In the days leading up to the business meeting at which the executive committee’s recommendations were to be discussed Elder J communicated with Elder B, trying to convince her and the Group not to push for passage of the executive committee’s first recommendation that the name of the ministries board be changed to “church board.” His logic was that it was just a name, and so long as the function recommendation was followed the name didn’t really matter. The only answer Elder B gave him was that she would put it to the rest of the Group. The rest of the Group saw no merit in this argument. If the name truly didn’t matter, why was Elder J trying so hard to prevent the change? It appeared to the Group that this was an attempt to either claim some sort of partial victory for the pastors’ position or set up an argument that if one part of the Manual (the specified name of the board) could be set aside, then so could other parts.
The business meeting took place on July 19, 2009. This time Elder Miller was in attendance as conference observer. Elder Bediako was also present. Pastor DeSilva introduced the subject of the executive committee’s recommendations by saying that there had been “uneasiness and misunderstanding” about the new governance structure that these recommendations were seeking to clarify. (The group takes exception to the word “misunderstanding.” We understand the altered structure quite clearly—and disagree with it.) He said that the executive committee respected the authority of the local church to make decisions for itself so long as it was within the parameters of the Church Manual. (This statement is legitimate so far as it goes, but, again, in this case the parameters of the Church Manual have been exceeded.) Pastor DeSilva went on to say that he was going to explain the recommendations so that there would be no misunderstanding. He claimed that there was nothing about the recommendations which overturned any previous action the church had taken; the recommendations were a “complimentary action” to clarify some ambiguities.
Pastor DeSilva didn’t have much to say about the recommendation to change the name of the ministries board. Regarding the recommendation to change the name of the accountability board he asserted that it was a good recommendation because it wasn’t changing much but the name which might be misleading because it would seem to indicate that the accountability board might have executive functions when it didn’t. He further asserted that the accountability board had always answered to the church board and existed only for support and accountability, not the devising of any plans. (Another lie: as of the moment this assertion was made the accountability board had never once made a report to the ministries board.) The next thing out of Pastor DeSilva’s mouth was that the accountability board would continue to function as it was functioning, being the personnel committee of the church and answering to the business meeting. (We feel compelled to point out that this assertion is in direct contradiction with the assertion before it.)
Regarding the recommendation about the functions of the church board Pastor DeSilva said that the ministries board was already complaint with the Church Manual’s function list and that if anything was found to be missing it would be implemented. Pastor DeSilva asked the head elder to call an elders’ meeting within a month to be the reconciliation meeting called for in the recommendations.
When the floor was opened for comments Mrs. DeSilva was the first one to be recognized. She expressed opposition to the recommendation that the ministries board be renamed, claiming that the name “ministries board” better reflected what the body was supposed to be doing. The next member to be recognized simply asked whether the recommendations meant that we were returning to a proper Seventh-day Adventist structure. Pastor DeSilva’s response was that yes, we would have a proper Seventh-day Adventist structure, but then he went on to add that he and the conference didn’t feel that the altered governance had been outside the proper Adventist structure.
Elder B was recognized next, and she took the opportunity to speak to Mrs. DeSilva’s concern that there needed to be a body with the word “ministry” in its name that would keep the church focused on ministry activities. She pointed out that it would be acceptable according to the Manual (and had been part of the Group’s specified remedy) to form a separate “ministries council” whose sole function would be to plan ministry and which would answer to the church board. She reiterated, however, that according to the Manual the church board must be the administrative body directly under the business meeting. No interest was shown in this solution to the concern. Elder B also touched briefly on some of the other major points in the Group’s appeal in an effort to counteract Pastor DeSilva’s whitewashing of the whole matter as not in any way implying that there had been anything wrong.
Elder B’s statements upset Pastor DeSilva and he became defensive, claiming that the accountability board had never had an executive function and that, “People have accused me of usurping executive function and that’s not true.” He went on to say that there would be no more charts because charts could be left to various and sundry interpretations. (This was an incredibly papal statement. Basically, he was saying that he as the pastor was the only one who had the right to know, understand, or interpret the structure of the church and that we, the members, were supposed to simply accept his interpretation.) He also asserted that the chart had been redone every week in an effort to get it to accurately portray the altered governance system. (Even recognizing the element of hyperbole in this statement, it flies in the face of Pastor DeSilva’s contention all along that the charts were decided on by the church, as there is no way the church could approve changes to the charts with anything even remotely resembling that frequency.)
This outburst from Pastor DeSilva left the Group even more concerned than ever that Pastor DeSilva wasn’t understanding or taking seriously either the concerns we had expressed or the recommendations the conference had made. A couple Group members spoke up, asking pointedly whether voting these recommendations was truly going to result in reinstatement of a proper church board and representative system of government. Pastor DeSilva’s response was, “Yes, yes, yes. If we vote it, regardless of whether I say yes or no, it’s voted; it’s on paper.”
Elder Bediako was the next to be recognized. He took issue with the statement in the executive committee’s recommendation to change the ministries board’s name that the Church Manual doesn’t state that another name is incompatible. He stated that “church board” was the name used by the Manual, and as such was the only acceptable name for the body. He further stated that any attempt to change the name of the body must be approved by a General Conference Session.
Pastor DeSilva attempted to deflect this statement by redirecting it to Elder Miller, saying that Elder Miller should take it back to the executive committee and that it had no bearing on the current discussion. Elder Bediako allowed that it was appropriate for the message to get back to the executive committee, but he attempted again to impress upon Pastor DeSilva and the others listening that it was not acceptable to change something specified by the Manual, even something so seemingly minor as the name “church board,” without the approval of the General Conference. Unfortunately, this was something Pastor DeSilva didn’t want to hear. He cut Elder Bediako off, reframed his entire statement as being in support of the recommendations, and recognized the next speaker.
The next question was whether approval of the executive committee’s recommendations would mean a return to the practice of holding open meetings, which had been standard before the change in governance. Pastor DeSilva replied that it would not. He supported this position by claiming that allowing committees to have present people other than those elected to that particular committee would be an act of executive function and that all committees would have to obtain permission from the business meeting in advance in order to have anyone other than the members of that committee in the room during meetings.
The questioner observed that this was a change he was making. Pastor DeSilva responded that it wasn’t a change, and that it was in fact in the Church Manual that way. (The Church Manual says no such thing. However, if one follows this line of logic it leads to a knot around Pastor DeSilva’s neck. If inviting, or even allowing, individuals other than members of a committee into the room during meetings constitutes an act of executive function, then Pastor DeSilva’s repeated assertions that the accountability board doesn’t have and has never exercised executive function are undone by his own presentation to the executive committee. You will recall that when questioned by an executive committee member Pastor DeSilva said that when it was making hiring decisions the accountability board invited relevant leaders to participate in their discussions. As these invitees were never approved by the business meeting the accountability board was engaging in executive function by Pastor DeSilva’s own definition of that term.)
Elder B, still skeptical that approval of the recommendations would mean a return to a church board according to the Church Manual, pointed out that one of the duties of the church board according to the Manual is to approve all membership transfers, which had not been happening under the altered governance structure. Pastor DeSilva defended this omission by saying that the Takoma Park Church had been inconsistent about following that requirement for the entire 13 years that he had been here. He then stated that, “It can’t happen any more if we take this vote.”
The executive committee’s recommendations were then voted on and approved without being amended in any way. It was also voted that responsibility for organizing a reconciliation meeting would be delegated to the head elder, Elder J. Pastor DeSilva followed the voting with a proclamation that the entire matter was now concluded and that, “Any more disaffection from any side would be considered divisive behavior as far as the Manual is concerned.” (Translation: “Say anything more about this and I’ll bring you up for church discipline.”)
Pastor DeSilva followed this proclamation by announcing to Elder Miller that he wanted a letter from him stating that the structure of the Takoma Park Church was thoroughly in line with the Manual, and that he would send this letter from Elder Miller to the entire membership along with one of his own to “lay the whole thing to rest.” Then, apparently realizing how demanding his approach had been, Pastor DeSilva softened his tone and asked Elder Miller whether that would be possible. Elder Miller’s reply was that he would consider it. (No such letter has ever been issued.)
Next: Benefit of the Doubt
Religious
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 71
The next regularly scheduled ministries board meeting took place on July 12, 2009. It was at this meeting that the ministries board was to discuss and vote on the recommendations of the executive committee. As promised, the conference sent a representative to observe—the (then) new conference treasurer Elder Wilson. He was so new that he hadn’t been part of the conference administration a month and a half before when the Group had made its case to the executive committee.
When Pastor DeSilva reached the agenda item of addressing the executive committee’s recommendations he went through them one by one, giving his interpretation of each one. He claimed that there was nothing wrong with the way the accountability board was currently functioning, citing Elder Miller’s statements about the lack of consistency about how local churches manage hiring. He argued that since there was no rule about how the hiring was to be done and the accountability board was the church’s personnel committee, that it was alright for it to continue reporting to the business meeting. (In making this argument he ignored two significant points. First, personnel issues are not the only ones delegated to the accountability board, and even if it were acceptable for personnel issues to be reported directly to the business meeting that would not make it acceptable for the accountability board’s other responsibilities to receive the same treatment. Second, even though the conference pointed out that there was no consistency about handling personnel issues the executive committee had still recommended that, “The Support and Accountability Board…reports to the Church Board.”) Pastor DeSilva went on to assert that Elder Miller had told him the configuration of the accountability board was correct because that was the way the church business meeting had voted it. (Again, for the record, the church business meeting had not actually voted it.)
When Pastor DeSilva got to recommendation C (“The primary role of the Church Board is to discuss and plan the evangelism outreach for the church. The newly renamed Church Board should study pp. 90-92 in the manual to make sure the Board functions as stated”) he announced that there was no reason why the church shouldn’t approve it because the church was already doing it. He went so far as to say, “So far as I’m concerned we’re compliant with C right now.”
When the floor was opened for questions Elder B challenged Pastor DeSilva’s assertion that the current governance was compliant with the Church Manual. He responded by asking what was not in compliance. Elder B pointed out that according to the charts of the current governance the senior pastor was above the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva tried to blow that off by claiming that he had no executive function. Next Elder B pointed out that the accountability board reported to the business meeting rather than the ministries board, which he was claiming to be the church board. Pastor DeSilva replied that the accountability board had always reported to the church board. (Not only was this a lie—up to that point the accountability board had not made a single report to the ministries board—it was also a direct contradiction of what he had said a few minutes earlier in claiming that the accountability board could and would continue reporting directly to the business meeting.) Elder B continued by pointing out that the finance committee didn’t report to the ministries board/church board. Pastor DeSilva responded that, “So far as I’m concerned we’ve had finances every meeting that I’ve had.” Seeing that, as usual, Pastor DeSilva was using lies and misdirection to avoid admitting any wrongdoing Elder B didn’t bother to push the point any further.
Sister L was recognized next. She observed that in light of the discrepancies of perception about how the newly-formed church board functioned a temporary subcommittee ought to be formed to create written terms of reference to bring clarity to what the body did and how it did it. Rather than addressing the suggestion Pastor DeSilva chose to focus on and take issue with Sister L’s description of the church board as “newly-formed,” claiming that there had always been a church board at Takoma Park. Sister L tried to refocus him on the substance of the suggestion, but he didn’t want to let go of his complaint that the church board was not “newly-formed.”
At that point Elder Wilson jumped in, asking Sister L whether the suggestion she was making wasn’t already covered under the executive committee’s recommendation D. Sister L pointed out that the purpose of recommendation D was to achieve interpersonal reconciliation, and that it specifically excluded discussion of any issues during the meetings it recommended. (This interjection by Elder Wilson underscores just how little awareness he had of the issues and substance he had been sent to the meeting to observe. We are not accusing him of wrongdoing—it is no crime to be so new to a job that you do not yet know what is going on around you—but his lack of familiarity with the subject at hand made him ineffectual in the task he had been sent to perform on that occasion. Just to remind everyone, that task was to monitor how Pastor DeSilva addressed the executive committee’s recommendations to see that he didn’t ignore them, gloss over them, or sweep them under the proverbial rug. This is a task he could hardly perform when he wasn't even clear on the substance of the recommendations.)
At this point in the discussion Pastor DeSilva took the floor again to deliver what he claimed was a message from Elder Miller. He said that Elder Miller wanted to clarify that he didn’t feel that the executive committee’s recommendations disagreed with the voted intention of the Takoma Park Church regarding its structure and that he believed that the integrity of the church’s vote was intact. Elder Miller was further represented as having said that he didn’t have the authority, or wouldn’t take the authority, to make a recommendation that was contrary to the voted will of a local church in business session and that the changes they were recommending didn’t affect the direction the church had chosen. Pastor DeSilva concluded by claiming that the executive committee was excited about and endorsed the support and accountability council. (Whether these things were actually said by Elder Miller or were only things Pastor DeSilva wished he had said we can’t be sure. No written documentation was presented in support of this “message.” In any case, we have already substantially disproven this argument of the independence of the local church business meeting in Us and Them and What Has Been Done All Along.)
Elder J was recognized, and he expressed concerns about how follow-through on the recommendations would be accomplished. Pastor DeSilva responded that ensuring that the church board was functioning properly would be the responsibility of the accountability board. At this point Elder B asked whether a corrected chart would be produced to accurately depict the relationships of the various governing bodies. Pastor DeSilva returned to his old argument that charts are never 100% accurate. He went on to defend the charts that had been circulating by claiming that there wasn’t actually anything wrong with them; the problem was that people were just reading them wrong. In support of this statement he argued that things are not always as they appear. (This statement is indisputable, especially when Pastor DeSilva is ignoring stated parameters in order to do whatever he wants.) As Elder B pushed the point she referred to the charts as being Pastor DeSilva’s. He jumped on this and claimed that they weren’t his charts; they were voted by the church. (Another lie; none of the governance charts he produced were ever voted by a church business meeting. See the Epic, Pts. 4, 11, 12, and 26.)
Finally, a vote was taken and the recommendations were approved. As soon as the vote was complete Pastor DeSilva pronounced that the issue was now closed. He informed Elder Wilson that since the issue was now closed he expected a letter from the conference endorsing the Takoma Park Church as being in harmony with the Church Manual. He further announced an intention to include such a letter from the conference with one of his own that he would mail to every member of the congregation.
The other significant issue at this meeting of the ministries board was the merger between the elementary school supported by the Takoma Park Church with another local elementary school. The case was made that both schools had been suffering declining attendance in recent years and were occupying old facilities that needed care. The plan was to move the population from one school into the other facility, sell the vacated facility, and use the money to pay off debts and improve the remaining facility. The plan had already been approved by the other school’s church, and all that remained was approval from Takoma Park’s board and business meetings and a constituency meeting of Takoma Park’s school. The ministries board approved the merger. (This issue will be described in greater depth when we get to the story of the school’s constituency meeting.)
Next: At the Business Meeting
Religious
When Pastor DeSilva reached the agenda item of addressing the executive committee’s recommendations he went through them one by one, giving his interpretation of each one. He claimed that there was nothing wrong with the way the accountability board was currently functioning, citing Elder Miller’s statements about the lack of consistency about how local churches manage hiring. He argued that since there was no rule about how the hiring was to be done and the accountability board was the church’s personnel committee, that it was alright for it to continue reporting to the business meeting. (In making this argument he ignored two significant points. First, personnel issues are not the only ones delegated to the accountability board, and even if it were acceptable for personnel issues to be reported directly to the business meeting that would not make it acceptable for the accountability board’s other responsibilities to receive the same treatment. Second, even though the conference pointed out that there was no consistency about handling personnel issues the executive committee had still recommended that, “The Support and Accountability Board…reports to the Church Board.”) Pastor DeSilva went on to assert that Elder Miller had told him the configuration of the accountability board was correct because that was the way the church business meeting had voted it. (Again, for the record, the church business meeting had not actually voted it.)
When Pastor DeSilva got to recommendation C (“The primary role of the Church Board is to discuss and plan the evangelism outreach for the church. The newly renamed Church Board should study pp. 90-92 in the manual to make sure the Board functions as stated”) he announced that there was no reason why the church shouldn’t approve it because the church was already doing it. He went so far as to say, “So far as I’m concerned we’re compliant with C right now.”
When the floor was opened for questions Elder B challenged Pastor DeSilva’s assertion that the current governance was compliant with the Church Manual. He responded by asking what was not in compliance. Elder B pointed out that according to the charts of the current governance the senior pastor was above the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva tried to blow that off by claiming that he had no executive function. Next Elder B pointed out that the accountability board reported to the business meeting rather than the ministries board, which he was claiming to be the church board. Pastor DeSilva replied that the accountability board had always reported to the church board. (Not only was this a lie—up to that point the accountability board had not made a single report to the ministries board—it was also a direct contradiction of what he had said a few minutes earlier in claiming that the accountability board could and would continue reporting directly to the business meeting.) Elder B continued by pointing out that the finance committee didn’t report to the ministries board/church board. Pastor DeSilva responded that, “So far as I’m concerned we’ve had finances every meeting that I’ve had.” Seeing that, as usual, Pastor DeSilva was using lies and misdirection to avoid admitting any wrongdoing Elder B didn’t bother to push the point any further.
Sister L was recognized next. She observed that in light of the discrepancies of perception about how the newly-formed church board functioned a temporary subcommittee ought to be formed to create written terms of reference to bring clarity to what the body did and how it did it. Rather than addressing the suggestion Pastor DeSilva chose to focus on and take issue with Sister L’s description of the church board as “newly-formed,” claiming that there had always been a church board at Takoma Park. Sister L tried to refocus him on the substance of the suggestion, but he didn’t want to let go of his complaint that the church board was not “newly-formed.”
At that point Elder Wilson jumped in, asking Sister L whether the suggestion she was making wasn’t already covered under the executive committee’s recommendation D. Sister L pointed out that the purpose of recommendation D was to achieve interpersonal reconciliation, and that it specifically excluded discussion of any issues during the meetings it recommended. (This interjection by Elder Wilson underscores just how little awareness he had of the issues and substance he had been sent to the meeting to observe. We are not accusing him of wrongdoing—it is no crime to be so new to a job that you do not yet know what is going on around you—but his lack of familiarity with the subject at hand made him ineffectual in the task he had been sent to perform on that occasion. Just to remind everyone, that task was to monitor how Pastor DeSilva addressed the executive committee’s recommendations to see that he didn’t ignore them, gloss over them, or sweep them under the proverbial rug. This is a task he could hardly perform when he wasn't even clear on the substance of the recommendations.)
At this point in the discussion Pastor DeSilva took the floor again to deliver what he claimed was a message from Elder Miller. He said that Elder Miller wanted to clarify that he didn’t feel that the executive committee’s recommendations disagreed with the voted intention of the Takoma Park Church regarding its structure and that he believed that the integrity of the church’s vote was intact. Elder Miller was further represented as having said that he didn’t have the authority, or wouldn’t take the authority, to make a recommendation that was contrary to the voted will of a local church in business session and that the changes they were recommending didn’t affect the direction the church had chosen. Pastor DeSilva concluded by claiming that the executive committee was excited about and endorsed the support and accountability council. (Whether these things were actually said by Elder Miller or were only things Pastor DeSilva wished he had said we can’t be sure. No written documentation was presented in support of this “message.” In any case, we have already substantially disproven this argument of the independence of the local church business meeting in Us and Them and What Has Been Done All Along.)
Elder J was recognized, and he expressed concerns about how follow-through on the recommendations would be accomplished. Pastor DeSilva responded that ensuring that the church board was functioning properly would be the responsibility of the accountability board. At this point Elder B asked whether a corrected chart would be produced to accurately depict the relationships of the various governing bodies. Pastor DeSilva returned to his old argument that charts are never 100% accurate. He went on to defend the charts that had been circulating by claiming that there wasn’t actually anything wrong with them; the problem was that people were just reading them wrong. In support of this statement he argued that things are not always as they appear. (This statement is indisputable, especially when Pastor DeSilva is ignoring stated parameters in order to do whatever he wants.) As Elder B pushed the point she referred to the charts as being Pastor DeSilva’s. He jumped on this and claimed that they weren’t his charts; they were voted by the church. (Another lie; none of the governance charts he produced were ever voted by a church business meeting. See the Epic, Pts. 4, 11, 12, and 26.)
Finally, a vote was taken and the recommendations were approved. As soon as the vote was complete Pastor DeSilva pronounced that the issue was now closed. He informed Elder Wilson that since the issue was now closed he expected a letter from the conference endorsing the Takoma Park Church as being in harmony with the Church Manual. He further announced an intention to include such a letter from the conference with one of his own that he would mail to every member of the congregation.
The other significant issue at this meeting of the ministries board was the merger between the elementary school supported by the Takoma Park Church with another local elementary school. The case was made that both schools had been suffering declining attendance in recent years and were occupying old facilities that needed care. The plan was to move the population from one school into the other facility, sell the vacated facility, and use the money to pay off debts and improve the remaining facility. The plan had already been approved by the other school’s church, and all that remained was approval from Takoma Park’s board and business meetings and a constituency meeting of Takoma Park’s school. The ministries board approved the merger. (This issue will be described in greater depth when we get to the story of the school’s constituency meeting.)
Next: At the Business Meeting
Religious
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
What Has Been Done All Along
As mentioned previously, a new edition of the Church Manual was decided on by the General Conference Session which met in Atlanta a couple weeks ago. A transcript of the discussions and votes of each change item can be found on the Adventist Review website. We would like to highlight a couple of these exchanges on items of particular significance to Takoma Park and the Potomac Conference. Each item was introduced by the secretary of the General Conference Church Manual Committee, Homer Trecartin.
The other significant item we would like to highlight was discussed a while later. Again, the item was introduced by Homer Trecartin.
“In Seventh-day Adventist Church structure, no organization determines its own status nor does it function as if it had no obligations to the Church family beyond its boundaries.” This statement flies in the face of the interpretation maintained by the Takoma Park pastors and Potomac Conference leadership regarding the local church business meeting’s authority. To paraphrase an old saying, no church entity is an island. Each has relationships and obligations to other entities which are spelled out, among other places, in the Church Manual. We offer the caveat “among other places” because the Manual primarily addresses the relationship between the conference and the local church. Other relationships are described in the Working Policy, etc. All of these policy documents have a common source: the General Conference. “Thus Church organizations around the world recognize the General Conference in Session as the voice of the Church.” And, as Elder Trecartin pointed out, none of this is really new. This is the way the Church has always been understood to operate. The only difference is that these understandings are now being formally articulated to address efforts by some to operate outside the common understanding that has existed all along.
HOMER TRECARTIN: Mr. Chairman, there is an addition highlighting the interconnected relationship of church organizations…This addition was officially moved and seconded, and the floor opened for discussion.
“There are several organizational levels within the Church leading from the individual believer to the worldwide organization of the work. Membership units in each of these levels periodically convene formal business sessions known as constituency meetings or sessions. (The constituency meeting or session of a local church is generally referred to as a business meeting.) In Seventh-day Adventist Church structure, no organization determines its own status nor does it function as if it had no obligations to the Church family beyond its boundaries.”
[Commenting Delegate #1]: I have a question on the last portion of this particular item. It says, "In Seventh-day Adventist Church structure, no organization determines its own status nor does it function as if it had no obligations to the Church family beyond its boundaries."At this point a delegate expressed the opinion that this statement was too broad and moved that it be referred back to the Church Manual Committee to have the language constricted. That motion was defeated and the discussion continued.
Can you explain why we need that? Have things changed? If so, how?
HOMER TRECARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure that it’s because anything has changed, except that there have been several issues that have been dealt with in different areas where it needed to be clear that a local church does not vote itself to be a local church as part of that conference sisterhood of churches. That is voted by the conference. Just as a local conference can’t vote itself into existence, and say we are now part of the sisterhood of unions. Or a local union can’t vote itself into the sisterhood of unions in a division. And so there have been several issues, and it was felt that this clarification was needed to say that no organization in the Seventh-day Adventist Church votes its own status, but also to remind everyone that they have a responsibility to the world church and not just to their own territory.
[Commenting Delegate #2]: This section that we are trying to add here is very important for the church. I am coming from a place where we have people who are trying to become [congregational], and this statement solves that problem of local churches usurping their authority of their conference session. Local churches are trying to work as though they operate without the entire church. They are on their own. In other words, this would protect the church from congregationalism, which some churches in parts of the world would like to assume.After this comment the paragraph was voted on and approved for inclusion in the Church Manual.
The other significant item we would like to highlight was discussed a while later. Again, the item was introduced by Homer Trecartin.
HOMER TRECARTIN: On page 13, lines 4-11, are some additions further explaining the role of the General Conference session and the General Conference Executive Committee. Let me read that paragraph: "The General Conference in SessionThe motion was seconded and discussion began. Some concern was voiced that the relationship between the General Conference and the fundamental beliefs needed to be more clearly stated. Specifically, it needed to be clear that our beliefs come from the Scriptures; the General Conference simply makes formal recognition of biblical tenets that have been identified. This item was eventually referred back to the Church Manual Committee for rewording to clarify this point, but not before the following unrelated and significant exchange took place.
determines the fundamental beliefs of the Church, authorizes establishment of unions and the attachment of field units, revises the Church Manual, elects General Conference and division leadership, performs other functions as outlined
in its Constitution and Bylaws, and considers items referred to it by its Executive Committee. The General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions is empowered by the Constitution and Bylaws to act on behalf of the constituents. Thus Church organizations around the world recognize the General
Conference as the voice of the Church." I would move approval of that addition.
[Commenting delegate #3]: The motion changes the church structure from being largely federal to being central and giving importance to the General Conference. This is being done now in the fifty-ninth session. I just want to know if there is anything that led to this thinking.The Church Manual Committee met during Session to consider items that had been referred back to it by the delegates. They then reported back to the business meeting with any changes made as a result of the consultation. The following is the final form of this paragraph, which was reintroduced to the delegates and approved for inclusion in the new edition of the Manual.
HOMER TRECARTIN: There is no intention of changing the structure of the church. The practice all along has been that our stated fundamental beliefs are approved by the General Conference in session. But the Church Manual didn’t say that. The General Conference session has always elected division leadership and some of these other things, but the Church Manual didn’t say that. And because of various situations that have been arising, we felt it was important that those be clearly stated. It’s not changing anything; it’s just writing down what has been done all along.
The Bible is the foundation and source of belief and practice; on this basis, the General Conference in Session determines the stated fundamental beliefs of the Church. The General Conference in Session also authorizes establishment of unions and the attachment of field units, revises the Church Manual, elects General Conference and division leadership, performs other functions as outlined in its Constitution and Bylaws, and considers items referred to it by its Executive Committee. The General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions is empowered by the Constitution and Bylaws to act on behalf of the constituents. Thus Church organizations around the world recognize the General Conference in Session as the voice of the Church.
“In Seventh-day Adventist Church structure, no organization determines its own status nor does it function as if it had no obligations to the Church family beyond its boundaries.” This statement flies in the face of the interpretation maintained by the Takoma Park pastors and Potomac Conference leadership regarding the local church business meeting’s authority. To paraphrase an old saying, no church entity is an island. Each has relationships and obligations to other entities which are spelled out, among other places, in the Church Manual. We offer the caveat “among other places” because the Manual primarily addresses the relationship between the conference and the local church. Other relationships are described in the Working Policy, etc. All of these policy documents have a common source: the General Conference. “Thus Church organizations around the world recognize the General Conference in Session as the voice of the Church.” And, as Elder Trecartin pointed out, none of this is really new. This is the way the Church has always been understood to operate. The only difference is that these understandings are now being formally articulated to address efforts by some to operate outside the common understanding that has existed all along.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Us and Them
In the Epic, Pt. 61 we promised a discussion of appeal protocol and the involvement of experts from the upper echelons of denominational administration in the business of local congregations. (This was in the context of Pastor DeSilva asserting before the meeting with the conference executive committee that the Group would not have the right to appeal to the union if it was unsatisfied with the executive committee’s response and his talking about how “appalled” he had been to receive the letters of Elders Howard, Parmenter, and Bediako.)
In the Epic, Pt. 69 we promised to explain how the description of Dr. Paterson’s involvement in the formation of the recommendations of the executive committee had been misrepresented by Elder Miller and to provide an analysis of Elder Miller’s presentation to the ministries board.
In the Epic, Pt. 70 we promised to describe the changes in the most recent version of the Church Manual which clarify who has the right to appeal to a union.
Now that all of the pieces of the story bearing on this subject have been told (the subject being the interplay between the local congregation and higher levels of church administration) we are ready to keep these promises and present a consideration of this matter.
It will make most sense if we start with Dr. Paterson’s involvement with the executive committee’s recommendations to the Takoma Park Church. In a conversation some time after the executive committee’s recommendations had been presented Dr. Paterson expressed surprise when members of the Group told him that he had been cited as an authority consulted by the delegation of six from the executive committee as they prepared their recommendations. He declared that he had had no formal discussions with anyone from the conference on the subject of Takoma Park. The only interaction he recalled was an informal chat with Pastor Netteburg and a few others in a restaurant, during which he and Pastor Netteburg discussed what enforcement mechanisms the Church Manual grants to the various levels of the church organization. In that discussion the conclusion that had been reached was that the enforcement mechanism possessed by each level of the church organization is that of disbanding the organization below it.
When Elder Miller had made his presentation to the ministries board his assertion had been that the only power possessed by each level of the church organization was to disband the organization below it. This is a significant difference because in the context of the Church Manual power and enforcement mechanisms are not synonymous. For example, the Church Manual specifies that Bible Instructors may only hold local church office if the conference grants them special permission to do so. (This is to allow them to focus on the particular task of Bible instruction rather than getting caught up in other tasks relating to the local church.) This is a power granted by the Church Manual to the conference. The Manual does not specify any penalty or remedial action (enforcement mechanism) to be used in the event that a local church goes ahead and elects a Bible Instructor to local church office without the conference’s approval (see p.34). The Manual assumes that honorable church members would choose to follow the rules laid out without the need for a penalty to enforce compliance. Therefore, the only scenarios for which the Manual prescribes enforcement mechanisms are those that involve dramatic, flagrant disobedience that calls for severe measures (hence the only enforcement mechanism being disbanding).
Now that we have established that the powers of the various levels of the denominational administration are not so limited as Elder Miller described we need to address what the real boundaries of their powers are. For our purposes we are going to focus that question on the powers pertaining to governance and the Church Manual. We have already discussed the origins of the Church Manual’s authority and the force of its prescriptions in Power (posted 8-28-09), In His Own Eyes (posted 1-7-10), and most recently Bullseye: Corporate Distinctiveness (posted 4-30-10). Rather than repeating those in-depth examinations of the subject we will simply summarize that the authority of the General Conference supercedes that of any other level of the church, including the local congregation. Therefore, any directives generated by the General Conference (which include the Church Manual) are considered binding to the local congregation.
In his presentation to the ministries board Elder Miller had represented the power of the business meeting of the local church as being all but absolute. In reality, there are some limitations. The most notable of these is that the local business meeting cannot adopt any policy or doctrine which is contrary to those held by the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. An example of such a decision which the Group has previously used is that the local church business meeting cannot decide to stop remitting tithe to the conference. To do so would be to declare that it no longer wished to be a Seventh-day Adventist congregation, at which point the conference would have legitimate cause to utilize its enforcement mechanism and disband the congregation. Conversely, there is one matter on which the business meeting has power which the conference is not permitted to exercise. This is the power of deciding issues of discipline. (Discipline is a subject that has "nipped at the heels" of this conflict for some time. We will be addressing it separately in the not-too-distant future.) But again, this power is granted to the local church by the Church Manual, which is a product of the General Conference. It is therefore through the authority of the General Conference that the local church exercises this power—not through the possession of some absolute authority of its own.
So what about this appeal process? The 17th edition of the Church Manual (voted by the 2005 GC Session) puts it this way, “Churches should look to the local conference for advice pertaining to the operating of the church or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If mutual understanding or agreement is not reached, the matter should be referred to the union for clarification” (p.xxii). The meaning of “churches” in this context, and who is responsible to do the referring to the union, are the points of interpretation which could not be agreed upon by the experts consulted about the Group’s situation.
The 18th edition of the Church Manual (voted by the 2010 GC Session) rephrases the statement, “Church officers and leaders, pastors, and members should consult with their conference for advice pertaining to the operating of their congregation or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If they do not reach mutual understanding, they should consult with their union conference/mission for clarification” (p.20).
There are several points about these statements that should be noted. First, neither edition expressly states (or even implies) that when questions arise regarding the Church Manual that a protocol based on Matthew 18 must be followed. The first step called for once it is clear that a question exists is for the questioning parties to consult the conference. Therefore, all of the extra steps that the Potomac Conference insisted on in our situation had no basis in official Church policy. Second, it is the Church Manual, which is an expression of the will of the General Conference, that delegates primary responsibility for answering questions about the Church Manual to the local conferences. This is a practical measure taken simply because the General Conference couldn’t possibly directly address every single question that might arise in local congregations regarding the Church Manual. However, the simple fact that the General Conference exercises its authority to delegate this task to the local conference means that they also have the authority to take back the responsibility should they see that a particular situation called for such intervention. Furthermore, since the Church Manual originates from the General Conference they are the foremost experts on its content and interpretation. In short, despite Pastor DeSilva’s having been appalled at their decision, there was nothing wrong with the five leaders within the General Conference having written the letters of interpretation that they did. Finally, the 18th edition’s use of “church officers and leaders, pastors, and members” in place of the 17th edition’s “churches” makes it clear that whether or not associations like the Group had standing to make appeals to their union before, they very definitely have that right now.
To summarize, each level of organization has its own legitimate sphere of action. Within the local church the business meeting is the highest authority. So long as it is acting within its designated parameters and all concerned are satisfied that it is doing its job in the way that it ought to there is no reason for any other level of the organization to be involved with its activities. Should questions or concerns arise regarding either the processes or the decisions of the local church the questions or concerns are to be taken to the conference. The conference is to give answers to the best of its ability. Should those answers not provide sufficient illumination on the matter the question or concern is to be taken on to the union. Once a clear answer is received the church is expected to act in accordance with it.
These relationships and processes are defined by the Church Manual. As previously stated, the Church Manual is a product of the General Conference, which is the highest authority within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It defines the relationships between all other levels of the organization and delegates to them the power that they wield, which means that the General Conference gets the final word on the interpretation and use of that delegated power.
In the Epic, Pt. 69 we promised to explain how the description of Dr. Paterson’s involvement in the formation of the recommendations of the executive committee had been misrepresented by Elder Miller and to provide an analysis of Elder Miller’s presentation to the ministries board.
In the Epic, Pt. 70 we promised to describe the changes in the most recent version of the Church Manual which clarify who has the right to appeal to a union.
Now that all of the pieces of the story bearing on this subject have been told (the subject being the interplay between the local congregation and higher levels of church administration) we are ready to keep these promises and present a consideration of this matter.
It will make most sense if we start with Dr. Paterson’s involvement with the executive committee’s recommendations to the Takoma Park Church. In a conversation some time after the executive committee’s recommendations had been presented Dr. Paterson expressed surprise when members of the Group told him that he had been cited as an authority consulted by the delegation of six from the executive committee as they prepared their recommendations. He declared that he had had no formal discussions with anyone from the conference on the subject of Takoma Park. The only interaction he recalled was an informal chat with Pastor Netteburg and a few others in a restaurant, during which he and Pastor Netteburg discussed what enforcement mechanisms the Church Manual grants to the various levels of the church organization. In that discussion the conclusion that had been reached was that the enforcement mechanism possessed by each level of the church organization is that of disbanding the organization below it.
When Elder Miller had made his presentation to the ministries board his assertion had been that the only power possessed by each level of the church organization was to disband the organization below it. This is a significant difference because in the context of the Church Manual power and enforcement mechanisms are not synonymous. For example, the Church Manual specifies that Bible Instructors may only hold local church office if the conference grants them special permission to do so. (This is to allow them to focus on the particular task of Bible instruction rather than getting caught up in other tasks relating to the local church.) This is a power granted by the Church Manual to the conference. The Manual does not specify any penalty or remedial action (enforcement mechanism) to be used in the event that a local church goes ahead and elects a Bible Instructor to local church office without the conference’s approval (see p.34). The Manual assumes that honorable church members would choose to follow the rules laid out without the need for a penalty to enforce compliance. Therefore, the only scenarios for which the Manual prescribes enforcement mechanisms are those that involve dramatic, flagrant disobedience that calls for severe measures (hence the only enforcement mechanism being disbanding).
Now that we have established that the powers of the various levels of the denominational administration are not so limited as Elder Miller described we need to address what the real boundaries of their powers are. For our purposes we are going to focus that question on the powers pertaining to governance and the Church Manual. We have already discussed the origins of the Church Manual’s authority and the force of its prescriptions in Power (posted 8-28-09), In His Own Eyes (posted 1-7-10), and most recently Bullseye: Corporate Distinctiveness (posted 4-30-10). Rather than repeating those in-depth examinations of the subject we will simply summarize that the authority of the General Conference supercedes that of any other level of the church, including the local congregation. Therefore, any directives generated by the General Conference (which include the Church Manual) are considered binding to the local congregation.
In his presentation to the ministries board Elder Miller had represented the power of the business meeting of the local church as being all but absolute. In reality, there are some limitations. The most notable of these is that the local business meeting cannot adopt any policy or doctrine which is contrary to those held by the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. An example of such a decision which the Group has previously used is that the local church business meeting cannot decide to stop remitting tithe to the conference. To do so would be to declare that it no longer wished to be a Seventh-day Adventist congregation, at which point the conference would have legitimate cause to utilize its enforcement mechanism and disband the congregation. Conversely, there is one matter on which the business meeting has power which the conference is not permitted to exercise. This is the power of deciding issues of discipline. (Discipline is a subject that has "nipped at the heels" of this conflict for some time. We will be addressing it separately in the not-too-distant future.) But again, this power is granted to the local church by the Church Manual, which is a product of the General Conference. It is therefore through the authority of the General Conference that the local church exercises this power—not through the possession of some absolute authority of its own.
So what about this appeal process? The 17th edition of the Church Manual (voted by the 2005 GC Session) puts it this way, “Churches should look to the local conference for advice pertaining to the operating of the church or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If mutual understanding or agreement is not reached, the matter should be referred to the union for clarification” (p.xxii). The meaning of “churches” in this context, and who is responsible to do the referring to the union, are the points of interpretation which could not be agreed upon by the experts consulted about the Group’s situation.
The 18th edition of the Church Manual (voted by the 2010 GC Session) rephrases the statement, “Church officers and leaders, pastors, and members should consult with their conference for advice pertaining to the operating of their congregation or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If they do not reach mutual understanding, they should consult with their union conference/mission for clarification” (p.20).
There are several points about these statements that should be noted. First, neither edition expressly states (or even implies) that when questions arise regarding the Church Manual that a protocol based on Matthew 18 must be followed. The first step called for once it is clear that a question exists is for the questioning parties to consult the conference. Therefore, all of the extra steps that the Potomac Conference insisted on in our situation had no basis in official Church policy. Second, it is the Church Manual, which is an expression of the will of the General Conference, that delegates primary responsibility for answering questions about the Church Manual to the local conferences. This is a practical measure taken simply because the General Conference couldn’t possibly directly address every single question that might arise in local congregations regarding the Church Manual. However, the simple fact that the General Conference exercises its authority to delegate this task to the local conference means that they also have the authority to take back the responsibility should they see that a particular situation called for such intervention. Furthermore, since the Church Manual originates from the General Conference they are the foremost experts on its content and interpretation. In short, despite Pastor DeSilva’s having been appalled at their decision, there was nothing wrong with the five leaders within the General Conference having written the letters of interpretation that they did. Finally, the 18th edition’s use of “church officers and leaders, pastors, and members” in place of the 17th edition’s “churches” makes it clear that whether or not associations like the Group had standing to make appeals to their union before, they very definitely have that right now.
To summarize, each level of organization has its own legitimate sphere of action. Within the local church the business meeting is the highest authority. So long as it is acting within its designated parameters and all concerned are satisfied that it is doing its job in the way that it ought to there is no reason for any other level of the organization to be involved with its activities. Should questions or concerns arise regarding either the processes or the decisions of the local church the questions or concerns are to be taken to the conference. The conference is to give answers to the best of its ability. Should those answers not provide sufficient illumination on the matter the question or concern is to be taken on to the union. Once a clear answer is received the church is expected to act in accordance with it.
These relationships and processes are defined by the Church Manual. As previously stated, the Church Manual is a product of the General Conference, which is the highest authority within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It defines the relationships between all other levels of the organization and delegates to them the power that they wield, which means that the General Conference gets the final word on the interpretation and use of that delegated power.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 70
The recommendations of the executive committee had made it clear that they either could not or would not answer the question the Group had posed to them. Throughout the appeal process the Potomac Conference administration had treated the Group as if we were squabbling with the pastor over who got to use a prime spot in the church parking lot. Not surprisingly, then, their perspective on resolving the situation was that what was needed was for more heads to get together in order to think up a compromise. This was not the purpose for which we had appealed to the executive committee. Either the Group was correct that the new governance was contrary to the Church Manual, or the pastors were correct that the new governance was not contrary to the Church Manual. The point of our appeal was simple: to have the executive committee render an expert opinion as to which interpretation of the Church Manual was correct. From there the proper course of action would be obvious. If the new governance was judged to be wrong it should be undone. If it was judged to be right there would be no need to make any changes. This simple nature of the matter put before them had been entirely ignored by the executive committee.
To make this point still clearer, allow us to offer a parable before we proceed with our story. A young man had a large family with many siblings. One day he observed his eldest brother taking some pills. He investigated and discovered that they were prescription drugs that his brother had no legitimate reason to be taking. When he confronted his brother about the drug abuse the brother denied everything, claiming that he had only been taking vitamin pills. The young man took what he knew to the rest of the family to seek their help in staging an intervention with the eldest brother. The family was shocked. They went to the eldest brother and he repeated his denial and the story that the pills had merely been vitamins. The family members began taking sides. Some believed the young man, others his eldest brother. Finally, the young man’s father came to him and insisted that he sit down with his eldest brother and reach a compromise because of what the situation was doing to the rest of the family. This demand perplexed the young man. What sort of compromise could he reach with his brother about a drug habit? That his brother would only abuse pills on alternate days? That he would switch to abusing less potent pills? On the other hand, what if somehow he was wrong and his brother was only taking vitamin pills? It would be silly to demand that his brother stop taking vitamins, or even that he take fewer of them. The young man couldn’t escape his conviction that in this situation the truth had to be established and an all-or-nothing course of action taken as a result of that truth.
In the wake of the executive committee’s recommendations the Group was left with three problems. The first was that the fundamental question at the heart of our appeal had gone unanswered. The second was that, in contradiction to his earlier statements, Elder Miller was now insisting that we were not permitted to seek clarification from the union in what had turned out to be the absence of a direct answer from the conference. The third problem was that the conference’s recommendations put responsibility for answering the question in the hands of the Takoma Park Church which, given the heavy-handed way business is conducted by the pastors, effectively meant that the decision was in the hands of Pastor DeSilva. With Pastor DeSilva’s established bias on the subject, this would virtually guarantee that even if the recommendations were approved for formality’s sake that they would never actually be implemented.
To address these matters the Group took a two-pronged approach. First, Sister L communicated with a contact in the North American Division administration, seeking a second opinion on Elder Miller’s interpretation that the Manual would not allow the Group to appeal to the union. Second, Elder B made contact with Elder Ramirez to address the Group’s concerns that there would be no follow-through on Pastor DeSilva’s part regarding the recommendations. Both of these communications had interesting results.
Elder B’s communication with Elder Ramirez took place by phone. During the conversation Elder Ramirez expressed surprise that there had not been more Group members present at the ministries board meeting in which the conference had presented its recommendations. He particularly mentioned the absence of Brother G. Elder B explained that as a member of the accountability board Brother G was specifically excluded from membership on the ministries board, and that since whomever had called the meeting had closed it to all but members of the ministries board, Brother G and other leaders of the church who were not on the ministries board had been prevented from attending. (This exchange highlighted a couple of significant facts. First, there is no single administrative body in the Takoma Park Church that can be called to meet which includes all of the high-ranking elected leaders of the church. Second, in choosing to believe Pastor DeSilva’s interpretations of the workings of the church’s governance the conference found that they did not get what they expected.) On the matter of not being able to trust that Pastor DeSilva would follow through on the recommendations of the executive committee Elder Ramirez promised Elder B that a representative of the conference would attend both of the upcoming meetings at which the recommendations were due to be discussed in order to see that they were taken seriously.
On Friday evening, June 19, 2009, Elder B received another phone call from Elder Ramirez. He wanted to know whether she would be attending camp meeting the next day, and if so, whether they could meet in the afternoon. Elder B responded that she was planning to attend and would be willing to meet. During that meeting the following afternoon it came to light that in researching the question of right to appeal Sister L’s NAD contact had called Elder Miller that Friday to hear directly his views on the subject. In the course of the conversation the NAD contact had mentioned that Sister L had been providing him with regular reports about the situation in Takoma Park. While he didn’t show it in conversation with the NAD contact, Elder Miller was rather unhappy about the conversation and the information that someone in the Group had been in regular contact with NAD administration. The purpose of the meeting between Elder B and Elder Ramirez was to convey this displeasure. It was expressed that if the Group were to attempt to appeal further before the church had taken formal action on the executive committee’s recommendations and the executive committee heard about it that they would consider the Group very arrogant. There was an implication that negative consequences would result from such action. It was also implied that the communication between Sister L and her NAD contact was somehow improper and ought to be stopped by the Group. Elder B was rather taken aback by this “advice,” which was presented as being for the Group’s own good. The Group as a whole, upon hearing about it, was rather taken aback that the conference administration would have the nerve to attempt to dictate whom members of the Group could or could not speak with or that they would seek to restrict the subjects of any such conversations.
On Sunday evening, June 21, 2009, Sister L finally received a formal answer from her NAD contact on how the Church Manual’s statement about appeals ought to be interpreted. The response was that there was no consistent opinion among Church Manual experts. Some believed that a group such as the Group did have the right to appeal to a union executive committee for clarification; others so far restricted the right to appeal as to allow only conferences to do so. (This ambiguity of policy was clarified by changes made to the Church Manual that were just ratified at the GC Session in Atlanta. Our next post will speak to this matter, as well as the long-promised discussions of the powers of the various levels of the denominational hierarchy and analysis of Elder Miller’s presentation to the ministries board, which ultimately all speak to the same issues.)
Next: At the Ministries Board
Religious
To make this point still clearer, allow us to offer a parable before we proceed with our story. A young man had a large family with many siblings. One day he observed his eldest brother taking some pills. He investigated and discovered that they were prescription drugs that his brother had no legitimate reason to be taking. When he confronted his brother about the drug abuse the brother denied everything, claiming that he had only been taking vitamin pills. The young man took what he knew to the rest of the family to seek their help in staging an intervention with the eldest brother. The family was shocked. They went to the eldest brother and he repeated his denial and the story that the pills had merely been vitamins. The family members began taking sides. Some believed the young man, others his eldest brother. Finally, the young man’s father came to him and insisted that he sit down with his eldest brother and reach a compromise because of what the situation was doing to the rest of the family. This demand perplexed the young man. What sort of compromise could he reach with his brother about a drug habit? That his brother would only abuse pills on alternate days? That he would switch to abusing less potent pills? On the other hand, what if somehow he was wrong and his brother was only taking vitamin pills? It would be silly to demand that his brother stop taking vitamins, or even that he take fewer of them. The young man couldn’t escape his conviction that in this situation the truth had to be established and an all-or-nothing course of action taken as a result of that truth.
In the wake of the executive committee’s recommendations the Group was left with three problems. The first was that the fundamental question at the heart of our appeal had gone unanswered. The second was that, in contradiction to his earlier statements, Elder Miller was now insisting that we were not permitted to seek clarification from the union in what had turned out to be the absence of a direct answer from the conference. The third problem was that the conference’s recommendations put responsibility for answering the question in the hands of the Takoma Park Church which, given the heavy-handed way business is conducted by the pastors, effectively meant that the decision was in the hands of Pastor DeSilva. With Pastor DeSilva’s established bias on the subject, this would virtually guarantee that even if the recommendations were approved for formality’s sake that they would never actually be implemented.
To address these matters the Group took a two-pronged approach. First, Sister L communicated with a contact in the North American Division administration, seeking a second opinion on Elder Miller’s interpretation that the Manual would not allow the Group to appeal to the union. Second, Elder B made contact with Elder Ramirez to address the Group’s concerns that there would be no follow-through on Pastor DeSilva’s part regarding the recommendations. Both of these communications had interesting results.
Elder B’s communication with Elder Ramirez took place by phone. During the conversation Elder Ramirez expressed surprise that there had not been more Group members present at the ministries board meeting in which the conference had presented its recommendations. He particularly mentioned the absence of Brother G. Elder B explained that as a member of the accountability board Brother G was specifically excluded from membership on the ministries board, and that since whomever had called the meeting had closed it to all but members of the ministries board, Brother G and other leaders of the church who were not on the ministries board had been prevented from attending. (This exchange highlighted a couple of significant facts. First, there is no single administrative body in the Takoma Park Church that can be called to meet which includes all of the high-ranking elected leaders of the church. Second, in choosing to believe Pastor DeSilva’s interpretations of the workings of the church’s governance the conference found that they did not get what they expected.) On the matter of not being able to trust that Pastor DeSilva would follow through on the recommendations of the executive committee Elder Ramirez promised Elder B that a representative of the conference would attend both of the upcoming meetings at which the recommendations were due to be discussed in order to see that they were taken seriously.
On Friday evening, June 19, 2009, Elder B received another phone call from Elder Ramirez. He wanted to know whether she would be attending camp meeting the next day, and if so, whether they could meet in the afternoon. Elder B responded that she was planning to attend and would be willing to meet. During that meeting the following afternoon it came to light that in researching the question of right to appeal Sister L’s NAD contact had called Elder Miller that Friday to hear directly his views on the subject. In the course of the conversation the NAD contact had mentioned that Sister L had been providing him with regular reports about the situation in Takoma Park. While he didn’t show it in conversation with the NAD contact, Elder Miller was rather unhappy about the conversation and the information that someone in the Group had been in regular contact with NAD administration. The purpose of the meeting between Elder B and Elder Ramirez was to convey this displeasure. It was expressed that if the Group were to attempt to appeal further before the church had taken formal action on the executive committee’s recommendations and the executive committee heard about it that they would consider the Group very arrogant. There was an implication that negative consequences would result from such action. It was also implied that the communication between Sister L and her NAD contact was somehow improper and ought to be stopped by the Group. Elder B was rather taken aback by this “advice,” which was presented as being for the Group’s own good. The Group as a whole, upon hearing about it, was rather taken aback that the conference administration would have the nerve to attempt to dictate whom members of the Group could or could not speak with or that they would seek to restrict the subjects of any such conversations.
On Sunday evening, June 21, 2009, Sister L finally received a formal answer from her NAD contact on how the Church Manual’s statement about appeals ought to be interpreted. The response was that there was no consistent opinion among Church Manual experts. Some believed that a group such as the Group did have the right to appeal to a union executive committee for clarification; others so far restricted the right to appeal as to allow only conferences to do so. (This ambiguity of policy was clarified by changes made to the Church Manual that were just ratified at the GC Session in Atlanta. Our next post will speak to this matter, as well as the long-promised discussions of the powers of the various levels of the denominational hierarchy and analysis of Elder Miller’s presentation to the ministries board, which ultimately all speak to the same issues.)
Next: At the Ministries Board
Religious
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 23
"There have been dishonesty, fraud, the turning away of a man from his rights, and disregarding the principles of the commandments of God. You have had men, schemes, and devising of plans with the idea that you could as a board have power to do anything that would serve the conference, and bring in a revenue. But it was more grievous in the sight of God, because you there were covering the dishonest practises, saying The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we. Yes; but that temple was just as much in need of cleansing as the temple courts in the days when Christ was upon the earth. The Lord hates the mixture he saw in the earthly temple. Unholy bartering in the temple courts brought forth the righteous indignation of an insulted God" (General Conference Daily Bulletin, February 23, 1899 par. 6).
"A strange thing has come into our churches. Men who are placed in positions of responsibility that they may be wise helpers to their fellow-workers, have come to suppose that they were set as kings and rulers in the churches, to say to one brother. Do this, to another, Do that, and to another, Be sure to labor in such and such a way. There have been places where the workers have been told that if they did not follow the instruction of these men of responsibility, their pay from the conference would be withheld.
"It is right for the workers to counsel together as brethren; but that man who endeavors to lead his fellow-workers to seek his individual counsel and advice regarding the details of their work, and to learn their duty from him, is in a dangerous position, and needs to learn what responsibilities are really comprehended in his office. God has appointed no man to be conscience for his fellow-man. It is not wise to lay so much responsibility upon an officer that he will feel that he is forced to become a dictator" (Jehovah Is Our King, pp.12, 13).
"Those who are seeking to know the truth and to understand the will of God, who are faithful to the light and zealous in the performance of their daily duties, will surely know of the doctrine, for they will be guided into all truth. God does not promise, by the masterly acts of His providence, to irresistibly bring men to the knowledge of His truth, when they do not seek for truth and have no desire to know the truth. Men have the power to quench the Spirit of God; the power of choosing is left with them. They are allowed freedom of action. They may be obedient through the name and grace of our Redeemer, or they may be disobedient, and realize the consequences. Man is responsible for receiving or rejecting sacred and eternal truth. The Spirit of God is continually convicting, and souls are deciding for or against the truth. The deportment, the words, the actions, of the minister of Christ may balance a soul for or against the truth. How important that every act of the life be such that it need not be repented of. Especially is this important among the ambassadors of Christ, who are acting in the place of Christ" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, pp.427, 428).
"A strange thing has come into our churches. Men who are placed in positions of responsibility that they may be wise helpers to their fellow-workers, have come to suppose that they were set as kings and rulers in the churches, to say to one brother. Do this, to another, Do that, and to another, Be sure to labor in such and such a way. There have been places where the workers have been told that if they did not follow the instruction of these men of responsibility, their pay from the conference would be withheld.
"It is right for the workers to counsel together as brethren; but that man who endeavors to lead his fellow-workers to seek his individual counsel and advice regarding the details of their work, and to learn their duty from him, is in a dangerous position, and needs to learn what responsibilities are really comprehended in his office. God has appointed no man to be conscience for his fellow-man. It is not wise to lay so much responsibility upon an officer that he will feel that he is forced to become a dictator" (Jehovah Is Our King, pp.12, 13).
"Those who are seeking to know the truth and to understand the will of God, who are faithful to the light and zealous in the performance of their daily duties, will surely know of the doctrine, for they will be guided into all truth. God does not promise, by the masterly acts of His providence, to irresistibly bring men to the knowledge of His truth, when they do not seek for truth and have no desire to know the truth. Men have the power to quench the Spirit of God; the power of choosing is left with them. They are allowed freedom of action. They may be obedient through the name and grace of our Redeemer, or they may be disobedient, and realize the consequences. Man is responsible for receiving or rejecting sacred and eternal truth. The Spirit of God is continually convicting, and souls are deciding for or against the truth. The deportment, the words, the actions, of the minister of Christ may balance a soul for or against the truth. How important that every act of the life be such that it need not be repented of. Especially is this important among the ambassadors of Christ, who are acting in the place of Christ" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, pp.427, 428).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)