The Epic, Pt. 34

Our previous email to the conference had explained as clearly and nicely as we could think to put it that we wanted to travel in a pack because we were scared that they would lie about the conclusions of the meeting afterwards, and that we were sick of them accusing us of failing in a task we had already completed. We thought that we had painted a picture clear enough that there could be no mistaking our point. It turned out that we had underestimated them.

Elder Ramirez’s way of getting around the obvious was simple—he ignored it. “In light of the apparent confusion, I would like to talk to you by phone to see if we can better understand each other and agree on the terms of this process and procedure meeting” (Aug. 25, 2008, 4:46pm). “Apparent confusion” indeed! He went on to specify hours for this phone call that fell within the standard workday, making it impossible for Sister L to place the call without endangering her job.

The next message from the Group reflected the mounting exasperation caused by the conference’s approach. “[Brother G] called me last night after the TA board meeting to tell me about the meeting and the conversation between the two of you. He praised the way Bill Miller had run the meeting and the way in which he had sought to involve everyone present so as to come to the best possible decisions. [Brother G] and I both find it absolutely incredible that Bill Miller and the rest of the conference administration are so interested and actively involved in seeking the best interests of one conference institution while just down the road another is coming apart at the seams and no one is willing to sit down with us and hear our concerns.

“Seriously, you want to have a phone call about the process of how to have a meeting about the process of how to share our concerns?!?! Jorge, you’re making this infinitely more complicated than it needs to be. There are exactly four components necessary to have a meeting:

“1) a place – we have already agreed that that will be my parents’ home

“2) a time – Sept. 9 is still available and seems to work for everyone

“3) attendees – you and our spokesgroup of three. If you would like to discuss in further detail why we find this necessary we would be happy to do so at the meeting. In the meantime, simply accept that we do find it both necessary and nonnegotiable.

“4) an agenda – In our last message we spelled out both the process that has been observed to date and what remains to be done. We are baffled by your continued insistence that there is yet more process to discuss, especially since you have yet to provide a specific list of what still needs to be resolved. As one of our group recently put it, “I would like to know what the purpose of the process and procedure meeting is, and why is it necessary. Is Robert's Rules not sufficient? Would it not benefit everyone to know what the conference’s processes and procedures are?” (Aug. 26, 2008, 10:31pm).

Elder Ramirez fell back on the same tactic he had used earlier, “I desist from any further correspondence with you, and will turn all focus unto the real issues surrounding the Takoma Park Church” (September 2, 2008, 10:14pm). After this second temper tantrum the Group once again offered to conduct the entire “process discussion” by email and thereby skip the difficulties of a meeting altogether. Elder Ramirez’s response was predictable, “Under the guidelines of Matthew 18, it is clear that any step required to bring reconciliation between two parties should be done in person, face to face. There are great benefits in doing this. Besides forcing a face to face dialogue which is always good, it also allows for some kind of trust that must be present in order to bring reconciliation. Therefore, in light of this, we must insist on the need to have a one on one meeting to discuss process and outline the steps necessary to bring a solution to this problem. Please understand that this is our firm position and that we will not deviate from it. I pray that you will see the wisdom in agreeing to have this one on one meeting” (September 15, 2008, 8:48pm).

Here the conference’s twisting of Matthew 18 goes to a new extreme. Up to this point they had been insisting that we hadn’t heeded the verse in relation to our dealings with the pastors. While we dispute this “failure” and the relevance of the verse to the situation altogether since this is a matter of policy rather than personal affront, we can at least see some application of the general principles. In this new usage, however, the conference was now implying that the verse applied to our dealings with them. In order for this to be the case there would have to be some wrong between us and the conference that needed to be resolved. The bottom line is that the verse had absolutely no applicability to our dialogue with the conference, and for them to claim that it did was an abuse of scripture.

Next: A Fast One

Religious