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.”