judges 17:1-6, “And there was a man of mount Ephraim, whose name was Micah. ...and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah. And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

The Documentation

These are the charts that Brother G presented in his meeting with Pastor DeSilva and Elder Ramirez which document the differences between a proper church board as spelled out in the Church Manual and the substitute boards instituted at Takoma Park. The first chart compares board duties, and the second board membership. The data for the substitute boards is drawn directly from job descriptions and charts prepared by Pastor DeSilva. The data for a proper church board comes from the Church Manual, pp.90 & 91.

The Epic, Pt. 50

The “one-on-one” meeting which Elder Ramirez had called for in his letter of October 30, 2008 took place on Febuary 5, 2009 with Elder Ramirez, Pastor DeSilva, and Brother G in attendance. Following the meeting Brother G put together a synopsis of the discussion, which was included in later email traffic. For the sake of telling the story in sequence we will include that synopsis here.

“At about 6:30 pm, and just before the Takoma Academy Board meeting, Elder Jorge A Ramirez, Alan DeSilva and [Brother G] met together.

“Elder Ramirez began the meeting with prayer and devotional/introduction in which he specified how the process would function, lasting about 15 minutes. [Brother G] would have the first opportunity to speak for 15 minutes without interruption. Then Alan would have his turn for rebuttal.

“[Brother G] began with some background material relating to [the member who was recently the subject of disciplinary action] and the Paul Borden report. Next he presented documentation showing present structure is not in harmony with the Church Manual. No interest was shown in documentation. Next his remarks centered on the inappropriateness of holding church business meetings during Sabbath hours. He cited the objection of many to having such a meeting relating to finances on the Sabbath. Alan responded by saying more people vote at that time than at any other time. [Brother G] then drew attention to Matthew Bediako's specific written notations to Alan of what must be done to remain in harmony with the Church Manual. He also pointed out Alan's disregard of that advice and his blatant untruths that Elder Bediako was in favor of the new church governance structure. There was no response from Alan to these observations.

“During Alan's rebuttal he began to draw boxes and explain that he would make a change. When Ramirez asked [Brother G], if this would work, [Brother G] answered that he would not comment until he had spoken with the group.

“At that point the meeting concluded with the understanding that Alan was to send his change to Ramirez who in turn, would send it to [Brother G].”

The documentation Brother G referred to having presented was a pair of charts comparing the membership and duties of a church board as defined by the Church Manual with the membership and duties of the two boards functioning at Takoma Park. This documentation will be included in a separate post.

Next: The Proposal

Religious