The Epic, Pt. 82

As the year 2009 ended, so did the six month trial contract for the new Minister of Music. The next proper step would be for the music council to make a recommendation to the accountability council about whether to make the contract permanent. The accountability council would then make its own recommendation to the business meeting, where the decision would be finalized.

Some of us wondered how the music council could come to a fair and unbiased recommendation about the Minister of Music since he was now its chair. This was a particularly significant point because there was actually reason to question whether the performance of the Minister of Music was adequate to merit continuation in the position. One significant deficiency in his performance was in regard to the choir. The church had been promised when he was hired that he would be growing and training the choir above and beyond what it had ever been before and that they would be part of the worship service every week. What had actually happened was that there was virtually no effort to recruit and work with the musical talent within the congregation. The choir had sung only once a month, and when it did the Minister of Music had brought in hired singers to supplement deficiencies in the ranks rather than developing the talents of church members to fill in the gaps.

As it turned out, the question of how the music council could make a fair recommendation was resolved by their simply not making one at all. When the year ended the music council, accountability council, and the pastoral staff simply continued on as if the Minister of Music’s contract was already permanent. Aside from this being a procedural oversight, it ran contrary to the promises made at the time the Minister of Music was hired regarding review of his performance. As we described in the Epic, Pt. 57, Pastor DeSilva had been in such a rush to hire the Minister of Music that he had resisted all attempts to give the church a chance to evaluate his qualifications first. At the time he had attempted to assuage concerns about this by promising thorough evaluation of his performance at the end of the trial period. But, now that the trial period was over he was making no move to make good on those promises.

The Minister of Music was finally summoned to meet with the accountability council a few months into 2010, but he came out of it again without either a receiving a contract or being let go. Despite pressure to address it, the chair of the accountability council has yet to allow this matter to be revisited. In the meantime the Minister of Music continues to draw a substantial salary without any contract for the work and with no improvement in his performance.

Next: Delegated

Religious

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 27

"Every phase of fanaticism and erroneous theories, claiming to be the truth, will be brought in among the remnant people of God. These will fill minds with erroneous sentiments which have no part in the truth for this time. Any man who supposes that in the strength of his own devised resolutions, in his intellectual might united with science or supposed knowledge, he can start a work which will conquer the world, will find himself lying among the ruins of his own speculations, and will plainly understand why he is there. . . .

"From the light given me of the Lord, men will arise speaking perverse things. Yea, already they have been working and speaking things which God has never revealed, bringing sacred truth upon a level with common things. Issues have been and will continue to be made of men's conceited fallacies, not of truth. The devisings of men's minds will invent tests that are no tests at all, that when the true test shall be made prominent, it shall be considered on a par with the man-made tests that have been of no value. We may expect that everything will be brought in and mingled with sound doctrine, but by clear, spiritual discernment, by the heavenly anointing, we must distinguish the sacred from the common which is being brought in to confuse faith and sound judgment, and demerit the great, grand, testing truth for this time. . . .

"Never, never was there a time when the truth suffered more from being misrepresented, belittled, demerited through the perverse disputings of men than in these last days. Men have brought themselves in with their heterogeneous mass of heresies which they represent as oracles for the people. The people are charmed with some strange new thing, and are not wise in experience to discern the character of ideas that men may frame up as something. But to call it something of great consequence and tie it to the oracles of God, does not make it truth. Oh, how this rebukes the low standard of piety in the churches.

"Men who want to present something original will conjure up things new and strange, and without consideration will step forward on these unstable theories, that have been woven together as a precious theory, and present it as a life and death question.--Letter 136a, 1898" (Selected Messages, Vol.2, pp.14, 15).

"In this fearful time, just before Christ is to come the second time, God's faithful preachers will have to bear a still more pointed testimony than was borne by John the Baptist. A responsible, important work is before them; and those who speak smooth things, God will not acknowledge as His shepherds. A fearful woe is upon them" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol.1, p.321).

Countdown to Experiment Conclusion

Yesterday we put up a countdown. It is counting down to November 17, 2010 - the three year anniversary of the improper vote which ushered in the altered governance structure at Takoma Park.

As we described way back in the Epic, Pt. 4 (posted 10-17-08), when Dr. Ray Pichette in his official capacity as a representative of the Potomac Conference was trying to convince the Takoma Park Church to adopt the altered governance structure he promised that if the church didn't like the results after three years it could undo the changes.

With the final days, hours, and minutes of that three year experiment nearly gone, we call on the Potomac Conference leadership to do the right thing. Go back to Takoma Park. Meet with the entire congregation in a business meeting. Invite the congregation to consider whether it is better off now than it was three years ago, and then allow it to act accordingly.

Church Discipline, Postscript

Our original intent when we began discussing church discipline was to contain the subject in two parts, but it occurred to us as we were finishing off Pt. 2 that there was one more aspect of the subject which belonged to Pt. 1 that had been overlooked. So, here we are to take care of it. The missing piece is the “other side” of the abstract discussion. What, if any, disciplinary ramifications might there be for a congregation that refused to operate in harmony with the Church Manual?

“Church status is not necessarily perpetual. A church may be dissolved or expelled from the sisterhood of churches for the following reasons:
1. Loss of members…
2. Discipline—Occasions for expelling churches for disciplinary reasons are rare because the mission of the church is to seek and to save. Where serious problems such as apostasy, refusal to operate in harmony with the Church Manual, or rebellion against the conference persist, earnest efforts should be made to avert the need for expulsion. …However, if all efforts to preserve the church fail, the conference committee should give careful study to the question of expulsion. If such action is decided upon, the conference shall follow the following procedure…” (Church Manual, pp. 41, 42).

Quite simply, congregations are not completely free to act however they like. There are certain actions which, if taken by a congregation, constitute a breach of what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist congregation—a breach so serious that if it cannot be remedied warrants the expulsion of that congregation from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This list of unacceptable behaviors includes refusal to operate in harmony with the Church Manual.

Now, whether the contemplation of discipline is corporate or individual, abstract or concrete, the preferable outcome is always that of resolving the issue over which discipline would be contemplated. However, the unwillingness of the involved parties to work toward such a goal sometimes makes such an outcome impossible. This discussion of discipline (in all its parts) assumes that such efforts have already proven unavailing. In such circumstances, where a congregation persists in ignoring the operations and principles stipulated by the Church Manual, it would be within the authority and duty of the conference to pursue disciplinary action against that congregation.

“The Church recognizes the need of exercising great care to protect the highest spiritual interests of its members, to ensure fair treatment, and to safeguard the name of the Church. It cannot afford to deal lightly with such sins or permit personal considerations to affect its actions, and at the same time it must strive to reclaim and restore those who err” (Church Manual, p.61).

Church Discipline, Pt. 2

Having considered the issue of church discipline in abstract we will now turn to our specific situation in Takoma Park. In doing so we need to address the subject from two angles—since it takes two sides for a difference to exist the actions of each must be considered.

We will look first at ourselves. Obviously, we believe that the actions taken by the Group throughout this situation were appropriate and justified, or we, as members of the Group, would not have taken them in the first place. There are certainly things that, in hindsight, we wish we had done differently, but usually more from a standpoint of effectiveness than appropriateness. We are under no delusion that this is a universally accepted opinion—the nastier comments associated with this blog are alone ample proof of that—but it continues to be our opinion nonetheless. Appropriateness, however, is not the question we are considering. We are considering whether any action taken would be worthy of church discipline.

Let us apply the principles already discussed. We reject out of hand the premise that the very existence of the Group or the fact that it raised issues unpopular with the pastors and conference leadership would constitute just cause for discipline. As we have already seen in Pt. 1 of this discussion, asking questions and having disagreements over church issues are not considered to be cause for discipline within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As was also seen in Pt. 1, a charge that the Group was a “divisive movement” would be the most probable cause for discipline selected from the list of acceptable causes. As we further saw in Pt. 1, there are two principles for determining the line between reasonable and divisive action.

First, did the Group confine its activities to the “smallest possible sphere” in its efforts to address the situation? Yes. The Group’s efforts began with individual members speaking with Pastor DeSilva privately, one on one. When this yielded no results two members went to together to speak with him. Once again, there were no results. Next, the Group tried three times to address the matter within the still relatively small circle of an elders’ meeting. It was only after these efforts were rebuffed that the Group sought a larger sphere by sending a letter to the entire congregation, in accordance with the directive of Matthew 18 that “if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church.”

This letter has been the source of most of the accusations that the Group was in violation of Matthew 18 and/or had failed to keep the matter within the smallest possible sphere. Those who make such accusations conveniently forget the efforts the Group had made in getting to this point and that the process of Matthew 18 progresses in ever-widening spheres rather than stalling at the first or second step of conversations by ones and twos. The other reason why this public letter was necessary was that nothing less would have gotten the attention of the conference. The Group had sought the aid of the conference early on and been brushed aside. It was only after this letter that the conference took the situation seriously enough to administer a formal process for addressing the matter. Even then, in one of the greatest ironies of this whole situation, the Group’s actions in the “smallest possible sphere” had been so far under the radar that Pastor DeSilva was able to convince the conference that they had not occurred at all simply by denying them. This led to the conference accusing the Group of failing to follow proper procedure because it had actually followed it so well that it had no outside witnesses to back up its claims.

We should also acknowledge at this point that there are some who would point to the existence of this blog as evidence that the Group violated the principle of keeping things within the smallest possible sphere. In answering this we refer back to the context in which this blog was started. At the time we began to blog the conference was still dragging its heels in establishing a process and the Group was far from certain that a means of addressing our concerns would ever be provided. In such a situation the Church Manual counsels, “Should the Church fail to respond to a request for help in reconciling a difference, or if the Church acknowledges that the nature of the case is such that it is not within its authority, it should be recognized that the member has exhausted the possibilities of the biblically outlined procedure for the settlement of differences and that what he/she should do beyond that point is a matter for his/her conscience” (p.60). What our consciences told us to do was to act in accordance with 1 Timothy 5:20, “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.”

Second, once the formal process had begun, did the Group wait for and accept the recommendations provided by the Church for resolution of the situation? Again, yes. Though it didn’t have much faith in its usefulness given the lack of receptiveness demonstrated by the pastors, the Group set out to follow the process specified by the conference as soon as it was laid out. Each requirement was met and every designated step was followed. Once the conference executive committee made its recommendations the Group sought most earnestly to see them implemented at Takoma Park. This effort was largely unsuccessful, but that was because it was blocked by the pastors, not the Group.

What about the other side of this “difference?” Would any actions taken by Takoma Park’s pastors justify disciplinary action? This is a functionally irrelevant question because it would be next to impossible to actually bring disciplinary action against a pastor while they continued to function as pastor (and thereby as chairman of the bodies that would consider such an action), but it’s a worthy intellectual exercise anyway.

On a personal level, given all the public lies that we have documented from Pastor DeSilva, we believe there could be a case against him for discipline cause #2, “Violation of the law of God, such as…willful and habitual falsehood.” The example he has set on this point would be disturbing from any member of the church, but from a pastor it is simply unacceptable. The willfulness would be difficult to prove—as Pastor DeSilva would likely argue that all he was guilty of was lapses of accurate memory—but they are too numerous for him to deny that they are habitual. (There would also be the issue of witness memory, given the time that has elapsed since some of these incidents, but it is of little consequence since we have no realistic expectation of this charge ever being addressed.)

On a corporate level, we should return to the question of divisiveness. Did Takoma Park’s pastors confine their activities to the “smallest possible sphere?” Not really. On one hand, one might make the argument that they confined the sphere by refusing to permit the issues to be discussed in business meetings or other formal venues of church discussion, but those were the venues in which the discussion truly belonged. Had the issues been discussed there the need for a formal process administered by the conference might have been avoided. On the other hand, rarely did a week pass during the heat of the dispute where only marginally veiled allusions to it could be heard in their sermons and prayers, not to mention the personal attack rumors they circulated. However, a case based on rumors and allusions would be nearly impossible to prove, no matter how legitimate it might be, so we discard this evidence of divisive behavior.

Did the pastors wait for and accept the recommendations provided by the Church for resolution of the situation? No. The recommendations were approved by a vote of the church, but when it came time to implement them their full force and intent was wholly ignored by the pastors. (See the Epic, Pt. 79 and Letter and Spirit.) This constitutes the most serious charge against the pastors. As we cited in Pt. 1 of this discussion:

“When the Church, endeavoring to assist in timely and amicable settlement of differences among its members, recommends a solution, members should not summarily reject the recommendation. …Members who demonstrate impatience and selfishness by their unwillingness to wait for and accept recommendations of the Church in the settlement of grievances against other church members may properly be subject to the discipline of the church because of the disruptive effect on the Church and their refusal to recognize properly constituted Church authority” (pp. 60, 61, emphasis supplied).

So in the matter of potential church discipline in the case of Takoma Park we would point our pastors to Luke 6:42, “How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.”

Church Discipline, Pt. 1

One subject that has been nibbling at the edges of this situation since its beginning is that of church discipline. We didn’t always mention them, but numerous times throughout the events described in the Epic there were veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) threats that disciplinary action would be taken against members of the Group if we didn’t “settle down and stop making trouble.” Whether or not there would be legitimate grounds for church discipline in a situation such as this is the subject of this two part exploration. We will first consider the question in abstract—whether discipline could or should be applied in any scenario in which a group of members finds themselves at odds with the pastor on a question of proper adherence to the Church Manual—and then consider the specific circumstances of our situation at Takoma Park.

So what are the delineated causes for which a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church may be brought up for church discipline? Here’s the full list:

"The reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline are:
1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.
2. Violation of the law of God, such as worship of idols, murder, stealing, profanity, gambling, Sabbathbreaking, and willful and habitual falsehood.
3. Violation of the seventh commandment of the law of God as it relates to the marriage institution, the Christian home, and biblical standards of moral conduct.
4. Sexual abuse of children, youth, and vulnerable adults, fornication, promiscuity, incest, homosexual practice, the production, use or distribution of pornography, and other sexual perversions.
5. Remarriage of a divorced person, except the spouse who has remained faithful to the marriage vow in a divorce for adultery
or for sexual perversions.
6. Physical violence, including violence within the family.
7. Fraud of willful misrepresentation in business.
8. Disorderly conduct which brings reproach upon the church.
9. Adhering to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or organization.
10. Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.
11. The use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages.
12. The use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human consumption.
13. The use or manufacture of illicit drugs or the misuse of, or trafficking in, narcotics or other drugs”
(pp. 61, 62).

A church leader seeking a cause against an individual or group in this sort of situation would probably cite reason #9, “Adhering to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or organization,” as it is the only cause with any possibility of making sense in this sort of situation. In doing so it would be necessary to establish that the movement in question was, indeed, “divisive or disloyal.” It would be difficult to argue that such a movement was disloyal because the whole point of a movement arguing for proper adherence to the Manual would be to maintain loyalty to the church. As for being divisive, it’s a quality which is open to highly subjective interpretation. A church leader seeking to silence opposition to questionable activities would be likely to label the least objection as “divisiveness” because doing so would give them at least the appearance of the moral high ground, but that’s not the way the Church Manual uses the term.

The Manual makes specific provisions for the resolution of questions and disagreements wholly separate from any consideration of discipline, which makes it clear that the divisiveness spoken of as a cause for discipline is something other than honest intellectual disagreement.

“Church officers and leaders, pastors, and members should consult with their conference for advice pertaining to the operating of their congregation or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If they do not reach mutual understanding, they should consult with their union conference/mission for clarification” (p.20). This statement is taken from the chapter entitled, “Why a Church Manual?” under the subheading, “Where to Get Advice.”

“When differences arise in or between churches and conferences or institutions, appeal to the next higher constituent level is proper until it reaches an Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee or the General Conference Session” (p.31). This statement comes from the chapter entitled, “Organization and Authority” under the subheading, “General Conference the Highest Authority.”

We can see from these two statements that the Church does not expect or demand uniformity of thought or blind obedience from its members. Rather, it anticipates that as part of healthy church interaction and intellectual development there will, from time to time, arise differences. It then provides means for resolving those differences without any implication of wrongdoing or guilt on the part of those partaking in the dispute.

On the other hand, the very fact that divisiveness is mentioned as part of a cause for discipline does indicate that it is possible to exceed the boundaries of reasonable intellectual disputation. So where is this line drawn?

“Reconciliation of Differences—Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere. Reconciliation of differences within the church should, in most cases, be possible without recourse either to a conciliation process provided by the Church or to civil litigation” (p.59).

“The same principles that influence resolution of differences among members apply to the settlement of grievances of members against Church organizations and institutions” (p.61).

“When the Church, endeavoring to assist in timely and amicable settlement of differences among its members, recommends a solution, members should not summarily reject the recommendation. …Members who demonstrate impatience and selfishness by their unwillingness to wait for and accept recommendations of the Church in the settlement of grievances against other church members may properly be subject to the discipline of the church because of the disruptive effect on the Church and their refusal to recognize properly constituted Church authority” (pp. 60, 61).

From these statements we derive two principles by which to differentiate between reasonable and divisive disputation. First, reasonable parties address the situation in “the smallest possible sphere.” This also is a very subjective statement, as parties will very possibly not agree on what the “smallest possible sphere” is, but it is at least a guide. Second, reasonable parties wait for and accept the recommendations provided by the Church (or appeal the decision within the specified system). Divisive behavior worthy of discipline, then, would be that which ignores these two principles. Movements or organizations which adhere to these principles in addressing disputes should not be harassed with threats of discipline, as they have done nothing to warrant them.