The Epic, Pt. 66

Proper Governance for the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church
A Question of Interpretation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual Posed to the Executive Committee of the Potomac Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

The Background

What Happened
• A new governance structure was proposed to the Takoma Park Church by Dr. Ray Pichette and Pastor Alan DeSilva.
• The proposal was discussed by the church. It was decided in a board and business meeting that changing the governance structure was not desirable and would not be included in the final vote regarding the approval of Borden Report.
• After reaching that agreement Pastor DeSilva unilaterally decided to include the structure change in the vote on the Borden Report.
• His argument was that the report itself specifies that it must be voted up or down in its entirety and so we had to do so or face potential legal repercussions. This logic is flawed.
• The re-inclusion of the structure change was not adequately publicized, and at the time of the vote many didn’t realize that this was part of what they were voting for.
• The vote was held on Sabbath morning. Many members didn’t take part in the vote because they believed it was wrong to hold votes on that type of issue on Sabbath or because discussion had been prohibited in that context.

The Issue

What the Church Manual Says:
I. About its own authority and proper interpretation:

“Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is… expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception.” –Review and Herald, vol. 50, No. 14, p.106.

“The content of the Church Manual is the expression of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s understanding of Christian life and church governance” (Church Manual, pp. 1&2, bold supplied).

Conclusion: The Church Manual is supposed to be accepted as read.

II. About changing the Church Manual:

“Changes in or revisions of the Church Manual …can be made only by action of a General Conference session… If revisions in the Church Manual are considered necessary by any of the constituent levels…such revisions should be submitted to the next constituent level for wider counsel and study.

“If approved, the suggested revisions are then submitted to the next constituent level… [and then] sent to the General Conference Church Manual Committee. This committee will … prepare them for presentation at an Annual Council and/or General Conference session” (Church Manual, pp. xxi, xxii).

Conclusion: The local church cannot of its own authority alter or countermand the stipulations of the Church Manual.

III. About local church governance:

“Representative [government is] the form of church government which recognizes that authority in the church rests in the church membership, with executive responsibility delegated to representative bodies… The representative form of church government is that which prevails in the Seventh-day Adventist Church” (Church Manual, p. 26).

“Definition and Function—The church board is composed of the principal officers of the church. It has a number of important responsibilities…

“…It is therefore also the primary function of the church board to serve as the chief committee of the local church” (Church Manual, p. 90).

“Included in church board responsibilities are:

1. spiritual nurture.

2. evangelism in all of its phases.

3. maintenance of doctrinal purity.

4. upholding Christian standards.

5. recommending changes in church membership.

6. church finances.

7. protection and care of church properties.

8. coordination of church departments.”

(Church Manual, p. 90).

Conclusion: The only acceptable method of governing a Seventh-day Adventist congregation is by having executive power vested in a single committee known as the church board.

All responsibilities not expressly reserved to the business meeting of the congregation are to be handled by this single committee.

GOVERNANCE FLOW CHART FOR THE LOCAL CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH MANUAL

To be operating in harmony with the Manual, there must be a single board which answers directly to the business meeting and has executive control over all ministries/ committees/ personnel of the congregation.

What Takoma Park is Doing

Takoma Park has two “boards,” the “Church Ministries Board” and the “Support and Accountability Board.”

The Duties of the Church Ministries Board (As prepared by the Senior Pastor)
1. Worship planning
2. Responsible for developing a yearly calendar of events and celebrations
3. Develop Mission and Vision
4. Leadership Development
5. Responsible for keeping the church missionally focused
6. Develop long and short term vision goals

The Duties of the Support and Accountability Board (As prepared by the Senior Pastor)
1. Develop and maintain a Church Operations Manual
2. Review the vision goals of the Church Ministry Board and hold the Senior Pastor accountable
3. Ministry Audit (develop and maintain an instrument to evaluate each program for a missional focus)
4. Human relations (responsible for hiring of all paid personnel)

ORIGINAL FLOW CHART FOR THE NEW TAKOMA PARK GOVERNANCE

NEW FLOW CHART ISSUED AT JAN. 28, 2008 BUSINESS MEETING


NEW FLOW CHART ISSUED AT JUNE 29, 2008 BUSINESS MEETING


These charts have variations, but three key elements remain constant:
1. There are two administrative “boards.”
2. The Accountability Board answers to the business meeting rather than the Ministries Board (which the Senior Pastor claims is his church board).
3. The Ministries Board doesn’t have direct access to the business meeting. The position of Senior Pastor (and originally the Accountability Board) blocks it.

None of these charts were ever approved by a vote of the congregation. They were simply issued by the Senior Pastor as authoritative.

Does Takoma Park’s system conform to the Church Manual’s requirements? NO

Comparative analysis of the current boards and the requirements of the Church Manual show significant gaps between the duties required of a church board and what the two current boards are authorized to do.

Presently there is no church board operating in the Takoma Park Church as stipulated by the Church Manual. Neither of the existing “boards” fits the definition of a church board according to the Church Manual.

The Remedy (Abbreviated)

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.
2. Affirm the Church Manual as the ultimate authority in matters of church governance.
3. Rescind the action to adopt the Paul Borden Report.
4. Reinstate the Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual, pp. 90 and 91, thereby eliminating the Accountability Board and Church Ministries Board.
5. Acknowledge that all departments and ministries are accountable to the Church Board, not to the staff or any other person or entity.
6. Include a plan for the remediation of all related governance problems.
7. Include certification from administrative observers from all levels of Seventh-day Adventist church government that the new actions are in harmony with the Church Manual.

Conclusion
The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not give individual congregations the option to choose their own form of government. The method by which local congregations are to be run is clearly spelled out in the Church Manual. It is expected that all congregations will follow this method which is an integral part of what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist congregation.

The Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is not presently acting in harmony with the Church Manual and must therefore take corrective action.

Next: The Other Side

Religious

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 22

"When Jesus gave the injunction, 'Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me,' the priests and rulers were sitting in Moses's seat, and professing to give to the people the commands of God; but that which was so plain that the common people might clearly understand, they mystified and misinterpreted. Through false interpretation, the Jewish nation had lost the simple, practical knowledge of God and his truth. The command to search implied that they had lost something, and that they must diligently seek to discover it. The plain directions of the Scriptures, which had revealed the will of God, were covered up with mystery and tradition, with false tests, false theories and commands. The Scriptures had been wrested to the ruin of souls, and man-made tests and injunctions had been put in the place of the plain 'thus saith the Lord.' Jesus said to all, Search for yourselves. Allow no one to be brains for you, allow no one to do your thinking, your investigating, and your praying. This is the instruction we need to take to heart today. Many of you are convinced that the precious treasure of the kingdom of God and of Jesus Christ is in the Bible which you hold in your hand. You know that no earthly treasure is attainable without painstaking effort. Why should you expect to understand the treasures of the word of God without diligently searching the Scriptures?

"It is proper and right to read the Bible; but your duty does not end there; for you are to search its pages for yourselves. The knowledge of God is not to be gained without mental effort, without prayer for wisdom in order that you may separate from the pure grain of truth the chaff with which men and Satan have misrepresented the doctrines of truth. Satan and his confederacy of human agents have endeavored to mix the chaff of error with the wheat of truth. We should diligently search for the hidden treasure, and seek wisdom from heaven in order to separate human inventions from the divine commands. The Holy Spirit will aid the seeker for great and precious truths which relate to the plan of redemption. I would impress upon all the fact that a casual reading of the Scriptures is not enough. We must search, and this means the doing of all the word implies. As the miner eagerly explores the earth to discover its veins of gold, so you are to explore the word of God for the hidden treasure that Satan has so long sought to hide from man. The Lord says, 'If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching.' John 7:17, Revised Version" (Review and Herald, September 11, 1894 par. 1 & 2).

The Epic, Pt. 65

At noon on the day of the meeting with the executive committee (May 28, 2009) Brother G received a phone call from Elder Ramirez. (Presentations on the Takoma Park issue were to start at 4pm.) He wanted to know which members of the spokesgroup would be presenting to the executive committee. When he was told that the Group expected all four members of the spokesgroup to participate his reaction was, "Oh no, no! We need to stick with the three person format we have used throughout this process."

Brother G started calling other Group members about what to do. The conclusion reached was that Brother G had to take part because he had been the primary spokesperson throughout the process. Sister L was needed because she was to give the PowerPoint presentation the Group had prepared. That left either Elder C or Brother X to be cut. It was decided that Brother X would be in the room because he was the more naturally vocal of the two and would be more likely to jump into any debate that might arise during the meeting.

Brother G first reached Sister L with news of the developments about 2pm. He tried to contact Elder C and Brother X, but the messages didn't get to them. The news that he would not be in the room didn’t reach Elder C until he walked into the church where the meeting was being held. There were also quite a few members of the Group who showed up with the expectation of being able to sit in on the meeting to express their support, as Elder Miller had not placed any limit on attendees during the May 19 meeting. However, when the meeting turned its attention to the Takoma Park situation Elder Miller declared that it was immediately going into executive session (which he had said in the May 19 meeting would not happen until after the presentations). This meant that all of the assembled Group members, except for the three presenters, were excluded from the room. Since they were not welcome in the room the excluded Group members held a spontaneous prayer meeting down the hall for the duration of the presentations and following questions.

As Elder Miller had laid out the week before, each side was given seven minutes to make an uninterrupted presentation. First Sister L made the presentation on behalf of the Group, then Pastor DeSilva presented his position. The next phase of the format Elder Miller had created was for the committee members to ask questions of clarification. He had determined 20-40 minutes for questions, but that phase ended up lasting more like 60 minutes. The spokesgroup found the question period frustrating because no direct rebuttal was allowed. The presenters were only permitted to speak if the question was directed to them and on the question. The Group had been expecting that, much like a debate, the question period would allow both sides to answer a question and thereby work in more details and arguments than it was possible to include in the original seven-minute presentation. Not having that option meant that the executive committee didn’t get as well-rounded an explanation of the positions as it otherwise would have received. After the questions the committee broke for supper (it was about 6pm by then) with the intent of coming back afterwards for a closed discussion of the matter. Neither presentation group was invited to be present for the discussion. It would be nearly two weeks before the outcome of that discussion was made known.

Because of the significance of the content of the executive committee meeting we are going to describe it in as much detail as possible. We will break it up into three additional chapters of the Epic: our statement, Pastor DeSilva’s statement, and the committee questions.

Next: Making Our Case

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 64

The advance materials the Group prepared for the executive committee members had five parts. The package started with a brief summary of the situation. This was followed by the entire Paul Borden Report, the board comparison charts, the two new letters from the General Conference personnel, and the list of requirements for resolution which were presented at the three-on-three meeting. The summary, which is the only portion of this package not already posted to this blog, is included below.

“Summary of Appeal

“Our appeal is to reestablish in the Takoma Park Church the system of governance mandated by the Seventh-day Adventist world church and stipulated in the Church Manual.

“This issue began with the implementation of a report prepared by Paul Borden, a church consultant. His report (enclosed in its entirety) was approved for implementation by the congregation under questionable and divisive circumstances on November 17, 2007. The major point of contention with this report is the paragraph which stipulates implementation of a ‘staff led structure.’

“This altered governance structure is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected by the absence of a church board (which is required by the Manual). A proper church board has been replaced by two other ‘boards,’ neither of which fulfills the requirements of the Church Manual singly or in combination. (See enclosed Board Comparison Charts.) As this situation evolved letters of support were received from several church officials.

“‘I could not support this form of church governance nor would the General Conference. It is a far departure of how the Seventh-day Adventist church does business’ (Roscoe Howard, then North American Division Secretary, in a letter dated March 25, 2008).

“‘The [Church Manual] section on the role and function of the Church Board is recorded in the chapter of the Church Manual where it is required practice for every church. There is no alternative structure for the Church. The Church Manual does not allow for any alternatives’ (Vernon B. Parmenter, then Associate Executive Secretary of the General Conference and Secretary of the Church Manual Committee, in a letter dated April 21, 2008).

“‘Pastor Vernon Parmenter, my Associate Secretary, and one who has been assigned to be responsible for the Church Manual and its application, has already written a letter addressed to the Takoma Park Church… As one of your elders, I am in full support of the Church Manual’ (Matthew Bediako, General Conference Executive Secretary, in a letter dated May 28, 2008).

“Recently, letters of additional clarification have been received from Larry Evans, Undersecretary of the General Conference, and Armando Miranda, General Conference General Vice President and Church Manual Committee Chairperson. Their letters are enclosed in their entirety.

“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 in theory and in practice.

“There are additional issues pertaining to and arising from this deviation from governance according to the Church Manual to be addressed at a future date.”

Next: Last Minute

Religious

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 21

"The Hebrews demanded a king of Samuel, like the nations around them. By preferring a despotic monarch to the wise and mild government of God Himself, by the jurisdiction of His prophets, they showed a great want of faith in God, and confidence in His providence to raise them up rulers to lead and govern them. The children of Israel being peculiarly the people of God, their form of government was essentially different from all the nations around them. God had given them statutes and laws, and had chosen their rulers for them, and these leaders the people were to obey in the Lord. In all cases of difficulty and great perplexity, God was to be inquired of. Their demand for a king was a rebellious departure from God, their special leader. He knew that a king would not be best for His chosen people. . . . If they had a king, whose hearts was lifted up and not right with God, he would lead them away from Him, and cause them to rebel against Him. The Lord knew that no one could occupy the position of king, and receive the honors usually given to a king, without becoming exalted, and their ways seem right in their own eyes, while at the same time they were sinning against God" (Conflict and Courage, p.146).

The Epic, Pt. 63

The following letter was written by Armando Miranda, General Conference vice president and chair of the Church Manual Committee. He was asked to clarify whether the Church Manual is a set of guidelines or if it is the intent that the Church Manual be followed by all churches around the world.

From: Miranda, Armando
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: Authority of the Church Manual

To Whom It May Concern:

In order to respond to your question I would like to share with you some quotes from the Church Manual itself.

The Chapter 1 "Authority of the Church and the Church Manual", page 2, says,

1. "Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience." - RH, vol. 50, No. 14, P.106.

2. "The Church of Christ is in constant peril. Satan is seeking to destroy the people of God, and one man's mind, one man's judgment, is not sufficient to be trusted. Christ would have His followers brought together in church capacity, observing order, having rules and discipline, and all subject one to another, esteeming others better than themselves." - Testimonies, vol.3, p.445.

3. In these inspired words, in the 1877 General Conference action (and ratified every five years in GC Sessions), and in the need for well-defined rules that are requisite to good order is found a basis for this Church Manual and its rightful claim upon us all, both ministry and laity.

4. The Content of the Church Manual is the expression of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's understanding of Christian life and church governance and discipline based on biblical principles. It expresses the authority of a duly assembled General Conference session. "God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority." - Testimonies, vol.9, p.261.

On page xxi, the first paragraph states, ....."The content of this Church Manual, as it is presented in chapters and sections within the chapters, is divided into two types of material. The main content of each chapter is of worldwide value and applicable to every church."

As you can see the Church Manual is not a set of guidelines, it is the way that the church has to operate. I hope that this material may help in solving some doubts in regard to the Church Manual.

May the Lord bless you.

Armando Miranda
GC General Vice President
Church Manual Chair

Next: Preparing the Way

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 62

As the Group was preparing for the executive committee meeting we received two new letters from General Conference personnel reinforcing our position. The first of these letters is included below. The second will be included in the next chapter of the Epic.

May 20, 2009

To Whom It May Concern,

I have been requested to respond to the question as to whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual is to be considered “authoritative” in regard to local church governance or if it is meant to serve as “a guideline.” The answer to this question is answered in the Church Manual and can be seen in the following excerpts:

“The 2000 General Conference Session authorized the reclassification of some existing Church Manual material and approved the process for making modifications to such. 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. The Notes have subheadings which correspond to chapter subheadings and correlate to specific page numbers.” (p.xxi)

“The content of the Church Manual is the expression of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s understanding of Christian life and church governance and discipline based on biblical principles. It expresses the authority of a duly assembled General Conference session. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority.” (p.2)

The General Conference Working Policy (2008-2009) reinforces the same concept.

“BA 15 05 Standards and Practices—The standards and practices of the church are based upon the principles set forth in the Church Manual, published by the General Conference. These principles are to be followed in all matters pertaining to the administration of local churches both within the church and in its relationship to higher levels of organization. No attempt should be made by any employee to set up standards of membership or to make, or attempt to enforce, rules or regulations for the church which have not been adopted by the general body of believers and which are not set forth in the Church Manual.”

It seems clear that the Seventh-day Adventist Church understands the Church Manual to be authoritative in matters of governance. Acceptable variances are located within the Notes section. Authoritative is understood to be more than guidelines by the way any change or alteration in governance is approached. The recognized time and manner for change(s) to be made is at a General Conference Session. It is appropriate for a constituent level of the Church, using the defined process, to make recommendations for change. The process for change is outlined in both the Church Manual (p.xxi) and the General Conference Working Policy BA 15 10).

In light of the above context we also find the following:

“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)

In closing, the representative form of governance is found at all constituent levels of the Church with each level having the responsibility of supporting the decisions voted by the General Conference in session.

I trust this is helpful as we work together to foster both unity and mission for the advancement of God’s work.

Sincerely,

Larry R Evans, D.Min.
Undersecretary
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Next: You Can Say That Again

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 61

The Group was represented at the May 19, 2009 meeting by Brother G, Elder C, and Sister L. Pastor DeSilva’s party was unchanged. The two representatives from the executive committee were Henry Wright and Kermit Netteburg, both of whom are pastors of neighboring congregations. Elder Miller began the meeting with a synopsis of the process to date. He then turned the floor over to Brother G, who read the hastily prepared five minute statement summarizing the Group’s position. I say “hastily prepared” because the Group had had only three days’ notice that a statement would be required, which was substantially less time than the Group usually took to create a document with which it was fully satisfied. The statement didn’t say anything the Group hadn’t said before, but for the sake of the completeness of this record it is included below.

“Our appeal is to reestablish in the Takoma Park Church a system of governance which is mandated by the Seventh-day Adventist World Church and stipulated in the Church Manual.

“Because a paragraph contained in the Paul Borden document voted, November 17, 2007 under very unusual and unethical circumstances during the Sabbath Worship Hour, required the implementation of a “staff-led church” structure, the present governance system of the Takoma Park SDA Church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is the major contention. It is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as mandated in the Church Manual.

“As a result of the adoption of the Borden Report, Pastor DeSilva instituted two boards, the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board. Neither Board fulfills the requirements and responsibilities of a Church Board, nor does a combination of these Boards, as later proposed by Pastor DeSilva, reinstate the Church Board with the total authority and responsibility mandated in the Church Manual. Especially missing in these boards is that of church financial authority and responsibility. Also Pastor DeSilva, in placing his position between committees and the Church Business Meeting in the organizational-structural flow charts, is in contradiction with the Church Manual and Seventh-day Adventist governance principles. All committees, including the Finance Committee, except the Nominating Committee, are required to report directly to the Church Board, not to the Pastor, and then to the Church in Business Meeting. The former is not democratic or a representative form of governance.

“The issues before us are the result of the adoption of the Paul Borden Report which introduced a foreign concept of church governance. A Potomac Conference official was present at one of the town hall meetings to promote/explain the Borden Report. Thus it was assumed that the “staff-led church” issue was officially endorsed by the Potomac Conference Executive Committee, but this was and is not the case.

“It has been stated that the action taken by the Takoma Park Church in Business Meeting has its own authority to approve and utilize a different local governing structure than that mandated in the Church Manual, if it so wishes. Then, would not that same reasoning also sanction the Takoma Park Church to take an action to retain all tithes and offerings for local use? No higher Church entity would sanction this. The fallacy of that reasoning is very evident.

“Our proposal is to rescind the Paul Borden Report and to reinstate the Church Board mandated by the Church Manual in a properly called and conducted Church Business Meeting with representatives from higher organizations present.”

When Brother G concluded Sister L added the disclaimer that the statement was only a brief summary of the Group’s position, not a comprehensive description. She also reemphasized that Group representatives were not empowered to make decisions on behalf of the Group, only to present the Group’s position and report back to the Group on the results of the meeting.

The floor was then turned over to Pastor DeSilva for a five minute statement of his own. Pastor DeSilva didn’t have a written statement to present—he simply made an improvised response to the Group’s statement. In his statement he claimed that the finance committee, and therefore financial oversight for the church, was part of the church ministries board because the finance committee chair was on the church ministries board. (This is a faulty understanding of committee relationships—having the chair of one committee sit on another committee doesn’t make the two committees one body.) He further stated that any church member could obtain a report about the financial condition of the church from the church office at any time. (Such “openness” is nice, but not relevant here since the question is not about availability of data but rather who oversees the financial decisions that produce the data.) He also claimed that he had never made executive decisions for the church and that the church ministries board was in fact a church board, just with a different name and a focus on implementing the mission and vision. (As we have already chronicled numerous executive decisions from Pastor DeSilva in previous posts we won’t repeat ourselves. Suffice it to say that this was yet another lie. As for whether or not the church ministries board fits the criteria for a church board as stipulated in the Church Manual, we refer you to the previous post entitled “The Documentation.”)

Next, the two executive committee members asked "clarification" questions. Pastor Wright asked what the church ministries board was doing that the church board before it had not done. Elder D responded that it spent a greater portion of its time discussing ministry. Pastor Wright also asked for an explanation of what the Group meant by the “unusual and unethical circumstances” of the vote on the Borden Report. Sister L briefly described the concerns about doing business during Sabbath hours and the executive decision by Pastor DeSilva to include the structure change in the vote on the Borden Report despite the decision of the church to exclude that portion. Pastor DeSilva interjected that he had to do that because the Borden Report itself said that it must be voted up or down in its entirety. (See “The Epic, Pt. 5” for a dissection of that argument.)

Pastor Wright also inquired about the exact size of the Group. When asked why that mattered he responded that you can’t please everybody, so you have to please the majority. In responding to his original question Sister L stated that as the Group had never established a formal membership role an exact number couldn’t be provided. To give Pastor Wright a general idea of the scope of how much of the congregation was unhappy with the situation she asked Brother G, who is an associate head deacon, to provide estimates of weekly attendance before Paul Borden’s visit compared with current attendance estimates. Brother G stated that before Paul Borden attendance had been 300-400 per week, and that it was currently 250-300. (In other words, roughly 25% of the active congregation was not only dissatisfied with the situation, but so upset over it that they had completely ceased to attend.)

Pastor Netteburg asked Elder J (Takoma Park’s head elder) how the role had changed under the altered system of governance. Elder J admitted that this was his first term as head elder, and only his second term as an elder at all, and that he couldn’t make a comparison. Pastor Netteburg also asked how the composition of the church ministries board differed from a proper church board. Sister L responded by providing him with a copy of the chart the Group had prepared to compare the memberships. (See our post “The Documentation” for this chart.) Pastor DeSilva was not happy to see the chart presented again and tried to discredit it by claiming that it had been discarded in the previous meeting and that it was just opinion anyway. At that point Elder D stated that he had asked the meaning of the asterisks on the chart in the previous meeting but none of the Group’s representatives had remembered their purpose off the top of their heads. Brother G acknowledged that temporary memory failure from the previous meeting. Sister L pointed out that the meaning of the asterisks was printed at the bottom of the chart itself.

Pastor Netteburg moved on to his next question. “If the church board two years ago had wanted to deal with ministry more often than carpet color could it have done so? What kept it from disciplining itself to get carpet off the agenda and evangelism on the agenda?” When these questions produced only hemming and hawing from Pastor DeSilva’s party he pushed the point a little further, “If the board had been discussing the ministries of the church would it have had time to discuss the color of the carpet? It strikes me that what’s happened here is a mission change and a name change, but something that could have been accomplished in a church board. I’m just trying to understand if there’s a reason why that couldn’t have happened.” Sister L responded that there was no reason whatsoever why the renewed interest in ministry could not have happened without the change in governance. Elder J responded that the governance changes were “just an idea to refocus.”

Pastor Netteburg also asked what the church ministries board couldn’t do that the church board could. In response Sister L provided him with the Group’s other chart comparing the duties of a proper church board with those of the church ministries board and support and accountability board. She also pointed out that both charts were not opinion, but fact, as their data was drawn directly from material created by Pastor DeSilva.

When the executive committee members were satisfied Elder Miller then spelled out the way the executive committee meeting would work. He informed everyone that each side was to have seven minutes to make their case, that each was to have their position in written form, and that after the two presentations the committee would have 20-40 minutes for questions. He said that after that the committee would go into executive session to consider the matter. Elder Miller did not specify the number of people who could be present from each side. Sister L asked permission to prepare some advance materials for the committee members to compensate for the short presentation time. This request was granted.

When Elder Miller had finished laying out the presentation format for the executive committee meeting Pastor DeSilva asked whether the executive committee would be the end of the matter. The Brother G pointed out that, contrary to the minutes prepared by Elder Ramirez, he and the Group’s other representatives had not made any such commitment at the previous meeting and were not currently making any such commitment. This generated a brief discussion of appeal procedure and which entities had the right to get involved and in what capacity. Elder Miller asserted that the only point on which the union or any higher body could consider an appeal was the question of whether the conference had followed proper biblical protocol in dealing with the issue. When asked whether that satisfied his concern Pastor DeSilva responded that he understood all of that; he just wanted the Group to know it. He went on to say that he had heard people saying that if the conference didn’t provide justice that the union could correct them, and he wanted to be clear that that isn’t the way the church works. Pastor DeSilva then referenced the letters from Elders Howard, Parmenter, and Bediako, claiming that he had been “so appalled” by their involvement when he didn’t even know them. (We’ll address the subjects of appeal protocol and the involvement of experts later in a separate post.)

Pastor DeSilva also asked Elder Miller whether the "disruption in the church" if the Group continued to pursue an appeal beyond the executive committee could be grounds for discipline. Elder Miller replied that it might be.

Next: Authoritative

Religious

The Sins of the Conference, Pt. 5

Elder Miller initially stated, “The next appropriate step would have been to then contact the conference administration with your dispute…and request a meeting. If the decision then made would not have met your group’s approval it would then be referred to the Executive Committee.”(1) With each succeeding communication this stipulated process proliferated. In Elder Miller’s next letter he stated, “It will be necessary for you…to make contact with Jorge Ramirez and work with him and follow an agreed outlined process of Matt 18.”(2)

Having held the required meeting with Elder Ramirez, the requirement changed once again. “The next step in this process is for you to engage in a one on one dialogue with Alan DeSilva…But before you do this it is important that you and the group write a document outlining all the issues at hand so that this document can serve as the basis for this dialogue…the next step will be to hold a meeting (or meetings, as the Holy Spirit sees fit) with 2-3 individuals from each group…Finally, the last step in this process should nothing be resolved, then will be to bring the issues before the executive committee.”(3) At the meeting with three individuals from each side all parties agreed that the next meeting would be with the executive committee, yet the process was enlarged once again and we were required to attend yet another process meeting.(4)

L) Elders Miller and Ramirez wronged us by repeatedly adding steps to the process to make it more difficult to complete.

M) Elder Miller wronged us by dictating a process without any consideration for what we considered reasonable, in direct contradiction to the statement in his second letter that it would be an “agreed outlined process.”(5) Never did he give us an opportunity to agree or disagree; he simply demanded compliance.

(1) Letter to Elder B dated June 17, 2008
(2) Letter to Elder B dated July 14, 2008
(3) Letter to Brother G dated October 30, 2008
(4) Email to Brother G dated May 17, 2009
(5) Letter to Elder B dated July 14, 2008