The Epic, Pt. 72

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