Despite our profound wish that the subject of Alan DeSilva being involved in the governance issues of the Takoma Park Church would have been concluded with the previous chapter of the Modern Epic, it appears that he may continue to figure in this story for a while yet. This chapter certainly revolves around issues of his instigation.
On Sabbath, October 26, 2013, Pastor Patterson called an emergency meeting of church officers to take place immediately after the church service. At this meeting he announced that DeSilva had asked to speak to the church in order to make an apology, and he wanted these church leaders’ reactions to the proposal. The response he got was lukewarm, at best, but this didn’t deter him. Pastor Patterson set up a meeting between DeSilva and the church board for the evening of November 7, 2013.
It should be noted at this point that such a meeting is strictly against the directives of the Church Manual, “Members under censure have no right to participate by voice or by vote in the affairs of the church or lead church activities, such as teaching a Sabbath school class” (p.63). No voice or vote means zero participation in any church meeting (other than simple attendance of Sabbath School and other worship services). Pastor Patterson attempted to get around this by declaring that this was not to be an “official” meeting, but we do not see how it could justly be called anything else; it was a meeting called by the pastor, to occur in the church facility, and admission to the meeting was determined by election to church office. As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
The Church Manual doesn’t give reasons for denying voice and vote to members under censure, but those reasons are not difficult to surmise. First, it is logical that a member who was under censure for some sin would have their judgment clouded by that sin, which would make their opinions or advice undesirable to consider in church meetings. Second, even if that person were still capable of giving sound counsel, allowing them to address the church would give the appearance that the church condoned their behavior. Third, a forced silence would compel the member in question to withdraw from the public life of the church and instead engage in introspection regarding their own condition and the behavior. But all of this goes out the window if the restriction against voice and vote is ignored.
Pastor Patterson argued that it was necessary to allow DeSilva this opportunity to repent and be reconciled. However, in making this argument he ignores two crucial facts: 1) DeSilva had an opportunity to say any and everything he wanted to say to the congregation during the disciplinary business meeting, and 2) there would be nothing stopping DeSilva from speaking his piece individually to any member of the congregation he wished to address or even inviting whomever he wished to some private event of his own arranging so as to speak to them all at once. There is absolutely no need nor justification for the course Pastor Patterson has chosen.
At a regularly scheduled board meeting on November 3, 2013 (which Pastor Patterson didn’t attend) Pastors Warfield and Taylor responded to the agitation of the board members by claiming that they had had nothing to do with setting up the meeting for DeSilva. That assertion, while illuminating as to whose idea this was, did nothing to address the wild inappropriateness of the meeting or its probable effect on the congregation as a whole. In fact, as word of the impending meeting had spread through the congregation it had caused a fair amount of anger and a feeling of betrayal that the man who had caused so much pain would be allowed to waltz back in and address the leadership as if nothing had happened. This being generally known by the board members there was some concern that individuals not on the board might attempt to crash the meeting. In response to this, Pastor Warfield suggested posting deacons at the door to ensure that only board members would be allowed in.
The meeting was called off at the last minute—on the morning of the seventh—via an email in which Pastor Patterson announced that DeSilva was in Georgia and would not be able to make it, and that he wasn’t sure whether DeSilva would want to try again another time. That being the explanation given, it is unclear whether the matter is truly dead or merely postponed. What is clear is that Pastor Patterson has chosen to prioritize what he sees as being good for a single individual over what would be good for the rest of the congregation, and even over the reputation of the church at large.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
The Modern Epic, Pt. 3
On September 8, 2013 Takoma Park held another business meeting. This meeting was chaired by Pastor Warfield. Pastor Taylor was present, but Pastor Patterson was not. There were no guests from the Potomac Conference present. It was at this meeting that the matter of disciplining DeSilva and the former church secretary was finally addressed.
In such situations the Church Manual stipulates that the person(s) being considered for discipline be notified in advance that the matter will be brought up at a particular meeting and that they be allowed to speak in their own defense and present witnesses in their defense if they wish to dispute the charges against them. In this case neither individual chose to be present at the meeting. Instead, both sent letters.
Despite earlier discussion of the two cases needing to be handled together and dealt with equally because the guilt for both was equal, Pastor Warfield chose to consider the cases separately.
DeSilva’s letter was read first. He wrote of having patronized a rehab center for sexual addiction in Tennessee and warmly described his affection for various church members and how much he appreciated and missed them. There was a brief mention of being sorry for “the situation,” but no specific expression of contrition for having betrayed and embarrassed his wife, or even for having failed in his role as an example to the congregation.
After this letter was read the congregation was presented with two options for disciplining DeSilva—removing him from membership (commonly called disfellowshipping) or placing him under censure for a period of 12 months. When under censure, an individual is still considered a member of the church but is not allowed to hold any office or have voice or vote in any church meeting. After discussing the matter for a time there was a public vote which resulted in a decision to censure. (We make a point of mentioning that it was a public vote—as opposed to a secret ballot—because some who voted for the disfellowshipping option were afterward approached and remonstrated against by die-hard DeSilva supporters for being so horrible as to have voted that way.)
The former secretary’s letter was a request that her name be removed from the church books. When a member submits such a request the Manual calls for it to be acknowledged and honored by a vote of the business meeting without discussion. There was some sentiment in the room of wishing to disfellowship her rather than allow her to voluntarily withdraw her membership. After some discussion between Pastors Warfield and Taylor it was concluded that her request took precedence and had to be honored.
The disparity in the attitudes toward DeSilva and the secretary is alarming. Both were voluntarily involved in the same ongoing sin. There was no less culpability on DeSilva’s part on account of his having been a pastor. If anything, that makes his transgression greater, not less, as his position made him a public example of the standards and behavior of Adventists in general. The former secretary’s decision to withdraw her membership took the decision of what to do with her out of the congregation’s hands, but the feeling of the members toward the two—whether for leniency or stringency—should have been equal.
In such situations the Church Manual stipulates that the person(s) being considered for discipline be notified in advance that the matter will be brought up at a particular meeting and that they be allowed to speak in their own defense and present witnesses in their defense if they wish to dispute the charges against them. In this case neither individual chose to be present at the meeting. Instead, both sent letters.
Despite earlier discussion of the two cases needing to be handled together and dealt with equally because the guilt for both was equal, Pastor Warfield chose to consider the cases separately.
DeSilva’s letter was read first. He wrote of having patronized a rehab center for sexual addiction in Tennessee and warmly described his affection for various church members and how much he appreciated and missed them. There was a brief mention of being sorry for “the situation,” but no specific expression of contrition for having betrayed and embarrassed his wife, or even for having failed in his role as an example to the congregation.
After this letter was read the congregation was presented with two options for disciplining DeSilva—removing him from membership (commonly called disfellowshipping) or placing him under censure for a period of 12 months. When under censure, an individual is still considered a member of the church but is not allowed to hold any office or have voice or vote in any church meeting. After discussing the matter for a time there was a public vote which resulted in a decision to censure. (We make a point of mentioning that it was a public vote—as opposed to a secret ballot—because some who voted for the disfellowshipping option were afterward approached and remonstrated against by die-hard DeSilva supporters for being so horrible as to have voted that way.)
The former secretary’s letter was a request that her name be removed from the church books. When a member submits such a request the Manual calls for it to be acknowledged and honored by a vote of the business meeting without discussion. There was some sentiment in the room of wishing to disfellowship her rather than allow her to voluntarily withdraw her membership. After some discussion between Pastors Warfield and Taylor it was concluded that her request took precedence and had to be honored.
The disparity in the attitudes toward DeSilva and the secretary is alarming. Both were voluntarily involved in the same ongoing sin. There was no less culpability on DeSilva’s part on account of his having been a pastor. If anything, that makes his transgression greater, not less, as his position made him a public example of the standards and behavior of Adventists in general. The former secretary’s decision to withdraw her membership took the decision of what to do with her out of the congregation’s hands, but the feeling of the members toward the two—whether for leniency or stringency—should have been equal.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Money, Sex, and Governance
Some of you may be wondering what the events described so far in the Modern Epic have to do with the primary subject of this blog. At first blush scandals of sexual infidelity and missing money might seem like throwing personal dirt rather than issues of governance, but these scandals do pertain to governance and the point of this post is to explain that connection.
We will consider first the money issues. Our longtime readers will recall that over the course of the Epic we detailed a number of incidents where then-pastor DeSilva created new committees, changed to whom committees reported, or asked for decisions from committees that had no authority in the matter he brought before them. These changes would occur without notice, explanation, or consistency. The net result of all this is that there is no longer any clear procedure for conducting business, whether routine or non-routine. In this environment where nobody knows how anything is done anymore it is all too easy for the unscrupulous to get away with financial mischief. The problem is exacerbated by the Accountability Council, which gives the illusion of accountability without the reality thereof.
There is, in fact, more financial mischief than we have told about, but for the moment we feel there are compelling reasons to leave the details of the other financial issues out of the story. We mention them here only to make clear that between them and the issues we have detailed there emerges a pattern made possible only through the organizational chaos created by DeSilva. Put another way, DeSilva’s habit of making arbitrary alterations to the congregation’s governance broke down the checks and balances that had existed to protect against financial mischief. With the protections gone it was only a matter of time before irregularities would begin, as indeed they did. The current financial situation is, then, a natural and predictable outcome of altering the governance in this way.
DeSilva’s affair pertains to church governance for two reasons. First, after DeSilva got done messing with the congregation’s governance the only certain thing about it was that whatever he said went. His departure, then, leaves a significant power void and how it will be filled—with rules and procedures everyone can know and consistently follow or with another person with absolute control to call the shots—will have a lasting impact on the governance of the congregation. Second, since the Church (and here we mean the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, not the local congregation) has specific standards of conduct, the violation of which demands disciplinary action by the congregation, the matter of DeSilva’s affair will serve as a litmus test of the congregation’s willingness to obey the denomination’s rules.
As harsh as it may sound to be calling for disciplinary action, it is no more than DeSilva would do were he still in power and some other pastor was the guilty party. This we know for a fact because that very scenario played out in August and September of 2008. (See The Epic, parts 31 and 35. The member described in those posts as having been put up for discipline was an associate pastor at Takoma Park until he was found to have had an affair.)
“The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it” (Glaser and Way). Since the change in governance Takoma Park has had nothing but unwritten laws and so far the Group’s efforts at erasing them have been futile. The financial mischief and DeSilva’s departure constitute a crossroads where Takoma Park may either repudiate government by dictator or further entrench it. Unfortunately this is not as clear a decision as it ought to be as many members seem unable to separate the people from the issues they caused and therefore hesitate on the issues for fear of hurting those people.
We will consider first the money issues. Our longtime readers will recall that over the course of the Epic we detailed a number of incidents where then-pastor DeSilva created new committees, changed to whom committees reported, or asked for decisions from committees that had no authority in the matter he brought before them. These changes would occur without notice, explanation, or consistency. The net result of all this is that there is no longer any clear procedure for conducting business, whether routine or non-routine. In this environment where nobody knows how anything is done anymore it is all too easy for the unscrupulous to get away with financial mischief. The problem is exacerbated by the Accountability Council, which gives the illusion of accountability without the reality thereof.
There is, in fact, more financial mischief than we have told about, but for the moment we feel there are compelling reasons to leave the details of the other financial issues out of the story. We mention them here only to make clear that between them and the issues we have detailed there emerges a pattern made possible only through the organizational chaos created by DeSilva. Put another way, DeSilva’s habit of making arbitrary alterations to the congregation’s governance broke down the checks and balances that had existed to protect against financial mischief. With the protections gone it was only a matter of time before irregularities would begin, as indeed they did. The current financial situation is, then, a natural and predictable outcome of altering the governance in this way.
DeSilva’s affair pertains to church governance for two reasons. First, after DeSilva got done messing with the congregation’s governance the only certain thing about it was that whatever he said went. His departure, then, leaves a significant power void and how it will be filled—with rules and procedures everyone can know and consistently follow or with another person with absolute control to call the shots—will have a lasting impact on the governance of the congregation. Second, since the Church (and here we mean the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, not the local congregation) has specific standards of conduct, the violation of which demands disciplinary action by the congregation, the matter of DeSilva’s affair will serve as a litmus test of the congregation’s willingness to obey the denomination’s rules.
As harsh as it may sound to be calling for disciplinary action, it is no more than DeSilva would do were he still in power and some other pastor was the guilty party. This we know for a fact because that very scenario played out in August and September of 2008. (See The Epic, parts 31 and 35. The member described in those posts as having been put up for discipline was an associate pastor at Takoma Park until he was found to have had an affair.)
“The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it” (Glaser and Way). Since the change in governance Takoma Park has had nothing but unwritten laws and so far the Group’s efforts at erasing them have been futile. The financial mischief and DeSilva’s departure constitute a crossroads where Takoma Park may either repudiate government by dictator or further entrench it. Unfortunately this is not as clear a decision as it ought to be as many members seem unable to separate the people from the issues they caused and therefore hesitate on the issues for fear of hurting those people.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
The Modern Epic, Pt. 2
As one might expect, the situation with DeSilva’s departure and the undisclosed audit report has left the members of Takoma Park in a state of upheaval. Some have reached out to DeSilva incredulously inquiring about the truth of his departure. Others don’t doubt that there was an affair, but aren’t concerned by it either; to them it is simply an example that “men will be men.” Still others are aghast at DeSilva’s behavior and believe he should be subjected to church discipline.
Then there are those who are less concerned by the affair than the missing money—which rumor has it could be as much as $300,000. (This figure includes both the thefts and other funds which are presently unaccounted for—such as the steeple repair windfall. Whether that is actually the amount remains to be seen. We mention it here only as the figure featured in the rumors rather than as established fact.) Since the theft has been declared to have been an inside job, there should be a rather small suspect pool and they are disturbed by the seeming lack of resolution.
Whether they are in one of these groups or simply among those in shock, everyone in the congregation is looking for answers. Both the pastoral staff and the conference officers have been woefully remiss in meaningfully addressing these problems.
The pastoral staff has undergone some changes since the end of The Epic, but not for the better. Pastor Gerry Fuentes was transferred to another church within the Potomac Conference and a pastor from that church, Jeff Taylor, was transferred to Takoma Park. So far as being a presence in the life, function, and direction of Takoma Park, Pastor Taylor may as well not exist. He preaches the occasional sermon, but is never in the office, takes no active part in leadership meetings, and has made no discernible effort toward healing the wounds within the congregation.
Pastor Warfield came to Takoma Park late in 2009 to be the youth pastor. At that time he was a capable but impressionable young man. DeSilva took full advantage of his malleability and mentored him into a likeness of his own autocratic leadership style. He then bestowed on Pastor Warfield the title of “executive pastor” and gave him administrative duties in place of his duties with the youth. With DeSilva’s departure Pastor Warfield is the highest-ranking pastor at Takoma Park, despite not being ordained. Far from helping the church resolve its problems, Pastor Warfield has continued to be in contact with DeSilva and is carrying on his plans and philosophies.
The position of youth pastor is now occupied by one Osei Daniels, a longtime member and lay youth leader at Takoma Park. He has no pastoral training beyond a single weekend seminar. He is enthusiastic about the work, but his lack of training is painfully obvious.
The conference has appointed an interim senior pastor, Gary Patterson. Pastor Patterson was originally due to begin work at Takoma Park at the end of April, but he was delayed and only began the task in the second week of June. It is as yet too early to tell what his influence will be.
On June 9, 2013 an “open board meeting” was held in order for conference personnel to discuss the audit with the congregation in greater detail. Potomac Conference President Bill Miller attended—but once again the treasurer was somehow unavailable. So, once again meaningful financial questions were evaded on the pretext that the conference representative wasn’t sufficiently versed in financial topics. Elder Miller did make some general statements about there having been poor accounting processes, which caused the chairman of the finance committee to sputter in his own defense, “That’s how my company does it!”
Overall, the meeting was most remarkable for what Elder Miller refused to say. Many members expressed a great deal of frustration at the lack of straightforwardness, but the pleas for openness and transparency fell on deaf ears. The meeting lasted three hours, and in all that time the most Elder Miller would say about the audit situation was that in order to make an insurance claim the local law enforcement entities would need to be notified of the theft, and that they would then conduct their own investigation into the matter. The greatest hope for substantive information, such as it was, was a certain implication that once that investigation had occurred there might be additional information made available.
The meeting had also been intended to have an “executive session”—a session in which only board members could be present—but this executive session was preempted by its intended subject being brought up toward the end of the main meeting. This matter was to have been the membership transfer request of the former church secretary. This was controversial because membership transfers aren’t allowed if the member is under church discipline, and in her case there is the outstanding matter of whether she should be disciplined for her affair with DeSilva. Of course, if she is to be disciplined for the affair it would be only right for him to face equal discipline. This matter was left unresolved, pending “further information.”
The meeting ended with no progress on either of the major controversies facing the congregation. And remarkably, the conference officials seem to think that this pattern of showing up and stonewalling is somehow helpful.
They dress the wound of my people
as though it were not serious.
“Peace, peace,” they say,
when there is no peace.
Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct?
No, they have no shame at all;
they do not even know how to blush.
(Jeremiah 8:11, 12, NIV)
Then there are those who are less concerned by the affair than the missing money—which rumor has it could be as much as $300,000. (This figure includes both the thefts and other funds which are presently unaccounted for—such as the steeple repair windfall. Whether that is actually the amount remains to be seen. We mention it here only as the figure featured in the rumors rather than as established fact.) Since the theft has been declared to have been an inside job, there should be a rather small suspect pool and they are disturbed by the seeming lack of resolution.
Whether they are in one of these groups or simply among those in shock, everyone in the congregation is looking for answers. Both the pastoral staff and the conference officers have been woefully remiss in meaningfully addressing these problems.
The pastoral staff has undergone some changes since the end of The Epic, but not for the better. Pastor Gerry Fuentes was transferred to another church within the Potomac Conference and a pastor from that church, Jeff Taylor, was transferred to Takoma Park. So far as being a presence in the life, function, and direction of Takoma Park, Pastor Taylor may as well not exist. He preaches the occasional sermon, but is never in the office, takes no active part in leadership meetings, and has made no discernible effort toward healing the wounds within the congregation.
Pastor Warfield came to Takoma Park late in 2009 to be the youth pastor. At that time he was a capable but impressionable young man. DeSilva took full advantage of his malleability and mentored him into a likeness of his own autocratic leadership style. He then bestowed on Pastor Warfield the title of “executive pastor” and gave him administrative duties in place of his duties with the youth. With DeSilva’s departure Pastor Warfield is the highest-ranking pastor at Takoma Park, despite not being ordained. Far from helping the church resolve its problems, Pastor Warfield has continued to be in contact with DeSilva and is carrying on his plans and philosophies.
The position of youth pastor is now occupied by one Osei Daniels, a longtime member and lay youth leader at Takoma Park. He has no pastoral training beyond a single weekend seminar. He is enthusiastic about the work, but his lack of training is painfully obvious.
The conference has appointed an interim senior pastor, Gary Patterson. Pastor Patterson was originally due to begin work at Takoma Park at the end of April, but he was delayed and only began the task in the second week of June. It is as yet too early to tell what his influence will be.
On June 9, 2013 an “open board meeting” was held in order for conference personnel to discuss the audit with the congregation in greater detail. Potomac Conference President Bill Miller attended—but once again the treasurer was somehow unavailable. So, once again meaningful financial questions were evaded on the pretext that the conference representative wasn’t sufficiently versed in financial topics. Elder Miller did make some general statements about there having been poor accounting processes, which caused the chairman of the finance committee to sputter in his own defense, “That’s how my company does it!”
Overall, the meeting was most remarkable for what Elder Miller refused to say. Many members expressed a great deal of frustration at the lack of straightforwardness, but the pleas for openness and transparency fell on deaf ears. The meeting lasted three hours, and in all that time the most Elder Miller would say about the audit situation was that in order to make an insurance claim the local law enforcement entities would need to be notified of the theft, and that they would then conduct their own investigation into the matter. The greatest hope for substantive information, such as it was, was a certain implication that once that investigation had occurred there might be additional information made available.
The meeting had also been intended to have an “executive session”—a session in which only board members could be present—but this executive session was preempted by its intended subject being brought up toward the end of the main meeting. This matter was to have been the membership transfer request of the former church secretary. This was controversial because membership transfers aren’t allowed if the member is under church discipline, and in her case there is the outstanding matter of whether she should be disciplined for her affair with DeSilva. Of course, if she is to be disciplined for the affair it would be only right for him to face equal discipline. This matter was left unresolved, pending “further information.”
The meeting ended with no progress on either of the major controversies facing the congregation. And remarkably, the conference officials seem to think that this pattern of showing up and stonewalling is somehow helpful.
They dress the wound of my people
as though it were not serious.
“Peace, peace,” they say,
when there is no peace.
Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct?
No, they have no shame at all;
they do not even know how to blush.
(Jeremiah 8:11, 12, NIV)
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
The Modern Epic, Pt. 1
Over the last few months noteworthy events have once again
been happening at the Takoma Park Church.
Most noteworthy of all, Alan DeSilva is no longer its senior
pastor. There is much more to this story
than we are ready to tell at present, as certain aspects of the matter are
still developing, but it is time we stated a few things that we know for
certain.
The congregation’s first hint of Alan DeSilva’s departure came as an announcement in the bulletin in mid-February that he had been granted a three month sabbatical. The next week, at a Town Hall meeting held in a nearby church, conference personnel indicated to the Takoma Park members in attendance that he would not be coming back. This message was formally repeated to a meeting of the board of elders on February 26, 2013.
John Cress then read a prepared statement which said only that the GCAS audit had been completed, that the findings had been presented to the insurance company, and that they were deciding whether to reimburse Takoma Park for the loss. When pressed for more detail, such as whether there would be any prosecutions for the theft, Cress said that they “can” prosecute, but declined to answer whether they would do so. His responses to other questions were similarly vague. Many at the meeting had been expecting to be given specific results of the audit and were disappointed that the conference was not more forthcoming.
The congregation’s first hint of Alan DeSilva’s departure came as an announcement in the bulletin in mid-February that he had been granted a three month sabbatical. The next week, at a Town Hall meeting held in a nearby church, conference personnel indicated to the Takoma Park members in attendance that he would not be coming back. This message was formally repeated to a meeting of the board of elders on February 26, 2013.
It seems that shortly after being granted the sabbatical
Alan DeSilva confessed to conference officials that he had been having an
affair with Takoma Park’s church secretary for the previous eight years, and
voluntarily surrendered his ministerial credentials. When questioned, the church secretary
confirmed that there had been an affair between her and Alan DeSilva.
Another matter of interest is the state of the church’s
finances. In addition to issues such as
the whereabouts of the unused insurance money from the steeple repair (see The Epic, Pt. 85 for a full description
of this and other financial issues), there has for some time been a suggestion
of regular thefts from the weekly loose offering collections. About the same time as Alan DeSilva’s
departure an auditor from the General Conference Auditing Service (GCAS) was
called in to investigate the church’s total financial condition.
Takoma Park’s regular April business meeting was delayed
until May 5, 2013 at the request of the conference so they could come and
present the results of this investigation to the church. There were maybe 50 church members in
attendance. The Potomac Conference was
represented by John Cress, Ministerial Association Director for the conference.
The presentation of the financial investigation began with
the finance committee chairman explaining that for some time there had been
discrepancies between the amount of cash counted by the deacons on Sabbath
morning and the amount of cash recounted on Monday morning. He explained the precautions they had taken
to prevent the thefts, including locking the money in a safe in the church
center and taping the box sealed so that tampering would be evident. But it seems that come Monday morning they
would find the tape seal cut and money again missing. From this they concluded that the theft had
to be an inside job.
John Cress then read a prepared statement which said only that the GCAS audit had been completed, that the findings had been presented to the insurance company, and that they were deciding whether to reimburse Takoma Park for the loss. When pressed for more detail, such as whether there would be any prosecutions for the theft, Cress said that they “can” prosecute, but declined to answer whether they would do so. His responses to other questions were similarly vague. Many at the meeting had been expecting to be given specific results of the audit and were disappointed that the conference was not more forthcoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)