Shortly after the unproductive meeting with Elders Miller and Pichette the Group gathered to discuss what had happened and what should be done next. An elder who had followed up the meeting with a phone call to Elder Weigley gave a report on the substance of that conversation. After being told what had happened in the meeting with Elder Miller, Elder Weigley pointed out several issues regarding the vote for the new structure which could be used as a basis for appeal of the matter. (These appeal points, along with others, have already been outlined in The Epic, Pt.4.)
This advice brought the discussion to a crucial question: What exactly was our goal? To simply have the specific vote overturned based on technicalities would leave the door open to a revote. It was a question we would revisit frequently in the coming months as the problem evolved, but we established our foundational answer that night. We must not only reverse the vote in favor of the Borden Report, but also establish somehow that the only acceptable means of governing our congregation was by strict adherence to the method outlined in the Church Manual.
Next: False Hope
Religious
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Epic, Pt 8
After lengthy discussions among those bothered by the vote in favor of the Paul Borden Report (hereinafter “the Group”) it was decided that a fact-finding meeting was needed with the Potomac Conference. One of the elders in the Group called down to the Conference to request a meeting with the Conference president, Elder Miller. Elder Miller agreed to the meeting on the stipulation that there be no more than eight members of the congregation present. Present with Elder Miller would be Elder Pichette. The meeting was held on December 12, 2007.
No specific list of attendees was prepared by the Group in advance, because it was unclear exactly who would be able to make it to the meeting. As it happened, eight people showed up at the appointed time and place and the meeting began. Not long into the meeting, however, a ninth Group member arrived. Rather than gracefully accepting the presence of another concerned constituent Elder Miller placed himself in the doorway to physically block the entrance of the latecomer and announced, “We have one too many people here.” In order to resolve the situation one of the eight people already in the room volunteered to leave.
The following questions were asked of the Potomac Conference officials and provided to them in writing:
1. Who initiated the directive that the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church’s organizational structure be changed—the Potomac Conference or the Senior Pastor?
2. Were guidelines (as outlined in the Church Manual) followed regarding changing the local Church’s organizational structure?
3. Did the Union, North American Division, and General Conference agree to the new structure, although it is not in accordance with the Church Manual?
4. If a staff-led structure is good for Takoma Park Church, then why not begin with a staff-led conference structure, with a president who appoints the executive committee?
Also asked was whether it was really necessary to change the structure of the church in order to do outreach.
The Group further brought up a number of objections to the new system, as well as the fact that the circumstances of the vote to approve the Paul Borden Report were unfair and inappropriate.
The objections, also provided in writing, were as follows:
1. A staff-led structure is hierarchical, which divorces itself from the Church Manual and is contrary to the ethics, ecclesiology, and polity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
2. A staff-led structure does not enhance equality, shared authority, responsibility, and accountability, but rather excludes 99.9% of the membership.
3. A staff-led structure can encourage and/or lead to abuse of power.
4. A staff-led structure can lead to authoritarianism, with a few hand-picked people making decisions and dictating to the membership. Spirit of Prophesy quotation: “Even if a ruler were naturally merciful and benevolent, unlimited power over his fellow men would tend to make him a despot. Such power God alone is able to use with justice and wisdom.” Signs of the Times, July 13, 1882.
Elders Miller and Pichette initially made no reply to any of the questions or objections and were preparing to leave to go to another engagement when they were pressed to at least answer who had suggested Paul Borden. Elder Miller finally stated that Pastor DeSilva had come to him to ask for an assessment of Takoma Park and that he [Elder Miller] had recommended Paul Borden.
When one of the Group members observed that the recent events were going to be bad for the church Elder Miller responded, “Well, Sister, I’ve seen where churches have had to go down to 20 before they got turned around.” On that rather dismaying note the meeting ended. The Group was absolutely dumbfounded that a conference official would express such reckless disregard for the souls of those who didn’t see eye to eye with him. It was clear to us then that no help could be expected from the Potomac Conference.
Next: Dare to Have a Purpose Firm
Religious
No specific list of attendees was prepared by the Group in advance, because it was unclear exactly who would be able to make it to the meeting. As it happened, eight people showed up at the appointed time and place and the meeting began. Not long into the meeting, however, a ninth Group member arrived. Rather than gracefully accepting the presence of another concerned constituent Elder Miller placed himself in the doorway to physically block the entrance of the latecomer and announced, “We have one too many people here.” In order to resolve the situation one of the eight people already in the room volunteered to leave.
The following questions were asked of the Potomac Conference officials and provided to them in writing:
1. Who initiated the directive that the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church’s organizational structure be changed—the Potomac Conference or the Senior Pastor?
2. Were guidelines (as outlined in the Church Manual) followed regarding changing the local Church’s organizational structure?
3. Did the Union, North American Division, and General Conference agree to the new structure, although it is not in accordance with the Church Manual?
4. If a staff-led structure is good for Takoma Park Church, then why not begin with a staff-led conference structure, with a president who appoints the executive committee?
Also asked was whether it was really necessary to change the structure of the church in order to do outreach.
The Group further brought up a number of objections to the new system, as well as the fact that the circumstances of the vote to approve the Paul Borden Report were unfair and inappropriate.
The objections, also provided in writing, were as follows:
1. A staff-led structure is hierarchical, which divorces itself from the Church Manual and is contrary to the ethics, ecclesiology, and polity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
2. A staff-led structure does not enhance equality, shared authority, responsibility, and accountability, but rather excludes 99.9% of the membership.
3. A staff-led structure can encourage and/or lead to abuse of power.
4. A staff-led structure can lead to authoritarianism, with a few hand-picked people making decisions and dictating to the membership. Spirit of Prophesy quotation: “Even if a ruler were naturally merciful and benevolent, unlimited power over his fellow men would tend to make him a despot. Such power God alone is able to use with justice and wisdom.” Signs of the Times, July 13, 1882.
Elders Miller and Pichette initially made no reply to any of the questions or objections and were preparing to leave to go to another engagement when they were pressed to at least answer who had suggested Paul Borden. Elder Miller finally stated that Pastor DeSilva had come to him to ask for an assessment of Takoma Park and that he [Elder Miller] had recommended Paul Borden.
When one of the Group members observed that the recent events were going to be bad for the church Elder Miller responded, “Well, Sister, I’ve seen where churches have had to go down to 20 before they got turned around.” On that rather dismaying note the meeting ended. The Group was absolutely dumbfounded that a conference official would express such reckless disregard for the souls of those who didn’t see eye to eye with him. It was clear to us then that no help could be expected from the Potomac Conference.
Next: Dare to Have a Purpose Firm
Religious
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Epic, Pt 7
With this post Religious and Liberty welcome a new partner, Justice.
The large committee to select the nominating committee was late in getting started. Pastor DeSilva claimed that the committee could not begin its work until the church had voted on the Paul Bordon Report, so the large committee didn’t meet until December. This committee was asked to pick a nominating committee that represented all the groups of the church. There was to be a balance of men and women, older and younger members, and members from the each of the different ethnic groups.
A list of potential members was proposed with repeated input from the pastor. He even went so far as to suggest who he felt would make a good chair person. This group was voted on and the top 20 people were recommended. The person the pastor wanted to chair was on the list and it was recommended that he serve as the chair. Committee members were assigned to call prospective members.
When the committee reconvened it was to find out that a large number of people had turned down the invitation to serve on the nominating committee. People gave a variety of reasons for declining the position. The person the pastor wanted as the chair had agreed to serve. Another group of names was proposed with a number of prospective members being suggested by the pastor. Again members were asked to call and report back to the committee.
When we met the third time, we still did not have enough members. The pastor was with us at the beginning of the meeting and again was controlling the meeting. Shortly after the meeting began, the pastor left because he had another appointment. At that point, the group that was present decided to get the job done. We proceeded to name people who we felt would serve. We pulled out our cell phones and started calling people. We got a number of people to agree to serve by appealing to their love of their church. Also, several members of the large committee volunteered to serve on the nominating committee.
The report was sent to the church body and was approved during the church service as is customary. It was hoped that the nominating committee could hurry through its work and have a report ready before the end of the year, when the current terms of office were due to expire. That was not to be.
Next: No Help
Justice
The large committee to select the nominating committee was late in getting started. Pastor DeSilva claimed that the committee could not begin its work until the church had voted on the Paul Bordon Report, so the large committee didn’t meet until December. This committee was asked to pick a nominating committee that represented all the groups of the church. There was to be a balance of men and women, older and younger members, and members from the each of the different ethnic groups.
A list of potential members was proposed with repeated input from the pastor. He even went so far as to suggest who he felt would make a good chair person. This group was voted on and the top 20 people were recommended. The person the pastor wanted to chair was on the list and it was recommended that he serve as the chair. Committee members were assigned to call prospective members.
When the committee reconvened it was to find out that a large number of people had turned down the invitation to serve on the nominating committee. People gave a variety of reasons for declining the position. The person the pastor wanted as the chair had agreed to serve. Another group of names was proposed with a number of prospective members being suggested by the pastor. Again members were asked to call and report back to the committee.
When we met the third time, we still did not have enough members. The pastor was with us at the beginning of the meeting and again was controlling the meeting. Shortly after the meeting began, the pastor left because he had another appointment. At that point, the group that was present decided to get the job done. We proceeded to name people who we felt would serve. We pulled out our cell phones and started calling people. We got a number of people to agree to serve by appealing to their love of their church. Also, several members of the large committee volunteered to serve on the nominating committee.
The report was sent to the church body and was approved during the church service as is customary. It was hoped that the nominating committee could hurry through its work and have a report ready before the end of the year, when the current terms of office were due to expire. That was not to be.
Next: No Help
Justice
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Truth and Transparancy
A few days ago we received a comment from a reader named David. Out of a healthy concern, David raised important questions. In the interest of transparency and putting the whole discussion forward, I thought it might be good to put the entire exchange forward:
Interesting. Instead of investigating all of the evidence then coming to a conclusion, it appears that people determined that something "just isn't right" then went onto the internet to find evidence to support conclusions that they had already reached. I hope that future posts will show that the concerned church members looked at all sides of the issues. I also hope that future posts will show that the concerned members followed Jesus' command by going to their Pastor before they contacted the Conference.
Yesterday I responded:
But David your post, sadly, suggests that we did not spend time researching, then reading, a great deal of information. We poured through Seventh-day Adventist Church history and organization. We familiarized ourselves with the history of the "Church Growth Movement," on which the "Healthy Church Imitative" is based, going back to its founder Donald McGavran. We studied others that have "built" upon his ideas ranging from Robert Schuler to T.D. Jakes. We read work regarding organizational behavior theory and transformational leadership theory. And yes, David, we also read the Holy Bible. We spoke and met with Adventist pastors, faculty at Adventist colleges, personnel at the North American Division and the General Conference, as well as non-Adventist sources. Would that you could have been here to see what pains we took!
I can only give you my word, we did investigate a great deal before challenging this wrong.I promise you we did look at all sides of the "issue." It was then weighed in the balance, and the requirements as cited by Pastor Alan DeSilva and the Potomac Conference for changing the organizational structure of our Church, were found wanting.
The Bible pleads for us to come together and reason. On several occasions several members of the Takoma Park Church went directly to our senior pastor and tried to explain logically that this system he proposed was not in keeping with SDA Church doctrine. I know this to be true because I, for one, tried to get him to see that this was wrong both theoretically and Biblically. After having met with him on 2 or 3 occasions individually, I took a church member who had been trained by the North American Division regarding approved, tested, and successful SDA methods of Church growth. Pastor Desilva's response, in keeping with his character, was "Don't fight me on this." We were not fighting then. We are not fighting now. We are trying to do is simply put the truth forward.
Follow commands of Jesus? Yes by all means. We are Christians, a term derived in the First Century from phrase "Partisans of Christ." We seek to follow Him. As followers of Jesus, we must love what He loves. Jesus loves the Church. The Church is His "bride." If Jesus believes the Church is important, should not we as well? If yes, then we have a moral responsibility to stand against what is occurring at the Takoma Park Church specifically, and the Potomac Conference in general.
Having slept on what I wrote, I am really concerned that there may have been one important point that I did not answer. David, if you are reading this post, it is important to me that you understand that this is not some personal grievance between our pastor and the those of opposing a change in SDA Structure. For us at least, this is about staying the course that God, through the founders of the SDA Church, set.
Let me put it another way.
The vast majority of Advenitsts opposing this change in structure are third, forth, fifth generation Adventists. I'm different. I made a personal choice to become a Seventh-day Adventist after stumbling across a copy of the Great Controversy. Prior to baptism I went through more than a year of serious Bible studies with both a pastor and the head of the Sabbath School of a local church in the Washington, DC area. The pastor that studied with me, as well as the Sabbath School leader, in separate studies, impressed on me that the head of the SDA Church was Jesus. They impressed on me that the organization and structure of our church came as a result of a great deal of fasting and prayer, and that "we change it at our own peril."
Obviously, the SDA church is not the same as it was in the 19th Century. But whatever changes have occurred have come as a direct result of the General Conference meeting in open session. If our pastor truly believes that our Church must change, then let these changes come from the General Conference. If not, and we have devolved to a situation in which local clergy can make whatever changes they see fit, backed by the Conference, we are in greater trouble than we all realize.
Interesting. Instead of investigating all of the evidence then coming to a conclusion, it appears that people determined that something "just isn't right" then went onto the internet to find evidence to support conclusions that they had already reached. I hope that future posts will show that the concerned church members looked at all sides of the issues. I also hope that future posts will show that the concerned members followed Jesus' command by going to their Pastor before they contacted the Conference.
Yesterday I responded:
But David your post, sadly, suggests that we did not spend time researching, then reading, a great deal of information. We poured through Seventh-day Adventist Church history and organization. We familiarized ourselves with the history of the "Church Growth Movement," on which the "Healthy Church Imitative" is based, going back to its founder Donald McGavran. We studied others that have "built" upon his ideas ranging from Robert Schuler to T.D. Jakes. We read work regarding organizational behavior theory and transformational leadership theory. And yes, David, we also read the Holy Bible. We spoke and met with Adventist pastors, faculty at Adventist colleges, personnel at the North American Division and the General Conference, as well as non-Adventist sources. Would that you could have been here to see what pains we took!
I can only give you my word, we did investigate a great deal before challenging this wrong.I promise you we did look at all sides of the "issue." It was then weighed in the balance, and the requirements as cited by Pastor Alan DeSilva and the Potomac Conference for changing the organizational structure of our Church, were found wanting.
The Bible pleads for us to come together and reason. On several occasions several members of the Takoma Park Church went directly to our senior pastor and tried to explain logically that this system he proposed was not in keeping with SDA Church doctrine. I know this to be true because I, for one, tried to get him to see that this was wrong both theoretically and Biblically. After having met with him on 2 or 3 occasions individually, I took a church member who had been trained by the North American Division regarding approved, tested, and successful SDA methods of Church growth. Pastor Desilva's response, in keeping with his character, was "Don't fight me on this." We were not fighting then. We are not fighting now. We are trying to do is simply put the truth forward.
Follow commands of Jesus? Yes by all means. We are Christians, a term derived in the First Century from phrase "Partisans of Christ." We seek to follow Him. As followers of Jesus, we must love what He loves. Jesus loves the Church. The Church is His "bride." If Jesus believes the Church is important, should not we as well? If yes, then we have a moral responsibility to stand against what is occurring at the Takoma Park Church specifically, and the Potomac Conference in general.
Having slept on what I wrote, I am really concerned that there may have been one important point that I did not answer. David, if you are reading this post, it is important to me that you understand that this is not some personal grievance between our pastor and the those of opposing a change in SDA Structure. For us at least, this is about staying the course that God, through the founders of the SDA Church, set.
Let me put it another way.
The vast majority of Advenitsts opposing this change in structure are third, forth, fifth generation Adventists. I'm different. I made a personal choice to become a Seventh-day Adventist after stumbling across a copy of the Great Controversy. Prior to baptism I went through more than a year of serious Bible studies with both a pastor and the head of the Sabbath School of a local church in the Washington, DC area. The pastor that studied with me, as well as the Sabbath School leader, in separate studies, impressed on me that the head of the SDA Church was Jesus. They impressed on me that the organization and structure of our church came as a result of a great deal of fasting and prayer, and that "we change it at our own peril."
Obviously, the SDA church is not the same as it was in the 19th Century. But whatever changes have occurred have come as a direct result of the General Conference meeting in open session. If our pastor truly believes that our Church must change, then let these changes come from the General Conference. If not, and we have devolved to a situation in which local clergy can make whatever changes they see fit, backed by the Conference, we are in greater trouble than we all realize.
Friday, March 20, 2009
If Your Brother Sins Against You
A recent comment received on this blog raises an issue which is worth a detailed consideration. “I also hope that future posts will show that the concerned members followed Jesus' command by going to their Pastor before they contacted the Conference.” This is a topic we had intended to bring up later where it best fit in with the storyline of the Epic, but since it has come up we will accelerate our timetable for addressing it.
We would like to first point out that nowhere in the Bible is there a statement from Jesus commanding us to speak with our pastors before ever communicating with our conferences. That said, we well understand that this is a reference to Matthew 18:15-17. In order to relieve your fears, David, we will say at the outset that we had no fewer than 13 separate private communications with Pastor DeSilva about our concerns both before and after the vote on the Paul Borden Report. We haven’t included these specifically in telling the Epic because A) they were private conversations, B) they did no good, and C) we dispute the premise that Matthew 18 is truly the biblical model most applicable to this situation.
As we understand the text, it is a formula for resolving disputes of a personal and private nature. Our concern is about policy, not any sort of personal offense, and it certainly isn’t private. Our senior pastor has attempted to paint this dispute as a personal campaign against him, rather than the policy disagreement that it truly is, but we have never claimed that this dispute was caused by any of our pastors having done us personal harm in any way. And our goal is not to cause personal harm to any of our pastors. All we want is proper compliance with SDA policy. The proper compliance with policy is a matter which concerns the entire congregation rather than just a single individual. Therefore, we believe that Galatians 2, in which Paul publicly reprimanded Peter for inappropriate behavior which affected the entire congregation, would actually be the more applicable biblical model to follow.
As mentioned earlier, we followed Matthew 18 anyway, just to be on the safe side. However, because this text is about the personal and the private we believe that in a situation like ours, which is impersonal and public, the spirit of the text is more applicable than the letter. We believe that that spirit intends that attempts be made to address concerns in a manner as quiet and non-confrontational as possible so as to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and hurt feelings. However, this spirit also acknowledges that the offending party may be disinclined to hear what you have to say, or take you seriously, and in such a situation it includes provisions for a gradual escalation of the confrontational nature of your efforts in order to impress the seriousness of the matter on the offending party.
This we have done.
Religious
We would like to first point out that nowhere in the Bible is there a statement from Jesus commanding us to speak with our pastors before ever communicating with our conferences. That said, we well understand that this is a reference to Matthew 18:15-17. In order to relieve your fears, David, we will say at the outset that we had no fewer than 13 separate private communications with Pastor DeSilva about our concerns both before and after the vote on the Paul Borden Report. We haven’t included these specifically in telling the Epic because A) they were private conversations, B) they did no good, and C) we dispute the premise that Matthew 18 is truly the biblical model most applicable to this situation.
As we understand the text, it is a formula for resolving disputes of a personal and private nature. Our concern is about policy, not any sort of personal offense, and it certainly isn’t private. Our senior pastor has attempted to paint this dispute as a personal campaign against him, rather than the policy disagreement that it truly is, but we have never claimed that this dispute was caused by any of our pastors having done us personal harm in any way. And our goal is not to cause personal harm to any of our pastors. All we want is proper compliance with SDA policy. The proper compliance with policy is a matter which concerns the entire congregation rather than just a single individual. Therefore, we believe that Galatians 2, in which Paul publicly reprimanded Peter for inappropriate behavior which affected the entire congregation, would actually be the more applicable biblical model to follow.
As mentioned earlier, we followed Matthew 18 anyway, just to be on the safe side. However, because this text is about the personal and the private we believe that in a situation like ours, which is impersonal and public, the spirit of the text is more applicable than the letter. We believe that that spirit intends that attempts be made to address concerns in a manner as quiet and non-confrontational as possible so as to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and hurt feelings. However, this spirit also acknowledges that the offending party may be disinclined to hear what you have to say, or take you seriously, and in such a situation it includes provisions for a gradual escalation of the confrontational nature of your efforts in order to impress the seriousness of the matter on the offending party.
This we have done.
Religious
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Epic, Pt.6
Pastor DeSilva announced the result of the vote on the Paul Borden report after the sermon on Nov. 17, 2007. Many in the congregation reacted to this announcement with shock, frustration, and disbelief. As one person exclaimed, "This just isn't right." We couldn't quite put our finger on why, but there was an undeniable gut feeling that what had just happened was gravely wrong.
This turn of events had several immediate effects. First, being Seventh-day Adventists, we all got on the phone and started talking about the vote. As we did, we realized that there was a significant portion of the church population that was as displeased with the events as we were. Second, several people turned to the internet to investigate just who Paul Borden was and what we had just gotten ourselves into. This research brought us to the conclusion that what Borden had sold us on was anything but original. The basic philosophy behind his recommendations has been around since the fifties, and has been marketed under many different names including the "Purpose-Driven Church" and the "Church Growth Movement." It is also the basic philosophy behind the mega-church movement. This research was emailed around to the people identified by the phone calling as sympathetic to our dissatisfaction.
The result of all of this was a felt need for organization and formal action, so a series of informal meetings were called in the homes of various members to discuss the matter and devise a plan. It was finally decided that a meeting was needed with the Potomac Conference.
Next: Business as Un-usual
Religious
This turn of events had several immediate effects. First, being Seventh-day Adventists, we all got on the phone and started talking about the vote. As we did, we realized that there was a significant portion of the church population that was as displeased with the events as we were. Second, several people turned to the internet to investigate just who Paul Borden was and what we had just gotten ourselves into. This research brought us to the conclusion that what Borden had sold us on was anything but original. The basic philosophy behind his recommendations has been around since the fifties, and has been marketed under many different names including the "Purpose-Driven Church" and the "Church Growth Movement." It is also the basic philosophy behind the mega-church movement. This research was emailed around to the people identified by the phone calling as sympathetic to our dissatisfaction.
The result of all of this was a felt need for organization and formal action, so a series of informal meetings were called in the homes of various members to discuss the matter and devise a plan. It was finally decided that a meeting was needed with the Potomac Conference.
Next: Business as Un-usual
Religious
Friday, February 20, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 7
"Those who profess to be servants of the living God must be willing to be servants of all, instead of being exalted above the brethren, and they must possess a kind, courteous spirit. If they err, they should be ready to confess thoroughly. Honesty of intention cannot stand as an excuse for not confessing errors. Confession would not lessen the confidence of the church in the messenger, and he would set a good example; a spirit of confession would be encouraged in the church, and sweet union would be the result. Those who profess to be teachers should be patterns of piety, meekness, and humility, possessing a kind spirit, to win souls to Jesus and the truth of the Bible. A minister of Christ should be pure in conversation and in actions. He should ever bear in mind that he is handling words of inspiration, words of a holy God. He must also bear in mind that the flock is entrusted to his care, and that he is to bear their cases to Jesus, and plead for them as Jesus pleads for us with the Father. I was pointed back to the children of Israel anciently and saw how pure and holy the ministers of the sanctuary had to be, because they were brought by their work into a close connection with God. They that minister must be holy, pure, and without blemish, or God will destroy them. God has not changed. He is just as holy and pure, just as particular, as He ever was. Those who profess to be the ministers of Jesus should be men of experience and deep piety, and then at all times and in all places they can shed a holy influence" (Early Writings, pp.102 & 103).
"The Lord has His appointed agencies; and if these are not discerned and respected by those who are connected with His work, if men feel free to disregard God's requirements, they must not be kept in positions of trust. They would not listen to counsel, nor to the commands of God through His appointed agencies. Like Saul, they would rush into a work that was never appointed them, and the mistakes they would make in following their human judgment would place the Israel of God where their Leader could not reveal Himself to them" (Conflict and Courage, p. 150).
"The Lord has His appointed agencies; and if these are not discerned and respected by those who are connected with His work, if men feel free to disregard God's requirements, they must not be kept in positions of trust. They would not listen to counsel, nor to the commands of God through His appointed agencies. Like Saul, they would rush into a work that was never appointed them, and the mistakes they would make in following their human judgment would place the Israel of God where their Leader could not reveal Himself to them" (Conflict and Courage, p. 150).
Friday, January 23, 2009
Our Roots, Pt.1
The following link will take you to a paper written by Bert Haloviak, head of the Archives and Statistics department of the General Conference. In this paper he explores the theology, philosophy, people, and events which formed (and sometimes opposed) the governance structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It's long--47 pages in the body, minus the footnotes--but well worth settling down to when you have a free afternoon.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=53
http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=53
Friday, January 2, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 6
"It is not for men in any part of the world, in any line of his work, to depart from God's principles in any business transaction. God wants the world to see that business can be carried on in accordance with the principles that mark the character of God in Christ. What are God's commandments?--They are the wall which is built round his people. There is to be no departure from his principles, no bringing in of worldly principles. No worldly customs or practices are to be brought in for this people who are to be representatives of Christ to follow. When we keep the commandments of God, we are in touch with God, and he is connected with us" (General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901, par. 5).
"Why, I ask you, are men who have not brought self into subjection allowed to stand in important positions of truth and handle sacred things? They have grown to the stature of men, but they have brought with them their childish tendencies. God does not want any such thing. He has made provision for all to have in them the grace of Christ. No others will enter heaven. There has been one rebellion there, and there will not be another. We have been given an opportunity to get rid of every kind of rebellion" (Ibid, par. 12).
"There are those who have stood as managers and yet have not managed after God's order. Some have served on committees here and committees there, and have felt free to dictate just what the committee should say and do, claiming that those who did not carry out these ideas were sinning against Christ. When the power of God is manifest in the church and in the management of the various departments of his work, when it is evident that the managers are themselves controlled by the Holy Spirit of God, then it is time to consider that you are safe in accepting what they may say, under God. But you must know that you are guided by the principles of the Word of the living God. The Great General of armies, the Captain of the Lord's host, is our leader" (Ibid, par. 32).
"The Lord enters into every house, into every office, into every room, where his work is done. Angels of God are passing and repassing through these offices, and there is a record kept of everything that is done in these places. By this record the workers are to be judged. "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned;" every word and action. God is watching, and every one will be rewarded according as his works have been" (Ibid, par. 36).
"Why, I ask you, are men who have not brought self into subjection allowed to stand in important positions of truth and handle sacred things? They have grown to the stature of men, but they have brought with them their childish tendencies. God does not want any such thing. He has made provision for all to have in them the grace of Christ. No others will enter heaven. There has been one rebellion there, and there will not be another. We have been given an opportunity to get rid of every kind of rebellion" (Ibid, par. 12).
"There are those who have stood as managers and yet have not managed after God's order. Some have served on committees here and committees there, and have felt free to dictate just what the committee should say and do, claiming that those who did not carry out these ideas were sinning against Christ. When the power of God is manifest in the church and in the management of the various departments of his work, when it is evident that the managers are themselves controlled by the Holy Spirit of God, then it is time to consider that you are safe in accepting what they may say, under God. But you must know that you are guided by the principles of the Word of the living God. The Great General of armies, the Captain of the Lord's host, is our leader" (Ibid, par. 32).
"The Lord enters into every house, into every office, into every room, where his work is done. Angels of God are passing and repassing through these offices, and there is a record kept of everything that is done in these places. By this record the workers are to be judged. "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned;" every word and action. God is watching, and every one will be rewarded according as his works have been" (Ibid, par. 36).
Friday, December 26, 2008
Fight or Flight
We all know that we encounter a stressor adrenaline shoots through our bodies to give us the strength we need to either fight the danger or run away from it. In the case of literal physical danger, the choice between the two is usually made in a split second. When it comes to theological or ecclesiological danger, however, the choice is not so automatic. In this crisis at Takoma Park, many have chosen flight. In classic Adventist conflict-avoidance style, they have simply taken to attending other churches so that they will not have to deal with the situation. (That's a luxury that can be afforded around here - there are 124 other Adventist churches and companies within 30 miles of Takoma Park.) Others, like Liberty and I, have chosen to stay and fight.
So, why have we chosen fight over flight? I suppose the lists of reasons would be off to a good start with the Spirit of Prophesy, “The greatest want of the world is the want of men-- men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall” (Education, p. 57). We have not yet experienced falling heavens, but there are days when it feels like they might be getting shaky! My point here is that this is wrong, and someone needs to stand up and say so.
Reason number two is that God doesn't give us the luxury of letting some other guy do what we're capable of. When we have an opportunity to work for God (and, yes, I do believe that fighting this is a work for God), then God expects that we step up and do it. "And Mordecai told them to answer Esther: 'Do not think in your heart that you will escape in the king’s palace any more than all the other Jews. For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?'" (Esther 4:13,14).
Another reason is that we're doing it to draw the proverbial line in the sand. As we have investigated Paul Borden and what he stands for we have discovered that he has weaseled his way into Adventist churches from Colorado to New Zealand. This mindset is spreading over Adventism like a disease, and the infected rarely realize the problem until it has gone too far to reverse without incredible fallout. It is our fervent hope that putting our story "out there" will serve as a warning to save other congregations from going through this same heartache. More locally, Borden was brought to our congregation as a test case for our conference. The rest of our conference is watching Takoma Park, and stopping this madness here means we save the entire conference.
Finally, we are fighting to bring this matter before the highest levels of Adventist leadership. We are uniquely positioned to be within driving distance of our conference, union, division, and world headquarters, and with that proximity comes access. Because this problem has spread so far through the denomination, only action from the top will bring a complete cure. So far, the good news is that all of the leaders above the conference level that we have spoken to so far have privately voiced wholehearted agreement with and support for our position that this is wrong. The bad news is that we have yet to convince them to turn their private convictions into public action.
Sticking with this fight isn't easy. There are days when it is incredibly tempting to just "shake the dust from our feet" and follow our friends to other churches. But we've put our hands to the plough and, by God's grace, we're not about to back out now.
Religious
So, why have we chosen fight over flight? I suppose the lists of reasons would be off to a good start with the Spirit of Prophesy, “The greatest want of the world is the want of men-- men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall” (Education, p. 57). We have not yet experienced falling heavens, but there are days when it feels like they might be getting shaky! My point here is that this is wrong, and someone needs to stand up and say so.
Reason number two is that God doesn't give us the luxury of letting some other guy do what we're capable of. When we have an opportunity to work for God (and, yes, I do believe that fighting this is a work for God), then God expects that we step up and do it. "And Mordecai told them to answer Esther: 'Do not think in your heart that you will escape in the king’s palace any more than all the other Jews. For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?'" (Esther 4:13,14).
Another reason is that we're doing it to draw the proverbial line in the sand. As we have investigated Paul Borden and what he stands for we have discovered that he has weaseled his way into Adventist churches from Colorado to New Zealand. This mindset is spreading over Adventism like a disease, and the infected rarely realize the problem until it has gone too far to reverse without incredible fallout. It is our fervent hope that putting our story "out there" will serve as a warning to save other congregations from going through this same heartache. More locally, Borden was brought to our congregation as a test case for our conference. The rest of our conference is watching Takoma Park, and stopping this madness here means we save the entire conference.
Finally, we are fighting to bring this matter before the highest levels of Adventist leadership. We are uniquely positioned to be within driving distance of our conference, union, division, and world headquarters, and with that proximity comes access. Because this problem has spread so far through the denomination, only action from the top will bring a complete cure. So far, the good news is that all of the leaders above the conference level that we have spoken to so far have privately voiced wholehearted agreement with and support for our position that this is wrong. The bad news is that we have yet to convince them to turn their private convictions into public action.
Sticking with this fight isn't easy. There are days when it is incredibly tempting to just "shake the dust from our feet" and follow our friends to other churches. But we've put our hands to the plough and, by God's grace, we're not about to back out now.
Religious
Friday, December 12, 2008
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 5
"No man's intelligence is to become such a controlling power that one man will have kingly authority in Battle Creek or in any other place. In no line of work is any one man to have power to turn the wheel. God forbids" (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 4, p. 292).
"When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 493).
"God's servants have to deal plainly, act openly, and not cover up wrongs; for they are standing between the living and the dead and must render an account of their faithfulness, their mission, and the influence they exert over the flock of which the Lord has made them overseers" (Early Writings, p.99).
"When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 493).
"God's servants have to deal plainly, act openly, and not cover up wrongs; for they are standing between the living and the dead and must render an account of their faithfulness, their mission, and the influence they exert over the flock of which the Lord has made them overseers" (Early Writings, p.99).
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Epic, Pt. 5
The second Town Hall meeting ended with an agreement that the changes in governance structure would be excluded from the vote on the recommendations of the report from Dr. Paul Borden, but that the recommendations for neighborhood evangelism and "diversity" in selection of church music would remain intact. Because of this agreement, the third Town Hall meeting went smoothly. After the third Town Hall meeting, it slowly surfaced that the pastoral staff had no intention of honoring this agreement. Our senior pastor Alan DeSilva began to privately whisper that we would have to vote on the entire set of recommendations as proposed. Why? Because, as we were told, our church had a contract with Borden and the report he provided to us was a part of that contract. (The report specified that it must be voted on in its entirety.) Pastor DeSilva’s argument was that if we didn't follow through with a vote on Borden’s entire set of recommendations, we could open ourselves up to a lawsuit.
As far as legal analysis goes, this was just ridiculous. This is just like saying that if you contract for a deck on the back of your home, and you don't use it, you could open yourself to a lawsuit from the builder. In a nutshell, if you contract for a deck, the builder performs the work, and you pay the builder the agreed-to price, the contract is completed and fulfilled. It is now your deck. You can have a birthday party on your deck, you can paint it green, or you can burn the whole thing to the ground. It's you deck to do with as you please. The same could be said of the Paul Borden Report. The church had work for which they had paid $6500. We were free to do with it as we pleased. But our pastor stuck to his "lawsuit” story, and held his vote on Sabbath, in the sanctuary, during the Divine Worship Hour on November 17, 2007. The result of the vote was a 60/40 split in favor of approving the report.
I started this series of posts with the intention of sticking to a description of events, and leaving the arguments and analysis for other posts, but in this instance I’m going to depart from that intention and spend the remainder of this post dissecting this infamous vote. There are so many ways in which it was horribly wrong, and much of our current appeals process involves these wrongs, so a listing thereof is imperative in order to understand what will follow in this narrative.
First, the vote was taken on a Sabbath. There are only two types of business that the Church Manual permits to be transacted during Sabbath worship services – membership changes and nominating committee reports. All other business is to be conducted at business meetings outside of the Sabbath hours. This vote should never have been held on a Sabbath, and there were members who declined to participate in the voting for that reason.
Second, there was insufficient notice given. Proper procedure is for announcements of pending actions such as this to be published in the bulletin for two weeks prior to the vote. We got only one verbal announcement the week before, which many missed.
Third, what was being voted on was not clearly spelled out. Many people missed the verbal announcement the week before, which (along with a second quick announcement on the morning of the vote) was the only time Pastor DeSilva publicly announced that the vote was on the entire Report. They believed that the structural change was not a part of the vote, consequently voting in favor of something they would otherwise have opposed. Even those who knew that the structural change was included didn’t know what that meant. In the last meeting where the details of the proposed new system were discussed, before it was agreed that the whole matter of structural change would be dropped, Pastor DeSilva had stated that there were still some adjustments to be made to properly describe the intention. No updated chart and/or written description were provided at the time of the vote to be the official description of the new system, and Pastor DeSilva has since treated that ambiguous vote as a blank check to not only make the new structure whatever he wanted it to be, but also to change or “interpret” it however it suited his purposes. (We’ll come back to this point later in The Epic.)
Fourth, opportunity was not provided for discussion of the matter, nor were formal minutes taken. The pastoral argument has been that this Sabbath vote was a legitimate business meeting of the church. However, there are certain hallmarks of business meetings which were notably absent in this situation – specifically that no opportunity was provided to discuss the motion within the meeting and no minutes of the meeting were kept. We submit that without these vital characteristics the event of Nov. 17, 2007 did NOT qualify as a legitimate business meeting of the Takoma Park SDA Church.
Finally, there was no way to verify whether the individuals voting were truly members of the congregation. The way the actual voting took place was that deacons with paper ballots wandered down the aisles and handed ballots to anyone whom they noticed raising their hands. The completed ballots were collected in the same manner. This system didn’t provide any means of verifying the membership of the voters. There were also members who complained afterward of having been overlooked by the deacons in the ballot distribution. With the vote having been split as closely as it was it is entirely possible that the outcome would have been different if more care had been taken in the process, but we’ll never know for sure. This is one of the inherent weaknesses of having taken this vote during Sabbath morning services. If it had been done outside of Sabbath hours as it should have been it would have been in a more controlled environment where the needed attention to the integrity of the process could have been given. For these reasons we believe that the vote taken was not legitimate.
Next: Shock and Bonding
Religious
As far as legal analysis goes, this was just ridiculous. This is just like saying that if you contract for a deck on the back of your home, and you don't use it, you could open yourself to a lawsuit from the builder. In a nutshell, if you contract for a deck, the builder performs the work, and you pay the builder the agreed-to price, the contract is completed and fulfilled. It is now your deck. You can have a birthday party on your deck, you can paint it green, or you can burn the whole thing to the ground. It's you deck to do with as you please. The same could be said of the Paul Borden Report. The church had work for which they had paid $6500. We were free to do with it as we pleased. But our pastor stuck to his "lawsuit” story, and held his vote on Sabbath, in the sanctuary, during the Divine Worship Hour on November 17, 2007. The result of the vote was a 60/40 split in favor of approving the report.
I started this series of posts with the intention of sticking to a description of events, and leaving the arguments and analysis for other posts, but in this instance I’m going to depart from that intention and spend the remainder of this post dissecting this infamous vote. There are so many ways in which it was horribly wrong, and much of our current appeals process involves these wrongs, so a listing thereof is imperative in order to understand what will follow in this narrative.
First, the vote was taken on a Sabbath. There are only two types of business that the Church Manual permits to be transacted during Sabbath worship services – membership changes and nominating committee reports. All other business is to be conducted at business meetings outside of the Sabbath hours. This vote should never have been held on a Sabbath, and there were members who declined to participate in the voting for that reason.
Second, there was insufficient notice given. Proper procedure is for announcements of pending actions such as this to be published in the bulletin for two weeks prior to the vote. We got only one verbal announcement the week before, which many missed.
Third, what was being voted on was not clearly spelled out. Many people missed the verbal announcement the week before, which (along with a second quick announcement on the morning of the vote) was the only time Pastor DeSilva publicly announced that the vote was on the entire Report. They believed that the structural change was not a part of the vote, consequently voting in favor of something they would otherwise have opposed. Even those who knew that the structural change was included didn’t know what that meant. In the last meeting where the details of the proposed new system were discussed, before it was agreed that the whole matter of structural change would be dropped, Pastor DeSilva had stated that there were still some adjustments to be made to properly describe the intention. No updated chart and/or written description were provided at the time of the vote to be the official description of the new system, and Pastor DeSilva has since treated that ambiguous vote as a blank check to not only make the new structure whatever he wanted it to be, but also to change or “interpret” it however it suited his purposes. (We’ll come back to this point later in The Epic.)
Fourth, opportunity was not provided for discussion of the matter, nor were formal minutes taken. The pastoral argument has been that this Sabbath vote was a legitimate business meeting of the church. However, there are certain hallmarks of business meetings which were notably absent in this situation – specifically that no opportunity was provided to discuss the motion within the meeting and no minutes of the meeting were kept. We submit that without these vital characteristics the event of Nov. 17, 2007 did NOT qualify as a legitimate business meeting of the Takoma Park SDA Church.
Finally, there was no way to verify whether the individuals voting were truly members of the congregation. The way the actual voting took place was that deacons with paper ballots wandered down the aisles and handed ballots to anyone whom they noticed raising their hands. The completed ballots were collected in the same manner. This system didn’t provide any means of verifying the membership of the voters. There were also members who complained afterward of having been overlooked by the deacons in the ballot distribution. With the vote having been split as closely as it was it is entirely possible that the outcome would have been different if more care had been taken in the process, but we’ll never know for sure. This is one of the inherent weaknesses of having taken this vote during Sabbath morning services. If it had been done outside of Sabbath hours as it should have been it would have been in a more controlled environment where the needed attention to the integrity of the process could have been given. For these reasons we believe that the vote taken was not legitimate.
Next: Shock and Bonding
Religious
How does the new structure work?
How does the new structure work? Actually, it doesn't.
The Borden Report specified that the Takoma Park Church was to adopt a "staff-led structure," the details of which would be anounced by the Potomac Conference. What got presented, however, wasn't a "staff-led structure" in a strict sense of the term. A staff-led structure is a mega-church invention. Mega-churches are run by having all ministries led by paid employees. This staff deals with all church operations. All operational decisions for the church are made executively by the chief pastor. The only involvement of the lay members is in an "accountability board" which does the hiring, paying, and firing of these employees, and this board is typically in the back pocket of the pastor.
This is the system Paul Borden specified that we should have, but it's not exactly what we got.
The system recommended by Elder Ray Pichette as a representative of the Potomac Conference replaces the traditional Church Board with two other boards, the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board. The tasks of the Accountability Board (which were not spelled out in writing until well after the vote adopting this system) are to 1) develop and maintain a Church Operations Manual, 2) review the vision goals of the Church Ministry Board and hold the Senior Pastor accountable, 3) ministry audit (develop and maintain an instrument to evaluate each program for a missional focus), and 4) human relations (responsible for hiring of all paid personnel). The Accountability Board is composed of 7 members, one of which is the senior pastor. Pastor DeSilva only wanted 5 members, including himself, but he inadvertently left the door open for nominating committee to overrule him on that, which it did, and he was not pleased. The details of that story will be coming up in The Epic. The only qualification required of the lay Accountability Board members is that neither they nor any member of their immediate family be a member of the Church Ministries Board. This Board is chaired by one of its lay members, who is specifically selected for that task.
The duties of the Church Ministries Board are 1) worship planning, 2) responsible for developing a yearly calendar of events and celebrations, 3) develop Mission and Vision, 4) leadership development, 5) responsible for keeping the church missionally focused, and 6) develop long and short term vision goals. This board is composed of all the church leadership positions within the dashed lines on the organizational charts (see The Epic, Pt. 4). The senior pastor is the chairman of this Board, and is the only link between the two boards.
In terms of hierarchy, the senior pastor and Ministries Board are supposed to report to, and be held accountable by, the Accountability Board. According to the charts, the Accountability Board then reports to the Business Meeting. In other words, the next highest authority in the congregation after the Business Meeting is a group of six lay people who don't lead any ministry (and the senior pastor).
The difference between this new system and the one prescribed by the Church Manual is striking. According to the Manual, the authority directly below the Business Meeting is the Church Board. The duties of the Church Board include, but are not limited to, 1) spiritual nurture, 2) evangelism in all its phases, 3) maintainance of doctrinal purity, 4) upholding Christian standards, 5) recommending changes in church membership, 6) church finances, 7) protection and care of church properties, 8) coordination of church departments. You'll notice that none of these tasks appear in the lists of duties for our two new boards. It could be argued that some of the same intent is present, just stated differently, but even allowing for some interpretation in that regard there are still substantial gaps. And how are these gaps filled? By executive decision of the chief pastor, as is the intent of a staff-led structure.
This concentration of power with the pastoral staff, and particularly the senior pastor, is increased by the fact that the two new boards do not (and cannot) in reality function as they are described on paper. The Accountability Board doesn't funtion as it is supposed to for four reasons. First, it has no power with which to hold anyone accountable. In a true staff-led system it would be responsible for the hiring, paying, and firing of staff. In the Adventist church, pastors and hired, paid, and fired by the conference. The local church has no say in any of that, and therefore no leverage of any kind with which to hold the pastor accountable. It also has no leverage over any of the lay leaders, because they are volunteers, not paid employees. Second, the Acountability Board has no realistic power to hold the pastor accountable because the pastor is a member of that board! To expect that board to make impartial judgements of the job performance of someone who is a member of the board is like putting a defendent on their own jury and expecting an impartial verdict. It just doesn't work. Third, the Accountability Board has no power because its voice is the senior pastor. No other member of the board is permitted to report its activities to anyone. Going back to the previous analogy, not only is the defendant a member of the jury, he's the foreman! Fourth, the Accountability Board has no power because it does not meet. In the eight months it has been in existence it has only met once, when it approved a pastoral recommendation for a new business manager. In short, the Accountability Board accomplishes nothing other than being a rubber stamp for the pastoral agenda.
The Ministry Board doesn't work as it is supposed to because Pastor DeSilva won't let it. He maintains a stranglehold on both the agenda and the discussions in order to produce the outcome he desires. This board is used as a forum in which to announce decisions and plans already made by the pastoral staff, not as a venue for ministry leaders to dialogue and produce new ideas. The results have so far been dismal. Also, as with the Accountability Board, the senior pastor is the only person officially permitted to speak to anyone about the actions taken by the Ministry Board.
To summarize, this new structure tears the previous structure into little pieces which cannot effectively function on their own, leaving a wake of confusion and disorder. This state of disarray has allowed our senior pastor, as the only constant through this change, to step in and assume kingly power.
Religious
The Borden Report specified that the Takoma Park Church was to adopt a "staff-led structure," the details of which would be anounced by the Potomac Conference. What got presented, however, wasn't a "staff-led structure" in a strict sense of the term. A staff-led structure is a mega-church invention. Mega-churches are run by having all ministries led by paid employees. This staff deals with all church operations. All operational decisions for the church are made executively by the chief pastor. The only involvement of the lay members is in an "accountability board" which does the hiring, paying, and firing of these employees, and this board is typically in the back pocket of the pastor.
This is the system Paul Borden specified that we should have, but it's not exactly what we got.
The system recommended by Elder Ray Pichette as a representative of the Potomac Conference replaces the traditional Church Board with two other boards, the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board. The tasks of the Accountability Board (which were not spelled out in writing until well after the vote adopting this system) are to 1) develop and maintain a Church Operations Manual, 2) review the vision goals of the Church Ministry Board and hold the Senior Pastor accountable, 3) ministry audit (develop and maintain an instrument to evaluate each program for a missional focus), and 4) human relations (responsible for hiring of all paid personnel). The Accountability Board is composed of 7 members, one of which is the senior pastor. Pastor DeSilva only wanted 5 members, including himself, but he inadvertently left the door open for nominating committee to overrule him on that, which it did, and he was not pleased. The details of that story will be coming up in The Epic. The only qualification required of the lay Accountability Board members is that neither they nor any member of their immediate family be a member of the Church Ministries Board. This Board is chaired by one of its lay members, who is specifically selected for that task.
The duties of the Church Ministries Board are 1) worship planning, 2) responsible for developing a yearly calendar of events and celebrations, 3) develop Mission and Vision, 4) leadership development, 5) responsible for keeping the church missionally focused, and 6) develop long and short term vision goals. This board is composed of all the church leadership positions within the dashed lines on the organizational charts (see The Epic, Pt. 4). The senior pastor is the chairman of this Board, and is the only link between the two boards.
In terms of hierarchy, the senior pastor and Ministries Board are supposed to report to, and be held accountable by, the Accountability Board. According to the charts, the Accountability Board then reports to the Business Meeting. In other words, the next highest authority in the congregation after the Business Meeting is a group of six lay people who don't lead any ministry (and the senior pastor).
The difference between this new system and the one prescribed by the Church Manual is striking. According to the Manual, the authority directly below the Business Meeting is the Church Board. The duties of the Church Board include, but are not limited to, 1) spiritual nurture, 2) evangelism in all its phases, 3) maintainance of doctrinal purity, 4) upholding Christian standards, 5) recommending changes in church membership, 6) church finances, 7) protection and care of church properties, 8) coordination of church departments. You'll notice that none of these tasks appear in the lists of duties for our two new boards. It could be argued that some of the same intent is present, just stated differently, but even allowing for some interpretation in that regard there are still substantial gaps. And how are these gaps filled? By executive decision of the chief pastor, as is the intent of a staff-led structure.
This concentration of power with the pastoral staff, and particularly the senior pastor, is increased by the fact that the two new boards do not (and cannot) in reality function as they are described on paper. The Accountability Board doesn't funtion as it is supposed to for four reasons. First, it has no power with which to hold anyone accountable. In a true staff-led system it would be responsible for the hiring, paying, and firing of staff. In the Adventist church, pastors and hired, paid, and fired by the conference. The local church has no say in any of that, and therefore no leverage of any kind with which to hold the pastor accountable. It also has no leverage over any of the lay leaders, because they are volunteers, not paid employees. Second, the Acountability Board has no realistic power to hold the pastor accountable because the pastor is a member of that board! To expect that board to make impartial judgements of the job performance of someone who is a member of the board is like putting a defendent on their own jury and expecting an impartial verdict. It just doesn't work. Third, the Accountability Board has no power because its voice is the senior pastor. No other member of the board is permitted to report its activities to anyone. Going back to the previous analogy, not only is the defendant a member of the jury, he's the foreman! Fourth, the Accountability Board has no power because it does not meet. In the eight months it has been in existence it has only met once, when it approved a pastoral recommendation for a new business manager. In short, the Accountability Board accomplishes nothing other than being a rubber stamp for the pastoral agenda.
The Ministry Board doesn't work as it is supposed to because Pastor DeSilva won't let it. He maintains a stranglehold on both the agenda and the discussions in order to produce the outcome he desires. This board is used as a forum in which to announce decisions and plans already made by the pastoral staff, not as a venue for ministry leaders to dialogue and produce new ideas. The results have so far been dismal. Also, as with the Accountability Board, the senior pastor is the only person officially permitted to speak to anyone about the actions taken by the Ministry Board.
To summarize, this new structure tears the previous structure into little pieces which cannot effectively function on their own, leaving a wake of confusion and disorder. This state of disarray has allowed our senior pastor, as the only constant through this change, to step in and assume kingly power.
Religious
Saturday, October 18, 2008
This Would be Funny...
...if it weren't so sad. A 71 year old woman was arrested for not going along with her pastor's attempt to turn her church into a "Pupose Driven Church."
http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/comments/71_year_old_woman_arrested_at_church_whos_to_blame/
http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/comments/71_year_old_woman_arrested_at_church_whos_to_blame/
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Epic, Pt. 4
Dr. Paul Borden had come and gone, and in his wake left a disaster. Takoma Park Church was in a state of confusion. There were those that were concerned that about bringing in a consultant. There were those that were concerned about Dr. Borden, who is not ordained in our faith, preaching in our pulpit. Others thought aloud saying, "We have the Bible and the Testimonies for free, why do we have to pay $6000 for a consultant?"
The first Town Hall Meeting held to discuss the Borden Report was announced on Sabbath morning, Oct. 13, 2007, and took place that afternoon. It was here that we got our first look at the new structure being recommended, and where we were issued the first of what have turned out to be at least eight different versions of the new organizational chart. This chart and the accompanying explanation were presented by Pastor DeSilva and Dr. Ray Pichette. Included below is this first "organizational chart." I stress the term "organization chart." He insisted in calling these attempts at charts, "flow charts." Anyone who knows anything about systems analysis or organizational management and behavior will be quick to tell you that what appears below lacks sufficient substance to be called a "flow chart."
The first Takoma Park Church "Town Hall Meeting" was simply bizarre. The object of this well-attended meeting was somewhat confused. It was clear that the Senior Pastor and Dr. Raymond Pichette of the Potomac Conference came to sell us on accepting and adopting the Borden Report (posted on this blog), as well as accepting and adopting this organization chart. The vast majority of the people attending this meeting came for the specific purpose of trying to reason the clergy into abandoning this course. Others, of course, came to see a show. And a show they saw, indeed!
Those who had carefully read the report and had begun to research "Purpose Driven Church" models, which are synonymous with"Staff-Led Church" models, "Willow Creek Church" models, and the "Growing Healthy Churches Initiative" came armed with their Bibles, quotes from the Spirit of Prophesy, and copies of the SDA Church Manual, ready to explain in detail why this structure was wrong.
The meeting began with the usual opening prayer and introduction. Dr. Pichette was introduced as the Conference official. Judging by the stated purpose of the meeting, we thought we would go right to the matter at hand. Instead we received an almost 50 minute long sermon. Rather than following the Biblical admonition, exhorting us to "reason together," there was an overwhelming appeal to emotion. He used terms appropriate to organizational management and behavior, inappropriately. He said that the Takoma Park Church had "plateaued" and our church was dying. Dr. Pichette went on to say that if we did not turn things around, our church "...would become like one of the abandoned cathedrals in Europe." In his wrap up, Dr. Pichette read through the report and asked us to try this new system for three years, and if we didn't like it by the end of that time we could go back to "business as usual."
What he said was just all kinds of wrong. If Dr. Pichette insists on using organizational behavior lingo, then he should use the terms correctly, in the proper context, and provide the correct meaning of the terms for the audience. A cogent argument could be made that the Takoma Park Church and, indeed, the entire SDA Church, has "plateaued." So what? According to the academic literature, when an organization plateaus, all that means is that it has reached organizational maturity and that it has a bureaucratic system in place. In a nutshell, what that term mean is that an organization is no longer "organizing" is is now "organized." Organization, especially if one is doing God's work, is a good thing. God's work progresses best when there is organization. History has shown that a LOT of bad things tend to happen when people are engaged in doing "God's work" and there is no organization. In the case of the SDA Church, its system of organization is provided provided by the Bible and the SDA Church Manual. The Bible speaks to "good order and discipline." What Elder Pichette had proposed was sowing the wind. To be sure, in the intervening period, we have reaped the whirlwind.
The other piece of what he said was also wrong, again for a lot of reasons. It was wrong to try to use scare tactics (claiming that our church would die if this scheme wasn't voted into place) to move people to vote against their own interests, and that of our church. That was base, wicked, and foul. The fact that it was countenanced by our clergy speaks volumes about their collective character. But to have this kind of thing conducted in the Sanctuary, on the Sabbath day, was simply abominable. The bottom line here is evangelism. As has been said repeatedly, evangelism can happen without a change in structure.
As for empty cathedrals in Europe, I've been to Europe. Perhaps you have, too. If yes, you know that many of the cathedrals are in very active use. For those that aren't, there are a myriad of reasons for the vacancy. Some were damaged beyond repair in World War II. Others, because of age, and the prohibitive cost of repair, have become structurally unsound and as a consequence were condemned. If Elder Pichette wanted to use the analogy of empty cathedrals, it would have been more accurate and honest to explain why many of these cathedrals were empty.
After Elder Pichette completed his almost hour long "introduction," Pastor Alan Desilva, not to be outdone, also got up to speak for the better part of an hour. Finally, after almost two hours of cajoling, the floor was opened to the people.
It amazes me how little appreciation there is for the common man. All too often we "get it" when those in power don't. Several people got up, one after another, asking thought-filled, valid questions, none of which received the respect of a thought-filled, valid answer. One woman, a long time church member, approached the mic and addressed a question to Elder Pichette. She asked simply, "[Elder Pichette] what church do you attend?" Elder Pichette responded. She followed up, "Are they doing this change in church structure at your church?" It was truly instructional to watch the Elder stammer, and twist, and fumble, as he tried to writhe his way out of simply saying "no."
At this meeting the storm of objections to this proposed change in structure continued. Finally, Pastor DeSilva exclaimed in frustration, "All right. If you all don't want to do this [change in structure], fine. But we will do the evangelism, and diversity in music." No one objected. Everyone agreed. This is was the right thing to do. We all went home satisfied, until we found out that our pastoral staff had no intention of living up to this agreement.
The first Town Hall Meeting held to discuss the Borden Report was announced on Sabbath morning, Oct. 13, 2007, and took place that afternoon. It was here that we got our first look at the new structure being recommended, and where we were issued the first of what have turned out to be at least eight different versions of the new organizational chart. This chart and the accompanying explanation were presented by Pastor DeSilva and Dr. Ray Pichette. Included below is this first "organizational chart." I stress the term "organization chart." He insisted in calling these attempts at charts, "flow charts." Anyone who knows anything about systems analysis or organizational management and behavior will be quick to tell you that what appears below lacks sufficient substance to be called a "flow chart."
The first Takoma Park Church "Town Hall Meeting" was simply bizarre. The object of this well-attended meeting was somewhat confused. It was clear that the Senior Pastor and Dr. Raymond Pichette of the Potomac Conference came to sell us on accepting and adopting the Borden Report (posted on this blog), as well as accepting and adopting this organization chart. The vast majority of the people attending this meeting came for the specific purpose of trying to reason the clergy into abandoning this course. Others, of course, came to see a show. And a show they saw, indeed!
Those who had carefully read the report and had begun to research "Purpose Driven Church" models, which are synonymous with"Staff-Led Church" models, "Willow Creek Church" models, and the "Growing Healthy Churches Initiative" came armed with their Bibles, quotes from the Spirit of Prophesy, and copies of the SDA Church Manual, ready to explain in detail why this structure was wrong.
The meeting began with the usual opening prayer and introduction. Dr. Pichette was introduced as the Conference official. Judging by the stated purpose of the meeting, we thought we would go right to the matter at hand. Instead we received an almost 50 minute long sermon. Rather than following the Biblical admonition, exhorting us to "reason together," there was an overwhelming appeal to emotion. He used terms appropriate to organizational management and behavior, inappropriately. He said that the Takoma Park Church had "plateaued" and our church was dying. Dr. Pichette went on to say that if we did not turn things around, our church "...would become like one of the abandoned cathedrals in Europe." In his wrap up, Dr. Pichette read through the report and asked us to try this new system for three years, and if we didn't like it by the end of that time we could go back to "business as usual."
What he said was just all kinds of wrong. If Dr. Pichette insists on using organizational behavior lingo, then he should use the terms correctly, in the proper context, and provide the correct meaning of the terms for the audience. A cogent argument could be made that the Takoma Park Church and, indeed, the entire SDA Church, has "plateaued." So what? According to the academic literature, when an organization plateaus, all that means is that it has reached organizational maturity and that it has a bureaucratic system in place. In a nutshell, what that term mean is that an organization is no longer "organizing" is is now "organized." Organization, especially if one is doing God's work, is a good thing. God's work progresses best when there is organization. History has shown that a LOT of bad things tend to happen when people are engaged in doing "God's work" and there is no organization. In the case of the SDA Church, its system of organization is provided provided by the Bible and the SDA Church Manual. The Bible speaks to "good order and discipline." What Elder Pichette had proposed was sowing the wind. To be sure, in the intervening period, we have reaped the whirlwind.
The other piece of what he said was also wrong, again for a lot of reasons. It was wrong to try to use scare tactics (claiming that our church would die if this scheme wasn't voted into place) to move people to vote against their own interests, and that of our church. That was base, wicked, and foul. The fact that it was countenanced by our clergy speaks volumes about their collective character. But to have this kind of thing conducted in the Sanctuary, on the Sabbath day, was simply abominable. The bottom line here is evangelism. As has been said repeatedly, evangelism can happen without a change in structure.
As for empty cathedrals in Europe, I've been to Europe. Perhaps you have, too. If yes, you know that many of the cathedrals are in very active use. For those that aren't, there are a myriad of reasons for the vacancy. Some were damaged beyond repair in World War II. Others, because of age, and the prohibitive cost of repair, have become structurally unsound and as a consequence were condemned. If Elder Pichette wanted to use the analogy of empty cathedrals, it would have been more accurate and honest to explain why many of these cathedrals were empty.
After Elder Pichette completed his almost hour long "introduction," Pastor Alan Desilva, not to be outdone, also got up to speak for the better part of an hour. Finally, after almost two hours of cajoling, the floor was opened to the people.
It amazes me how little appreciation there is for the common man. All too often we "get it" when those in power don't. Several people got up, one after another, asking thought-filled, valid questions, none of which received the respect of a thought-filled, valid answer. One woman, a long time church member, approached the mic and addressed a question to Elder Pichette. She asked simply, "[Elder Pichette] what church do you attend?" Elder Pichette responded. She followed up, "Are they doing this change in church structure at your church?" It was truly instructional to watch the Elder stammer, and twist, and fumble, as he tried to writhe his way out of simply saying "no."
To be fair, one or two new church members, who really didn't know about the history of the SDA structure, spoke in support of a "call to change." One man was really afraid of the Takoma Park Church "turning into one of those empty cathedrals in Europe." However, the overwhelming number of church members objected to the change in structure based on the following, 1) as Adventists, we believe that our church structure came from God and that we tamper with it at our own peril; 2) The various incarnations of the "Church Growth Movement" model which was proposed for the Takoma Park Church has lead other SDA churches to move to worshiping on Sunday; 3) If the church wants to evangelize, then the church should evangelize. There is nothing in the current legitimate church structure, as outlined in the SDA Church Manual, that prevents evangelism.
The second Town Hall was combined with a Board and Business Meeting on Oct. 15. At at meeting a new, "refined" chart was presented. The changes handwritten on this chart were put there at Pastor DeSilva's direction as "corrections" which would be updated the next time a chart was issued:
At this meeting the storm of objections to this proposed change in structure continued. Finally, Pastor DeSilva exclaimed in frustration, "All right. If you all don't want to do this [change in structure], fine. But we will do the evangelism, and diversity in music." No one objected. Everyone agreed. This is was the right thing to do. We all went home satisfied, until we found out that our pastoral staff had no intention of living up to this agreement.Next: Bait and Switch
Religious
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 4
"O how Satan would rejoice if he could succeed in his efforts to get in among this people, and disorganize the work at a time when thorough organization is essential, and will be the greatest power to keep out spurious uprisings, and to refute claims not indorsed by the Word of God! We want to hold the lines evenly, that there shall be no breaking down of the system of organization and order that has been built up by wise, careful labor. License must not be given to disorderly elements that desire to control the work at this time" (Gospel Workers, p. 487).
"Danger in Following Blindly.--God's people of today are in danger of committing errors no less disastrous [than King Saul's]. We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile" (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p.1016).
"Danger in Following Blindly.--God's people of today are in danger of committing errors no less disastrous [than King Saul's]. We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile" (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p.1016).
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Epic, Pt. 3
September came, and so did Dr. Paul Borden. One Sabath, prior to his arrival, our senior pastor called for volunteers to meet with Dr. Borden and the pastoral staff. As hands went up, we noticed something odd. Those who were chosen were new, or fairly new members. There was nothing wrong with this, in and of itself, but how could these people speak to what was going on in our church? Further, none of the people chosen for interview even live in the vicinity of the Takoma Park. How accurately would they be able to answer any interview regarding the community? What kind of depth could they provide? None. As we were soon to learn, that was okay. You see, these people weren't supposed to provide any real answers. The questions were canned...just like the questions asked during the "Focus Groups" session. Questions asked were specifically designed to elicit the answers the questioners desired.
From an analysis standpoint, this approach was problematic. If the object of the exercise was to learn about the congregation, with its history, strengths, and weaknesses/difficulties, the logical people to talk to would be the long-term members. If, on the other hand, the object was to discover the needs of the unchurched in the area, the logical approach would be to conduct focus groups among the citizens of the greater Takoma Park community. However, being logical and doing the right thing were never the objective.
On Thursday, September 6, 2007, Dr. Borden spoke at a meeting called of all Takoma Park Church officers to discuss his findings. This was also strange because this meeting occured BEFORE he held the interviews the next day on Friday afternoon. He preached a sermon on September 8, 2007, and left us with the report that we have already posted, which he presented to the church on the afternoon of Sept. 8. We should note here that the report is actually signed by three individuals. The other two, Dr. Ray Pichette and Pastor Glen Altermatt, are Potomac Conference employees who apprenticed themselves to Paul Borden for the duration of his evaluation of Takoma Park so they could learn his processes and techniques in order to replicate them in other churches throughout the Potomac Conference.
While there are a number of things in the Borden Report that disturb us, the most significant is easily the third "prescription:" "Structure: It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure... The overview of the new structure will be presented to the congregation by the Potomac Conference on October 6, 2007." (For an explanation and analysis of the new structure which was ultimately recommended, see the upcoming post, "How does the new structure work?")
Next: The Town Hall Meetings
From an analysis standpoint, this approach was problematic. If the object of the exercise was to learn about the congregation, with its history, strengths, and weaknesses/difficulties, the logical people to talk to would be the long-term members. If, on the other hand, the object was to discover the needs of the unchurched in the area, the logical approach would be to conduct focus groups among the citizens of the greater Takoma Park community. However, being logical and doing the right thing were never the objective.
On Thursday, September 6, 2007, Dr. Borden spoke at a meeting called of all Takoma Park Church officers to discuss his findings. This was also strange because this meeting occured BEFORE he held the interviews the next day on Friday afternoon. He preached a sermon on September 8, 2007, and left us with the report that we have already posted, which he presented to the church on the afternoon of Sept. 8. We should note here that the report is actually signed by three individuals. The other two, Dr. Ray Pichette and Pastor Glen Altermatt, are Potomac Conference employees who apprenticed themselves to Paul Borden for the duration of his evaluation of Takoma Park so they could learn his processes and techniques in order to replicate them in other churches throughout the Potomac Conference.
While there are a number of things in the Borden Report that disturb us, the most significant is easily the third "prescription:" "Structure: It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure... The overview of the new structure will be presented to the congregation by the Potomac Conference on October 6, 2007." (For an explanation and analysis of the new structure which was ultimately recommended, see the upcoming post, "How does the new structure work?")
When questioned about the source of the specifics for this new structure in the following weeks and months, Pastor DeSilva's replies were always different. One time he said he developed this new structure. Another time, he said the conference developed it. Another time, cornered, he said that the Potomac Conference had tasked him with coming up with a chart for the change in structure. On yet another occasion, he said that he came up with the chart and he had to run it by Potomac Conference for approval. Who knew what the actual truth was?
Mark Twain wrote that one should always tell the truth. This way you never have to remember what you said.
Next: The Town Hall Meetings
Religious
Friday, October 10, 2008
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt.3
"I think I have laid out this matter many times before you, but I see no change in your actions. We want every responsible man to drop responsibilities upon others. Set others at work that will require them to plan and to use judgment. Do not educate them to rely upon your judgment. Young men must be trained up to be thinkers. My brethren, do not for a moment think that your way is perfection, and that those who are connected with you must be your shadows, must echo your words, repeat your ideas, and execute your plans" (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 302, 303).
"It was shown me that those who preside over our institutions should ever bear in mind that there is a chief director, who is the God of heaven. There should be strict honesty in all business transactions in every department of the work. There must be firmness in preserving order, but compassion, mercy, and forbearance should be mingled with the firmness. Justice has a twin sister, Love. These should stand side by side. The Bible should be our guide. There can be no greater deception than for a man to think that he can find a better guide, when in difficulty, than the word of God. The blessed word must be a lamp to our feet. Bible precepts must be carried into the everyday life" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, p. 559).
"Leaders should act as wise counselors, not exacting rulers.--Sometimes a man who has been placed in responsibility as a leader, gains the idea that he is in a position of supreme authority, and that all of his brethren, before making advance moves, must first come to him for permission to do that which they feel should be done. Such a man is in a dangerous position. He has lost sight of the work of a true leader among God's people. Instead of acting as a wise counselor, he assumes the prerogatives of an exacting ruler. God is dishonored by every such display of authority and self-exaltation. No man standing in his own strength is ever to be mind and judgment for another man whom the Lord is using in His work. No one is to lay down man-made rules and regulations to govern arbitrarily his fellow laborers who have a living experience in the truth" (Pastoral Ministry, p. 54).
"It was shown me that those who preside over our institutions should ever bear in mind that there is a chief director, who is the God of heaven. There should be strict honesty in all business transactions in every department of the work. There must be firmness in preserving order, but compassion, mercy, and forbearance should be mingled with the firmness. Justice has a twin sister, Love. These should stand side by side. The Bible should be our guide. There can be no greater deception than for a man to think that he can find a better guide, when in difficulty, than the word of God. The blessed word must be a lamp to our feet. Bible precepts must be carried into the everyday life" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, p. 559).
"Leaders should act as wise counselors, not exacting rulers.--Sometimes a man who has been placed in responsibility as a leader, gains the idea that he is in a position of supreme authority, and that all of his brethren, before making advance moves, must first come to him for permission to do that which they feel should be done. Such a man is in a dangerous position. He has lost sight of the work of a true leader among God's people. Instead of acting as a wise counselor, he assumes the prerogatives of an exacting ruler. God is dishonored by every such display of authority and self-exaltation. No man standing in his own strength is ever to be mind and judgment for another man whom the Lord is using in His work. No one is to lay down man-made rules and regulations to govern arbitrarily his fellow laborers who have a living experience in the truth" (Pastoral Ministry, p. 54).
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Structure vs. Evangelism
When the details of the plan for changing our congregational governance structure were presented, the argument that came with them was that our current structure wasn't conducive to evangelism, and therefore had to be revised. This argument has been key in the success of the pastoral staff in pushing through the change (along with apathy, ignorance, or mistaken information in a significant portion of the congregation, but that's another post), so I would like to examine it more closely.
The governance system our congregation was following before this change was, at least in name, the system found in the Church Manual. (I specify "in name" because even before this change there were ways in which our pastoral staff were not truly following it as they should, but that also is another post.) The Manual is written by the world church, to be followed exactly and in its entirety by the entire world church. In other words, the same system is implemented in every Adventist congregation worldwide. In some places there are great evangelistic efforts and rapid growth. In others, stagnation. What this tells us is that the Manual system does not inhibit evangelism; if it works, it works, and failure to evangelize must result from something else.
At this point some may ask, "Even if the Manual system doesn't inhibit evangelism, could a change in the system do more to advance it?" Liberty will soon be examining the origins, nuances, and general pros and cons of our new system in detail, so I won't get into this too deeply. The simple answer is that while there is a theoretical possibility that there could be ways of improving the Manual system to advance evangelism, what we have seen implemented at Takoma Park doesn't qualify as improvement. What's worse, it's at best a cosmetic change, and at worst a destruction of several fundamental premises of Adventism, including that the unfettered voice of the majority of believers is the authority by which the church is to be governed and that all believers are created equal in the site of God and responsible for knowing and deciding for themselves what the Bible instructs them to do, independant of the clergy.
This brings us to one last question. If the governance structure is not to blame for our failure to evangelize, what is? In this case, the fault lies squarely with us, both corporately and as individual members, because we couldn't be bothered to commit to it and follow through. That statement is uncomfortable for all of us, but also true.
No amount of changing our governance is going to make our hearts more committed to the gospel work. To say that we had to change the structure to do evangelism simply makes the structure the scapegoat for our own failings, so we don't have to face them.
Before I end this post, I would like to point out that those of us who oppose this governance change are not in any way opposed to evangelism. In fact, we wholeheartly support it. We just believe that the changes to our governance will ultimately do more to harm than help the cause of evangelism. Before we can reach out and bring others in to our church we must first be sure that we are truly living according to the beliefs we claim to follow as Adventists, or those who come in will walk right back out when they discover our duplicity.
Religious
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Epic, Pt. 2
As mentioned in an earlier post, our senior pastor, Alan DeSilva, came back to the Takoma Park Church Board, and told them that a consultant had been found and that he would cost $6000. Further, he said that this consultant had a long standing relationship with our new Conference President, Elder Bill Miller, and that he came with good references from him.
We asked what exactly the consultant would do. Pastor DeSilva told us in no uncertain terms that this consultant, should we elect to invite him to come, would study the church for a year. The Pastor said that during that year, Dr. Paul Borden would talk to every member of the church, come to our meetings, attend our worship services, and look at every part of our church operations from top to bottom. And at the end of that year, Dr. Borden would meet with the church and report on his findings.
Not bad for $6000, or so we thought. Our Pastor, we learned, had already spoken to some of the elders, as well as the Church Treasurer. Given the deal Takoma Park Church thought it was going to get, the Board voted in favor of bringing in the consultant.
At the June 2007 Church Board meeting we were told that there was a survey that we needed to complete, and that our Senior Pastor, aided by Associate Pastors Richard James and Gerry Fuentes, would conduct a "Focus Group," made up of church officers. This amazed some of us. We weren't completely sure what specific training, or experience, our Pastor had in population sampling techniques, but hey, let's give it chance.
The survey the church officers where asked to discuss and complete was "canned" at best. The questions were specifically designed to pull out "desired responses." This "Focus Group" meeting was conducted at an officers' potluck.
Liberty is looking for a copy of the survey. If it can be found, we will post that as well.
There was no July Board meeting. The August Board meeting had a sparse attendance -- not even enough people to constitute a quorum. We welcomed the new "Minster of Music," a former pastor at the Takoma Park Church, and received an update regarding our consultant. Our Senior Pastor announced, in a very reassuring tone, "The consultant, Dr. Borden, will be here for an initial meeting with our church leaders in September [2007], and he asked to speak before the church on the first Sabbath of September. He is also busy doing everything he can to study about the Seventh-day Adventist Church so he can be of help to us."
You could have heard a pin drop.
One of the church leaders asked, "Excuse me, but are we to understand that this consultant is not Adventist?"
Pastor DeSilva replied, "I'm not exactly sure what religion he is, to tell you the truth." We later discovered this answer was much less than truthful.
A local elder, still confounded asked, "He's not Adventist? And he'll be preaching in church on Sabbath?" Pastor DeSilva answered "Yes," but assured the woman that there would be no problem. He cited that there was a non-Adventist consultant who spoke before the General Conference. We never bothered to check into whether that statement was true or not. We didn't care.
None of us have anything against non-Adventists. Our issue was that we had been led to believe that the consultant was Adventist. This was not the time to tell us that he was not. Further, we began to worry, if this piece of information had been withheld, what else were we not being told?
Next: The Evaluation.
We asked what exactly the consultant would do. Pastor DeSilva told us in no uncertain terms that this consultant, should we elect to invite him to come, would study the church for a year. The Pastor said that during that year, Dr. Paul Borden would talk to every member of the church, come to our meetings, attend our worship services, and look at every part of our church operations from top to bottom. And at the end of that year, Dr. Borden would meet with the church and report on his findings.
Not bad for $6000, or so we thought. Our Pastor, we learned, had already spoken to some of the elders, as well as the Church Treasurer. Given the deal Takoma Park Church thought it was going to get, the Board voted in favor of bringing in the consultant.
At the June 2007 Church Board meeting we were told that there was a survey that we needed to complete, and that our Senior Pastor, aided by Associate Pastors Richard James and Gerry Fuentes, would conduct a "Focus Group," made up of church officers. This amazed some of us. We weren't completely sure what specific training, or experience, our Pastor had in population sampling techniques, but hey, let's give it chance.
The survey the church officers where asked to discuss and complete was "canned" at best. The questions were specifically designed to pull out "desired responses." This "Focus Group" meeting was conducted at an officers' potluck.
Liberty is looking for a copy of the survey. If it can be found, we will post that as well.
There was no July Board meeting. The August Board meeting had a sparse attendance -- not even enough people to constitute a quorum. We welcomed the new "Minster of Music," a former pastor at the Takoma Park Church, and received an update regarding our consultant. Our Senior Pastor announced, in a very reassuring tone, "The consultant, Dr. Borden, will be here for an initial meeting with our church leaders in September [2007], and he asked to speak before the church on the first Sabbath of September. He is also busy doing everything he can to study about the Seventh-day Adventist Church so he can be of help to us."
You could have heard a pin drop.
One of the church leaders asked, "Excuse me, but are we to understand that this consultant is not Adventist?"
Pastor DeSilva replied, "I'm not exactly sure what religion he is, to tell you the truth." We later discovered this answer was much less than truthful.
A local elder, still confounded asked, "He's not Adventist? And he'll be preaching in church on Sabbath?" Pastor DeSilva answered "Yes," but assured the woman that there would be no problem. He cited that there was a non-Adventist consultant who spoke before the General Conference. We never bothered to check into whether that statement was true or not. We didn't care.
None of us have anything against non-Adventists. Our issue was that we had been led to believe that the consultant was Adventist. This was not the time to tell us that he was not. Further, we began to worry, if this piece of information had been withheld, what else were we not being told?
Next: The Evaluation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)