A regularly scheduled business meeting took place on September 28, 2008. The first significant item of business was the approval of an air conditioning repair contractor. A document handed out at the beginning of the discussion stated, “As of 9/18/2008—The building committee selected and approved the contractor for the A/C renovation.” The Business Manager provided a cursory description of the contractor the building committee selected, then the floor was opened to discussion.
Proper procedure would have been for the building committee to report about all of the bids received in sufficient detail that the business meeting could have selected any one of them, and then explain which one they were recommending and why. When the lack of information was questioned Pastor DeSilva explained that the decision was already made and this was to be merely a “courtesy vote,” so complete information was not required. In other words, the building committee, at his direction, had just usurped the ultimate authority of the business meeting and this vote had no meaning—it was merely to give the appearance of propriety. As the handout quoted earlier further stated, “Conference approvals and CURF approvals have been received. The business meeting approval is for their records.” The “courtesy vote” went as Pastor DeSilva intended.
After the contractor approval Pastor DeSilva described his plans for a spiritual revival within the church to be held in the final quarter of 2008. This plan had three primary components—prayer groups, the visitation of every active member by a pastor and/or elder within the following three months, and Bible-based sermons. The plan further called for a day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter to determine whether the spiritual renewal of the congregation had been successful. If the answer was “no,” the program was to be continued a while longer until the answer changed to “yes.”
In order to accomplish the visitation program the active membership and roster of elders had been divided into three groups, with each group assigned to one of our three pastors. The announced intention was that the pastors would work through their territories by zip code. As each zip code was believed to be finished it would be announced during the announcements each week that the pastors believed that area to be complete, and if anyone living in that area had been missed that they should alert the pastors to the oversight. To finish this story here, the visitation program fell apart about as soon as it began. Only a handful of members ever received visits, and there were never any announcements of completed zip codes. This failure didn’t stop the pastoral staff from declaring great success during the day of fasting and prayer at the end of the quarter.
Next: Unprocessed
Religious
Friday, October 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This Blog has become nothing more than a place for you to bash the pastoral staff.
There exists no connection between the "principles" you supposedly stand for and the failure to complete the visitation program. Plenty of churches that follow the Church Manual start such programs and fail to complete them. It's as though you are getting in every jab that you can against the Pastor.
It's pretty clear that this isn't about principle -- it's personal, not to mention sad.
Thank you for others who see this for exactly what it is, a personal vendetta against those who are seeking to do God's will.
Did you study your Sabbath School lesson this week? Remember what happened to Miriam and Aaron when they questioned the Lord's chosen servant, Moses? You may never agree with what God's servants do, but it's God position, not ours, to correct them.
I wish this sad blog would just go away...
Miriam's and Aaron's sin was not one of claiming that Moses had violated principles. The Bible makes it very clear that their complaint was a matter of jealousy that they weren't sufficiently honored as leaders and a dislike for Moses' interracial marriage.
If we were "bashing" Pastor DeSilva for his interracial marriage, his haircut, or anything else of a personal nature you would have a legitimate accusation against us. We're not. That's not what this is about.
What we are doing is giving a candid evaluation of our pastors' professional performance. We believe that the way they conduct themselves in their professional capacity as pastors does have a bearing on the violation of principles which this blog is attempting to address.
Since the connection doesn't seem to be readily apparent to all we will address this subject with additional posts in the coming weeks.
It is clear that you will say anything to justify the existence of this Blog.
Your "candid appraial" of your Pastor's professional performance -- in this case his alleged failure to complete the visitation plan has NOTHING to do with whether he has violated the Church Manual. You are simply piling on him.
What's to be next? That he doesn't wash his car regularly? That he confused the order of service in the Bulletin?
Don't you see what you have done? You supposedly started this "Epic" to defend Adventism, which you seem to confuse with the Manual. You have now enlarged the scope of your study to air all your Pastor's dirty laundry for all the world to see. This is defending Adventism?
What you seem to believe that what the Pastor and the entire Conference staff are doing is so serious that it must be stopped at all costs. In other words, the ends justifies the means.
Secular courts recognize that introducing evidence of a defendant's past criminal conduct in order to prove that he committed another offense is unfair. In the same way, your attempt to link the failure of the visitation plan to a betrayal of Adventism is unfair. Let that sink in: A secular court has higher standards than your Blog.
Please just let this go. Look at what it has done to you. Look at what you're saying. This does not glorify God. Please just stop before you do more harm to yourselves and others.
Anonymous, I don't know you, but I like you. For you and I see things alike. In particular that once you start negative, you snowball into more negativity. I have brought up other issues and they are always defended with arguments that are selfish and egotistical.
I can tell you this, I don't think it's always necessary to be right as much as it is to act right... Meaning, if you have to sacrifice Christ-like love and principles to prove your point, was it really worth it?
Post a Comment