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.