The Epic, Pt. 67

Pastor DeSilva began his statement to the executive committee by saying that Paul Borden had been invited by the business meeting of the Takoma Park Church to conduct an evaluation. He went on to explain the current governance structure as he saw it. Pastor DeSilva affirmed that the business meeting is the highest authority in the local church. There are four “branches” from the business meeting: the nominating committee, the standing nominating committee, the support and accountability board, and the church ministries board. The nominating committee nominates officers every two years. The standing nominating committee fills vacancies between elections. The accountability board is responsible for leadership development, holding the ministries board accountable for meeting its goals, and functions as a personnel committee for paid employees. The ministries board is supposed to do ministry and “monitor” finances. All four of these branches answer to the business meeting of the church.

After offering the disclaimer that charts are never 100% accurate, Pastor DeSilva proceeded to explain the organizational chart he had included in his handout. (It was the same chart he had issued to the church on June 29, 2008, which was included in the previous chapter of the Epic.) He asserted that the accountability board had no executive function, and that it existed only as an audit committee that took no part in planning ministry. Pastor DeSilva pointed out that the ministries board was below the business meeting and was composed of the pastors and all department heads. He went on to claim that the new governance structure was within the latitude of the Church Manual.

Pastor DeSilva next discussed the vote to approve the new governance structure and the events leading up to it. He observed that town hall meetings to discuss the Borden Report had been held on Sept. 8, Oct. 13, Oct. 17, and Nov. 12, 2007. He claimed that in the first of these meetings there had been a motion and a second to accept the Borden Report and that as part of the motion there was an additional stipulation regarding procedure for the vote. The stipulation was that the report would be discussed at three town hall meetings then voted up or down on a Sabbath morning by written ballot without discussion.

Pastor DeSilva justified his decision to override the expressed will of the business meeting on the matter of excluding the change in governance from the vote on the Borden Report by observing that the Borden Report itself says, “The church will vote on this report as a whole to accept of reject by Oct. 13, 2007.” He further asserted that he had made two verbal announcements that the report was being voted on as a whole.

Pastor DeSilva next spoke to what he described as “the problematic sentence” from the report. “It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure.” He claimed that the problem was that the phrase “staff-led structure” had been misinterpreted to mean a congregational structure. He argued in favor of the new structure by quoting from the email Elder Miller had sent him on June 27, 2008. (For a full transcript of that email see the Epic, Pt. 26.) He also pointed out that the newly adopted mission, vision, core values, and strategic plan were included in the handout he had provided.

Pastor DeSilva closed his statement by reiterating his belief that the new governance structure is within the latitude of the Church Manual, but also said that he would gladly accept any resolution recommended by the executive committee.

There were so many inaccuracies and faulty arguments in this presentation that we could not do the corrections justice by simply placing them in parenthesis next to each statement. Had we tried they would have made the description of Pastor DeSilva’s presentation so disjointed as to not make any sense, so they will follow in a separate post.

Next: The Questions

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 66

Proper Governance for the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church
A Question of Interpretation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual Posed to the Executive Committee of the Potomac Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

The Background

What Happened
• A new governance structure was proposed to the Takoma Park Church by Dr. Ray Pichette and Pastor Alan DeSilva.
• The proposal was discussed by the church. It was decided in a board and business meeting that changing the governance structure was not desirable and would not be included in the final vote regarding the approval of Borden Report.
• After reaching that agreement Pastor DeSilva unilaterally decided to include the structure change in the vote on the Borden Report.
• His argument was that the report itself specifies that it must be voted up or down in its entirety and so we had to do so or face potential legal repercussions. This logic is flawed.
• The re-inclusion of the structure change was not adequately publicized, and at the time of the vote many didn’t realize that this was part of what they were voting for.
• The vote was held on Sabbath morning. Many members didn’t take part in the vote because they believed it was wrong to hold votes on that type of issue on Sabbath or because discussion had been prohibited in that context.

The Issue

What the Church Manual Says:
I. About its own authority and proper interpretation:

“Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is… expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception.” –Review and Herald, vol. 50, No. 14, p.106.

“The content of the Church Manual is the expression of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s understanding of Christian life and church governance” (Church Manual, pp. 1&2, bold supplied).

Conclusion: The Church Manual is supposed to be accepted as read.

II. About changing the Church Manual:

“Changes in or revisions of the Church Manual …can be made only by action of a General Conference session… If revisions in the Church Manual are considered necessary by any of the constituent levels…such revisions should be submitted to the next constituent level for wider counsel and study.

“If approved, the suggested revisions are then submitted to the next constituent level… [and then] sent to the General Conference Church Manual Committee. This committee will … prepare them for presentation at an Annual Council and/or General Conference session” (Church Manual, pp. xxi, xxii).

Conclusion: The local church cannot of its own authority alter or countermand the stipulations of the Church Manual.

III. About local church governance:

“Representative [government is] the form of church government which recognizes that authority in the church rests in the church membership, with executive responsibility delegated to representative bodies… The representative form of church government is that which prevails in the Seventh-day Adventist Church” (Church Manual, p. 26).

“Definition and Function—The church board is composed of the principal officers of the church. It has a number of important responsibilities…

“…It is therefore also the primary function of the church board to serve as the chief committee of the local church” (Church Manual, p. 90).

“Included in church board responsibilities are:

1. spiritual nurture.

2. evangelism in all of its phases.

3. maintenance 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.”

(Church Manual, p. 90).

Conclusion: The only acceptable method of governing a Seventh-day Adventist congregation is by having executive power vested in a single committee known as the church board.

All responsibilities not expressly reserved to the business meeting of the congregation are to be handled by this single committee.

GOVERNANCE FLOW CHART FOR THE LOCAL CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH MANUAL

To be operating in harmony with the Manual, there must be a single board which answers directly to the business meeting and has executive control over all ministries/ committees/ personnel of the congregation.

What Takoma Park is Doing

Takoma Park has two “boards,” the “Church Ministries Board” and the “Support and Accountability Board.”

The Duties of the Church Ministries Board (As prepared by the Senior Pastor)
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
6. Develop long and short term vision goals

The Duties of the Support and Accountability Board (As prepared by the Senior Pastor)
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)
4. Human relations (responsible for hiring of all paid personnel)

ORIGINAL FLOW CHART FOR THE NEW TAKOMA PARK GOVERNANCE

NEW FLOW CHART ISSUED AT JAN. 28, 2008 BUSINESS MEETING


NEW FLOW CHART ISSUED AT JUNE 29, 2008 BUSINESS MEETING


These charts have variations, but three key elements remain constant:
1. There are two administrative “boards.”
2. The Accountability Board answers to the business meeting rather than the Ministries Board (which the Senior Pastor claims is his church board).
3. The Ministries Board doesn’t have direct access to the business meeting. The position of Senior Pastor (and originally the Accountability Board) blocks it.

None of these charts were ever approved by a vote of the congregation. They were simply issued by the Senior Pastor as authoritative.

Does Takoma Park’s system conform to the Church Manual’s requirements? NO

Comparative analysis of the current boards and the requirements of the Church Manual show significant gaps between the duties required of a church board and what the two current boards are authorized to do.

Presently there is no church board operating in the Takoma Park Church as stipulated by the Church Manual. Neither of the existing “boards” fits the definition of a church board according to the Church Manual.

The Remedy (Abbreviated)

In order to resolve this situation, an agreement for resolution must do the following:
1. Acknowledge that a local church is not at liberty to establish its own system of organization.
2. Affirm the Church Manual as the ultimate authority in matters of church governance.
3. Rescind the action to adopt the Paul Borden Report.
4. Reinstate the Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual, pp. 90 and 91, thereby eliminating the Accountability Board and Church Ministries Board.
5. Acknowledge that all departments and ministries are accountable to the Church Board, not to the staff or any other person or entity.
6. Include a plan for the remediation of all related governance problems.
7. Include certification from administrative observers from all levels of Seventh-day Adventist church government that the new actions are in harmony with the Church Manual.

Conclusion
The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not give individual congregations the option to choose their own form of government. The method by which local congregations are to be run is clearly spelled out in the Church Manual. It is expected that all congregations will follow this method which is an integral part of what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist congregation.

The Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is not presently acting in harmony with the Church Manual and must therefore take corrective action.

Next: The Other Side

Religious

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 22

"When Jesus gave the injunction, 'Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me,' the priests and rulers were sitting in Moses's seat, and professing to give to the people the commands of God; but that which was so plain that the common people might clearly understand, they mystified and misinterpreted. Through false interpretation, the Jewish nation had lost the simple, practical knowledge of God and his truth. The command to search implied that they had lost something, and that they must diligently seek to discover it. The plain directions of the Scriptures, which had revealed the will of God, were covered up with mystery and tradition, with false tests, false theories and commands. The Scriptures had been wrested to the ruin of souls, and man-made tests and injunctions had been put in the place of the plain 'thus saith the Lord.' Jesus said to all, Search for yourselves. Allow no one to be brains for you, allow no one to do your thinking, your investigating, and your praying. This is the instruction we need to take to heart today. Many of you are convinced that the precious treasure of the kingdom of God and of Jesus Christ is in the Bible which you hold in your hand. You know that no earthly treasure is attainable without painstaking effort. Why should you expect to understand the treasures of the word of God without diligently searching the Scriptures?

"It is proper and right to read the Bible; but your duty does not end there; for you are to search its pages for yourselves. The knowledge of God is not to be gained without mental effort, without prayer for wisdom in order that you may separate from the pure grain of truth the chaff with which men and Satan have misrepresented the doctrines of truth. Satan and his confederacy of human agents have endeavored to mix the chaff of error with the wheat of truth. We should diligently search for the hidden treasure, and seek wisdom from heaven in order to separate human inventions from the divine commands. The Holy Spirit will aid the seeker for great and precious truths which relate to the plan of redemption. I would impress upon all the fact that a casual reading of the Scriptures is not enough. We must search, and this means the doing of all the word implies. As the miner eagerly explores the earth to discover its veins of gold, so you are to explore the word of God for the hidden treasure that Satan has so long sought to hide from man. The Lord says, 'If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching.' John 7:17, Revised Version" (Review and Herald, September 11, 1894 par. 1 & 2).

The Epic, Pt. 65

At noon on the day of the meeting with the executive committee (May 28, 2009) Brother G received a phone call from Elder Ramirez. (Presentations on the Takoma Park issue were to start at 4pm.) He wanted to know which members of the spokesgroup would be presenting to the executive committee. When he was told that the Group expected all four members of the spokesgroup to participate his reaction was, "Oh no, no! We need to stick with the three person format we have used throughout this process."

Brother G started calling other Group members about what to do. The conclusion reached was that Brother G had to take part because he had been the primary spokesperson throughout the process. Sister L was needed because she was to give the PowerPoint presentation the Group had prepared. That left either Elder C or Brother X to be cut. It was decided that Brother X would be in the room because he was the more naturally vocal of the two and would be more likely to jump into any debate that might arise during the meeting.

Brother G first reached Sister L with news of the developments about 2pm. He tried to contact Elder C and Brother X, but the messages didn't get to them. The news that he would not be in the room didn’t reach Elder C until he walked into the church where the meeting was being held. There were also quite a few members of the Group who showed up with the expectation of being able to sit in on the meeting to express their support, as Elder Miller had not placed any limit on attendees during the May 19 meeting. However, when the meeting turned its attention to the Takoma Park situation Elder Miller declared that it was immediately going into executive session (which he had said in the May 19 meeting would not happen until after the presentations). This meant that all of the assembled Group members, except for the three presenters, were excluded from the room. Since they were not welcome in the room the excluded Group members held a spontaneous prayer meeting down the hall for the duration of the presentations and following questions.

As Elder Miller had laid out the week before, each side was given seven minutes to make an uninterrupted presentation. First Sister L made the presentation on behalf of the Group, then Pastor DeSilva presented his position. The next phase of the format Elder Miller had created was for the committee members to ask questions of clarification. He had determined 20-40 minutes for questions, but that phase ended up lasting more like 60 minutes. The spokesgroup found the question period frustrating because no direct rebuttal was allowed. The presenters were only permitted to speak if the question was directed to them and on the question. The Group had been expecting that, much like a debate, the question period would allow both sides to answer a question and thereby work in more details and arguments than it was possible to include in the original seven-minute presentation. Not having that option meant that the executive committee didn’t get as well-rounded an explanation of the positions as it otherwise would have received. After the questions the committee broke for supper (it was about 6pm by then) with the intent of coming back afterwards for a closed discussion of the matter. Neither presentation group was invited to be present for the discussion. It would be nearly two weeks before the outcome of that discussion was made known.

Because of the significance of the content of the executive committee meeting we are going to describe it in as much detail as possible. We will break it up into three additional chapters of the Epic: our statement, Pastor DeSilva’s statement, and the committee questions.

Next: Making Our Case

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 64

The advance materials the Group prepared for the executive committee members had five parts. The package started with a brief summary of the situation. This was followed by the entire Paul Borden Report, the board comparison charts, the two new letters from the General Conference personnel, and the list of requirements for resolution which were presented at the three-on-three meeting. The summary, which is the only portion of this package not already posted to this blog, is included below.

“Summary of Appeal

“Our appeal is to reestablish in the Takoma Park Church the system of governance mandated by the Seventh-day Adventist world church and stipulated in the Church Manual.

“This issue began with the implementation of a report prepared by Paul Borden, a church consultant. His report (enclosed in its entirety) was approved for implementation by the congregation under questionable and divisive circumstances on November 17, 2007. The major point of contention with this report is the paragraph which stipulates implementation of a ‘staff led structure.’

“This altered governance structure is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected by the absence of a church board (which is required by the Manual). A proper church board has been replaced by two other ‘boards,’ neither of which fulfills the requirements of the Church Manual singly or in combination. (See enclosed Board Comparison Charts.) As this situation evolved letters of support were received from several church officials.

“‘I could not support this form of church governance nor would the General Conference. It is a far departure of how the Seventh-day Adventist church does business’ (Roscoe Howard, then North American Division Secretary, in a letter dated March 25, 2008).

“‘The [Church Manual] section on the role and function of the Church Board is recorded in the chapter of the Church Manual where it is required practice for every church. There is no alternative structure for the Church. The Church Manual does not allow for any alternatives’ (Vernon B. Parmenter, then Associate Executive Secretary of the General Conference and Secretary of the Church Manual Committee, in a letter dated April 21, 2008).

“‘Pastor Vernon Parmenter, my Associate Secretary, and one who has been assigned to be responsible for the Church Manual and its application, has already written a letter addressed to the Takoma Park Church… As one of your elders, I am in full support of the Church Manual’ (Matthew Bediako, General Conference Executive Secretary, in a letter dated May 28, 2008).

“Recently, letters of additional clarification have been received from Larry Evans, Undersecretary of the General Conference, and Armando Miranda, General Conference General Vice President and Church Manual Committee Chairperson. Their letters are enclosed in their entirety.

“Our goal is to reestablish at the Takoma Park Church a system of governance which is wholly in accordance with the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual both in theory and in practice.

“There are additional issues pertaining to and arising from this deviation from governance according to the Church Manual to be addressed at a future date.”

Next: Last Minute

Religious

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 21

"The Hebrews demanded a king of Samuel, like the nations around them. By preferring a despotic monarch to the wise and mild government of God Himself, by the jurisdiction of His prophets, they showed a great want of faith in God, and confidence in His providence to raise them up rulers to lead and govern them. The children of Israel being peculiarly the people of God, their form of government was essentially different from all the nations around them. God had given them statutes and laws, and had chosen their rulers for them, and these leaders the people were to obey in the Lord. In all cases of difficulty and great perplexity, God was to be inquired of. Their demand for a king was a rebellious departure from God, their special leader. He knew that a king would not be best for His chosen people. . . . If they had a king, whose hearts was lifted up and not right with God, he would lead them away from Him, and cause them to rebel against Him. The Lord knew that no one could occupy the position of king, and receive the honors usually given to a king, without becoming exalted, and their ways seem right in their own eyes, while at the same time they were sinning against God" (Conflict and Courage, p.146).

The Epic, Pt. 63

The following letter was written by Armando Miranda, General Conference vice president and chair of the Church Manual Committee. He was asked to clarify whether the Church Manual is a set of guidelines or if it is the intent that the Church Manual be followed by all churches around the world.

From: Miranda, Armando
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: Authority of the Church Manual

To Whom It May Concern:

In order to respond to your question I would like to share with you some quotes from the Church Manual itself.

The Chapter 1 "Authority of the Church and the Church Manual", page 2, says,

1. "Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience." - RH, vol. 50, No. 14, P.106.

2. "The Church of Christ is in constant peril. Satan is seeking to destroy the people of God, and one man's mind, one man's judgment, is not sufficient to be trusted. Christ would have His followers brought together in church capacity, observing order, having rules and discipline, and all subject one to another, esteeming others better than themselves." - Testimonies, vol.3, p.445.

3. In these inspired words, in the 1877 General Conference action (and ratified every five years in GC Sessions), and in the need for well-defined rules that are requisite to good order is found a basis for this Church Manual and its rightful claim upon us all, both ministry and laity.

4. The Content of the Church Manual is the expression of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's understanding of Christian life and church governance and discipline based on biblical principles. It expresses the authority of a duly assembled General Conference session. "God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority." - Testimonies, vol.9, p.261.

On page xxi, the first paragraph states, ....."The content of this Church Manual, as it is presented in chapters and sections within the chapters, is divided into two types of material. The main content of each chapter is of worldwide value and applicable to every church."

As you can see the Church Manual is not a set of guidelines, it is the way that the church has to operate. I hope that this material may help in solving some doubts in regard to the Church Manual.

May the Lord bless you.

Armando Miranda
GC General Vice President
Church Manual Chair

Next: Preparing the Way

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 62

As the Group was preparing for the executive committee meeting we received two new letters from General Conference personnel reinforcing our position. The first of these letters is included below. The second will be included in the next chapter of the Epic.

May 20, 2009

To Whom It May Concern,

I have been requested to respond to the question as to whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual is to be considered “authoritative” in regard to local church governance or if it is meant to serve as “a guideline.” The answer to this question is answered in the Church Manual and can be seen in the following excerpts:

“The 2000 General Conference Session authorized the reclassification of some existing Church Manual material and approved the process for making modifications to such. The content of this Church Manual, as it is presented in chapters and sections within chapters, is divided into two types of material. The main content of each chapter is of worldwide value and applicable to every church. Recognizing the need for some variations, additional material which is explanatory in nature appears as Notes at the end of some chapters and is given as guidance. The Notes have subheadings which correspond to chapter subheadings and correlate to specific page numbers.” (p.xxi)

“The content of the Church Manual is the expression of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s understanding of Christian life and church governance and discipline based on biblical principles. It expresses the authority of a duly assembled General Conference session. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority.” (p.2)

The General Conference Working Policy (2008-2009) reinforces the same concept.

“BA 15 05 Standards and Practices—The standards and practices of the church are based upon the principles set forth in the Church Manual, published by the General Conference. These principles are to be followed in all matters pertaining to the administration of local churches both within the church and in its relationship to higher levels of organization. No attempt should be made by any employee to set up standards of membership or to make, or attempt to enforce, rules or regulations for the church which have not been adopted by the general body of believers and which are not set forth in the Church Manual.”

It seems clear that the Seventh-day Adventist Church understands the Church Manual to be authoritative in matters of governance. Acceptable variances are located within the Notes section. Authoritative is understood to be more than guidelines by the way any change or alteration in governance is approached. The recognized time and manner for change(s) to be made is at a General Conference Session. It is appropriate for a constituent level of the Church, using the defined process, to make recommendations for change. The process for change is outlined in both the Church Manual (p.xxi) and the General Conference Working Policy BA 15 10).

In light of the above context we also find the following:

“Churches should look to the local conference for advice pertaining to the operating of the church or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If mutual understanding or agreement is not reached, the matter should be referred to the union for clarification.” (p.xxii)

In closing, the representative form of governance is found at all constituent levels of the Church with each level having the responsibility of supporting the decisions voted by the General Conference in session.

I trust this is helpful as we work together to foster both unity and mission for the advancement of God’s work.

Sincerely,

Larry R Evans, D.Min.
Undersecretary
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Next: You Can Say That Again

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 61

The Group was represented at the May 19, 2009 meeting by Brother G, Elder C, and Sister L. Pastor DeSilva’s party was unchanged. The two representatives from the executive committee were Henry Wright and Kermit Netteburg, both of whom are pastors of neighboring congregations. Elder Miller began the meeting with a synopsis of the process to date. He then turned the floor over to Brother G, who read the hastily prepared five minute statement summarizing the Group’s position. I say “hastily prepared” because the Group had had only three days’ notice that a statement would be required, which was substantially less time than the Group usually took to create a document with which it was fully satisfied. The statement didn’t say anything the Group hadn’t said before, but for the sake of the completeness of this record it is included below.

“Our appeal is to reestablish in the Takoma Park Church a system of governance which is mandated by the Seventh-day Adventist World Church and stipulated in the Church Manual.

“Because a paragraph contained in the Paul Borden document voted, November 17, 2007 under very unusual and unethical circumstances during the Sabbath Worship Hour, required the implementation of a “staff-led church” structure, the present governance system of the Takoma Park SDA Church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is the major contention. It is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as mandated in the Church Manual.

“As a result of the adoption of the Borden Report, Pastor DeSilva instituted two boards, the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board. Neither Board fulfills the requirements and responsibilities of a Church Board, nor does a combination of these Boards, as later proposed by Pastor DeSilva, reinstate the Church Board with the total authority and responsibility mandated in the Church Manual. Especially missing in these boards is that of church financial authority and responsibility. Also Pastor DeSilva, in placing his position between committees and the Church Business Meeting in the organizational-structural flow charts, is in contradiction with the Church Manual and Seventh-day Adventist governance principles. All committees, including the Finance Committee, except the Nominating Committee, are required to report directly to the Church Board, not to the Pastor, and then to the Church in Business Meeting. The former is not democratic or a representative form of governance.

“The issues before us are the result of the adoption of the Paul Borden Report which introduced a foreign concept of church governance. A Potomac Conference official was present at one of the town hall meetings to promote/explain the Borden Report. Thus it was assumed that the “staff-led church” issue was officially endorsed by the Potomac Conference Executive Committee, but this was and is not the case.

“It has been stated that the action taken by the Takoma Park Church in Business Meeting has its own authority to approve and utilize a different local governing structure than that mandated in the Church Manual, if it so wishes. Then, would not that same reasoning also sanction the Takoma Park Church to take an action to retain all tithes and offerings for local use? No higher Church entity would sanction this. The fallacy of that reasoning is very evident.

“Our proposal is to rescind the Paul Borden Report and to reinstate the Church Board mandated by the Church Manual in a properly called and conducted Church Business Meeting with representatives from higher organizations present.”

When Brother G concluded Sister L added the disclaimer that the statement was only a brief summary of the Group’s position, not a comprehensive description. She also reemphasized that Group representatives were not empowered to make decisions on behalf of the Group, only to present the Group’s position and report back to the Group on the results of the meeting.

The floor was then turned over to Pastor DeSilva for a five minute statement of his own. Pastor DeSilva didn’t have a written statement to present—he simply made an improvised response to the Group’s statement. In his statement he claimed that the finance committee, and therefore financial oversight for the church, was part of the church ministries board because the finance committee chair was on the church ministries board. (This is a faulty understanding of committee relationships—having the chair of one committee sit on another committee doesn’t make the two committees one body.) He further stated that any church member could obtain a report about the financial condition of the church from the church office at any time. (Such “openness” is nice, but not relevant here since the question is not about availability of data but rather who oversees the financial decisions that produce the data.) He also claimed that he had never made executive decisions for the church and that the church ministries board was in fact a church board, just with a different name and a focus on implementing the mission and vision. (As we have already chronicled numerous executive decisions from Pastor DeSilva in previous posts we won’t repeat ourselves. Suffice it to say that this was yet another lie. As for whether or not the church ministries board fits the criteria for a church board as stipulated in the Church Manual, we refer you to the previous post entitled “The Documentation.”)

Next, the two executive committee members asked "clarification" questions. Pastor Wright asked what the church ministries board was doing that the church board before it had not done. Elder D responded that it spent a greater portion of its time discussing ministry. Pastor Wright also asked for an explanation of what the Group meant by the “unusual and unethical circumstances” of the vote on the Borden Report. Sister L briefly described the concerns about doing business during Sabbath hours and the executive decision by Pastor DeSilva to include the structure change in the vote on the Borden Report despite the decision of the church to exclude that portion. Pastor DeSilva interjected that he had to do that because the Borden Report itself said that it must be voted up or down in its entirety. (See “The Epic, Pt. 5” for a dissection of that argument.)

Pastor Wright also inquired about the exact size of the Group. When asked why that mattered he responded that you can’t please everybody, so you have to please the majority. In responding to his original question Sister L stated that as the Group had never established a formal membership role an exact number couldn’t be provided. To give Pastor Wright a general idea of the scope of how much of the congregation was unhappy with the situation she asked Brother G, who is an associate head deacon, to provide estimates of weekly attendance before Paul Borden’s visit compared with current attendance estimates. Brother G stated that before Paul Borden attendance had been 300-400 per week, and that it was currently 250-300. (In other words, roughly 25% of the active congregation was not only dissatisfied with the situation, but so upset over it that they had completely ceased to attend.)

Pastor Netteburg asked Elder J (Takoma Park’s head elder) how the role had changed under the altered system of governance. Elder J admitted that this was his first term as head elder, and only his second term as an elder at all, and that he couldn’t make a comparison. Pastor Netteburg also asked how the composition of the church ministries board differed from a proper church board. Sister L responded by providing him with a copy of the chart the Group had prepared to compare the memberships. (See our post “The Documentation” for this chart.) Pastor DeSilva was not happy to see the chart presented again and tried to discredit it by claiming that it had been discarded in the previous meeting and that it was just opinion anyway. At that point Elder D stated that he had asked the meaning of the asterisks on the chart in the previous meeting but none of the Group’s representatives had remembered their purpose off the top of their heads. Brother G acknowledged that temporary memory failure from the previous meeting. Sister L pointed out that the meaning of the asterisks was printed at the bottom of the chart itself.

Pastor Netteburg moved on to his next question. “If the church board two years ago had wanted to deal with ministry more often than carpet color could it have done so? What kept it from disciplining itself to get carpet off the agenda and evangelism on the agenda?” When these questions produced only hemming and hawing from Pastor DeSilva’s party he pushed the point a little further, “If the board had been discussing the ministries of the church would it have had time to discuss the color of the carpet? It strikes me that what’s happened here is a mission change and a name change, but something that could have been accomplished in a church board. I’m just trying to understand if there’s a reason why that couldn’t have happened.” Sister L responded that there was no reason whatsoever why the renewed interest in ministry could not have happened without the change in governance. Elder J responded that the governance changes were “just an idea to refocus.”

Pastor Netteburg also asked what the church ministries board couldn’t do that the church board could. In response Sister L provided him with the Group’s other chart comparing the duties of a proper church board with those of the church ministries board and support and accountability board. She also pointed out that both charts were not opinion, but fact, as their data was drawn directly from material created by Pastor DeSilva.

When the executive committee members were satisfied Elder Miller then spelled out the way the executive committee meeting would work. He informed everyone that each side was to have seven minutes to make their case, that each was to have their position in written form, and that after the two presentations the committee would have 20-40 minutes for questions. He said that after that the committee would go into executive session to consider the matter. Elder Miller did not specify the number of people who could be present from each side. Sister L asked permission to prepare some advance materials for the committee members to compensate for the short presentation time. This request was granted.

When Elder Miller had finished laying out the presentation format for the executive committee meeting Pastor DeSilva asked whether the executive committee would be the end of the matter. The Brother G pointed out that, contrary to the minutes prepared by Elder Ramirez, he and the Group’s other representatives had not made any such commitment at the previous meeting and were not currently making any such commitment. This generated a brief discussion of appeal procedure and which entities had the right to get involved and in what capacity. Elder Miller asserted that the only point on which the union or any higher body could consider an appeal was the question of whether the conference had followed proper biblical protocol in dealing with the issue. When asked whether that satisfied his concern Pastor DeSilva responded that he understood all of that; he just wanted the Group to know it. He went on to say that he had heard people saying that if the conference didn’t provide justice that the union could correct them, and he wanted to be clear that that isn’t the way the church works. Pastor DeSilva then referenced the letters from Elders Howard, Parmenter, and Bediako, claiming that he had been “so appalled” by their involvement when he didn’t even know them. (We’ll address the subjects of appeal protocol and the involvement of experts later in a separate post.)

Pastor DeSilva also asked Elder Miller whether the "disruption in the church" if the Group continued to pursue an appeal beyond the executive committee could be grounds for discipline. Elder Miller replied that it might be.

Next: Authoritative

Religious

The Sins of the Conference, Pt. 5

Elder Miller initially stated, “The next appropriate step would have been to then contact the conference administration with your dispute…and request a meeting. If the decision then made would not have met your group’s approval it would then be referred to the Executive Committee.”(1) With each succeeding communication this stipulated process proliferated. In Elder Miller’s next letter he stated, “It will be necessary for you…to make contact with Jorge Ramirez and work with him and follow an agreed outlined process of Matt 18.”(2)

Having held the required meeting with Elder Ramirez, the requirement changed once again. “The next step in this process is for you to engage in a one on one dialogue with Alan DeSilva…But before you do this it is important that you and the group write a document outlining all the issues at hand so that this document can serve as the basis for this dialogue…the next step will be to hold a meeting (or meetings, as the Holy Spirit sees fit) with 2-3 individuals from each group…Finally, the last step in this process should nothing be resolved, then will be to bring the issues before the executive committee.”(3) At the meeting with three individuals from each side all parties agreed that the next meeting would be with the executive committee, yet the process was enlarged once again and we were required to attend yet another process meeting.(4)

L) Elders Miller and Ramirez wronged us by repeatedly adding steps to the process to make it more difficult to complete.

M) Elder Miller wronged us by dictating a process without any consideration for what we considered reasonable, in direct contradiction to the statement in his second letter that it would be an “agreed outlined process.”(5) Never did he give us an opportunity to agree or disagree; he simply demanded compliance.

(1) Letter to Elder B dated June 17, 2008
(2) Letter to Elder B dated July 14, 2008
(3) Letter to Brother G dated October 30, 2008
(4) Email to Brother G dated May 17, 2009
(5) Letter to Elder B dated July 14, 2008

The Epic, Pt. 60

The conference did not make any immediate reply to the messages sent on May 8 and May 11, 2009. With the 19th and the meeting proposed for that date fast approaching the Group began to wonder if the meeting was proceeding, or if the silence meant that it had been called off. On Friday, May 15 Brother G sent another message asking the status of the situation.

On Saturday night, May 16,2009, Elder Ramirez responded to Brother G with a voicemail. His message stated that he was trying to understand the latest email and that he assumed that we wanted him to completely disregard the first email, where we had “several issues.” He further stated that since we did not question the May 19th meeting he was assuming that we were fine with it. (As explained earlier, there is some allowance for confusion regarding which message Elder Ramirez was asked to ignore, but his claim that we had no questions about the May 19th meeting when he had received an entire message full of them was a bit hard to swallow.) The voicemail reiterated who was to be present at the May 19 meeting, when it would take place, and assured Brother G that there was no hidden agenda. It also included a new stipulation—that we should prepare a five-minute statement to introduce our main issues and concerns.

On May 17 Brother G and Elder Ramirez connected by phone, at which time Brother G clarified the confusion about the message he had asked Elder Ramirez to ignore. He also pointed out that the Group did have questions about the May 19 meeting, most notably why it should be necessary at all. Elder Ramirez didn’t provide answers to any of the questions we had posed, but he did positively state that if the Group did not participate in the meeting on the 19th we would not be permitted to appear before the executive committee. The phone call was followed up with an email from Elder Ramirez that night.

“Dear [Brother G],

“It was nice to talk to you and respond to some of your concerns. I am really hoping that you and the other representatives of the group will be able to attend the meeting on Tuesday, May 19 at 4 pm at the Buccaneer House. During this meeting we will review process and final details in preparation for the meeting with the Executive Committee on May 28. Also, please be prepared to talk about the issue in question in five minutes or less. We will have two representatives from the executive committee joining us.

“As to the 'corrected' minutes, I am having a hard time understanding your version of it. I thank you and welcome some of the observations made on punctuation, and spelling of names. But to remove and add words and complete paragraphs I am not sure I am comfortable with that. I will continue to look into this and will give you a respond by Tuesday, during our meeting.

“Again, thank you for the opportunity to dialogue. Have a blessed day.

“Jorge A. Ramírez”

The Group was now faced with the necessity of attending a meeting we didn’t understand and saw no need for in order to prevent our right to appear before the executive committee from being wrenched out of our grasp. We became concerned that if we were to object to any conditions that might be laid down at the May 19 meeting for the executive committee appearance that that also might be used as an excuse to keep us from appearing. Given this possibility the Group decided to agree to anything the conference stipulated which did not compromise our mission.

Next: Stipulations

Religious

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 20

“The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what.

“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance.

“And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning to men, putting human wisdom in place of divine” (Gospel Workers, pp. 298, 299).

"God does not compel men to give up their unbelief. Before them are light and darkness, truth and error. It is for them to decide which they will accept. The human mind is endowed with power to discriminate between right and wrong. God designs that men shall not decide from impulse, but from weight of evidence, carefully comparing scripture with scripture. Had the Jews laid by their prejudice and compared written prophecy with the facts characterizing the life of Jesus, they would have perceived a beautiful harmony between the prophecies and their fulfillment in the life and ministry of the lowly Galilean.

"Many are deceived today in the same way as were the Jews. Religious teachers read the Bible in the light of their own understanding and traditions; and the people do not search the Scriptures for themselves, and judge for themselves as to what is truth; but they yield up their judgment, and commit their souls to their leaders. The preaching and teaching of His word is one of the means that God has ordained for diffusing light; but we must bring every man's teaching to the test of Scripture. Whoever will prayerfully study the Bible, desiring to know the truth, that he may obey it, will receive divine enlightenment. He will understand the Scriptures. 'If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching.' John 7:17, R. V." (The Desire of Ages, pp. 458, 459).

The Epic, Pt. 59

Below are the corrected minutes of the previous meeting which were prepared by the Group. Like Elder Ramirez’s minutes they have been reformatted because of Blogger’s distaste for tabs. Since Blogger also doesn't do underline or strikethrough words that were added are in green and words that were removed are in red. Content is unaltered.

“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership and Small Church Group Takoma Park Church Plaintive Leadership Representatives Special Meeting
“April 16, 2009
“6:00 pm

“Minutes
“Present: [Elder J], [Elder D], Pastor Alan DeSilva, [Elder C], [Brother X], [Brother G] and Jorge Ramirez

“Welcome
“Elder Jorge Ramirez introduced himself and welcomed representatives from both groups. He thanked everyone for being present.

“Devotional
“Elder Ramirez shared a brief devotional from Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 299-301 dealing with division and discord in the church. An appeal was made to both parties to consider in prayer the unity that can only be achieved in Christ.

“Prayer
“Elder Ramirez offered prayer to begin the meeting.

“Summary of last meeting
“Elder Ramirez briefly summarized the contents from last meeting between [Brother G] and Pastor pastor Alan DeSilva. The issue at hand is: 'The present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.' After much discussion between the two parties, Pastor pastor DeSilva submitted in good faith a proposal to [Brother G] to resolve the disagreement. The proposal was: 'To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.' Further, the proposal was subject to the following conditions: (1) Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual, and (2) This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.

“[Brother G] thanked acknowledged Pastor pastor DeSilva’s for making this proposal, but indicated that as a representative from the group he would have to present such proposal to them for their consideration.

“Process leading to this meeting
“On February 15, 2009 Elder Ramirez received an email from [Brother G], indicating that the group had met and considered Pastor pastor DeSilva’s proposal but had some objections and therefore could not accept it. The Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Group agreed to meet in another meeting, as originally outlined by the Conference, in order to follow Matthew 18, to the asked that another meeting be scheduled with a larger representation from both sides to further discuss the matter.

“Elder Ramirez responded the same day indicating that the Plaintiff Leadership group agreed request to meet with a larger group. was appropriate. He further asked that the names of the three representatives as well as an outline of their objections be sent send to him in writing before the meeting could take place. He would work on scheduling the meeting date. The requested information was sent in and It was set for the meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 16 at 7 6 pm.

“Review of process for this meeting
“Elder Ramirez indicated that the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s group would have 20 minutes to introduce their objections to Pastor pastor DeSilva’s proposal with no interruptions. After their presentation, Pastor pastor DeSilva and the Church Defendant Leadership would also have 20 minutes to respond to the objections. After this, the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s group representatives would have an additional 15 minutes to add any further comments, followed by 15 minutes of rebuttal by the Church Defendant Leadership representatives. There was consensus by both parties as to the process to be followed for this meeting.

“Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership’s group rep’s
“[Brother G] explained that a rebuttal document outlining the Takoma Park Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s objections would be read by [Elder C] followed by further clarification from members of the group. Also, he indicated that the terms of reference for the Support and Accountability and Church Ministries Boards were being distributed as supporting evidence that the joining of them would not reinstate the Church Board according to the Church Manual. A chart of three columns comparing the Terms of References was disallowed because no one could explain the asterisks, while it was plainly explained at the bottom of the chart. [Elder C] read the three-page paper outlining the group’s objections.

“(Original paragraph is deleted.)

“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership’s group rep’s
“Pastor DeSilva and the rest of the church leadership responded by pointing out areas of concern and disagreement to the Takoma Park Church Leadership Plaintiff group’s objections. Some of their main observations were: (1) Church Manual is a guideline not doctrine, (2) In large churches such as Takoma Park, sometimes there is a need to create certain ministries and reorganize it’s structure in order to become more effective in carrying out the mission of the church. In addition, they reiterated their strong conviction that the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is in harmony with the Church Manual. They requested further clarification on a few items.

“Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership’s group rep’s
“Representatives from the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership group responded to some of the concerns objections raised by the Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership group. In addition, it was pointed out that the document that gives direction to this new structure was a document that was promoted created by the Conference Administration. Further, it was made very clear that parts of the Paul Borden Report are is the main issue cause for the lack of a church board. This was a recommendation coming from a Baptist minister.

“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership’s group rep’s
“The Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership group Rep’s once again expressed their concerns objections as to the strong conviction on some of the issues raised. Once again, it was evident that there was overwhelming disagreement as to the nature of the issues.

“Resolution
“After further discussion, both parties felt that it would be useless to continue the meeting since the disagreements between the two parties remained unchanged. Therefore, it was voted to refer this issue to the Potomac Conference Executive Committee for final resolution.

“It was further agreed by both parties that the Conference Executive Committee would be the final stop in this matter and that their decision would be final.”

Next: Confusion

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 58

Brother G sent two emails to Elder Ramirez on behalf of the Group on Friday, May 8, 2009. The first contained the Group’s questions regarding the proposed meeting on May 19 and the second explained the major issues the Group took with the minutes Elder Ramirez had prepared of the previous meeting. Our corrected minutes were attached to the second message. The two messages and the attached minutes had a common problem—all three used the word “plaintive” where “plaintiff” should have been used. Brother G noticed this mistake after sending the messages, corrected it, and resent the second message and attached minutes on Monday, May 11. In doing so he hoped to avoid a repetition of the earlier situation in which Elder Ramirez chose to repeat our words with spelling errors intact until we made a point of correcting them. Unfortunately, when he asked Elder Ramirez to ignore the message with the wrong word he mistakenly referred to it as the first message he had sent on May 8, which caused some confusion later on as to which message was to be ignored.

Included below are the first message sent on May 8 and the corrected version of the second message which was sent on May 11. Because of their length the Group’s version of the previous meeting’s minutes will be included in the next chapter of the Epic.

“Dear Jorge:

“Your phone call caught me off guard when you proposed a May 19, 2009 meeting. We all had agreed that the next step would be the Conference Executive Committee Meeting. It was equally surprising to the members of the Takoma Park Church Plaintive Leadership members.

“You stated that it was necessary for members of both sides of the issues plus Elder Miller and two members of the Conference Executive Committee to be present. You had also suggested that procedure would be the topic of discussion. Why the presence of two members of the Executive Committee? They know nothing of our presentation and perhaps nothing of Pastor DeSilva’s as well. Thus to review the information from both sides for the edification of the two Executive members while the other members of the Executive Committee are not present is puzzling, being the objective of the meeting on the 19th is one of procedure. We sincerely question the need to have an additional meeting before our appearance on the May 28th Executive Meeting. We, therefore, request a detailed agenda for the May 19th meeting and also request why two Executive Committee members are to be present.

“Our group is requesting that all future communications be written and not oral between us to avoid any future misunderstanding. Also, I, as the liaison between you and members of the Takoma Park Plaintive Leadership members, will better convey your thoughts accurately than I otherwise could do orally.

“Sincerely,

“[Brother G]”

“Dear Jorge,

“On Friday I sent you an email regarding the corrected Minutes. Please disregard that email and its attachments. I am now sending you a CORRECTED copy. Please disregard the first letter sent to you dated May 8.

“Attached are the corrected minutes.

“There are several items which we have corrected in harmony with what took place. There are at least two instances where we wish to clarify our standing as the plaintiff part of the Takoma Park leadership. It is not Pastor DeSilva and Takoma Park Leadership vs 'a small group.' Please note that personnel from the Takoma Park Church Leadership and other general members are both members of what we are designating 'plaintiff leadership' vs 'defendant leadership.' For example: [Brother G] is part of Takoma Park Church Leadership. In reality the entire church is divided. It is not a small group vs church leadership. Today most of the membership no longer attends.

“The other notable item to which we take exception is found in the last two paragraphs of the minutes stating that there was an agreement that the final resolution in this matter is with the Conference Executive Committee. This is incorrect. I had stated that the Union would then become involved, if this issue were not resolved. My comment was based on remarks made by Elder Miller in a letter dated June 17, 2008 to [Elder B] that if we were not satisfied, this issue would go on to the Union. Please see Elder Miller’s attached letter.

“In the corrected minutes attached file I have underlined words to be added and used strikethrough for words to be removed.

“Sincerely,

“[Brother G]”

Next: Minutes, Version 2

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 57

By May of 2009 Takoma Park had been without a choir director for about five months. Pastor DeSilva wanted to put in a new director who would ease the music style of the church away from its traditional roots. There were some within the congregation (not a majority, but some) who were clamoring for more contemporary and/or gospel music within the worship repertoire and Pastor DeSilva believed that he could increase his popularity by catering to this demographic. Earlier in the year he had brought in a potential replacement to guest direct for a Sabbath and it had been a fiasco. (It was discovered as a result of this trial run that the woman couldn’t read music, among other things.)

Pastor DeSilva tried again, presenting his new candidate to the music council when it met on May 2, 2009. He asked for immediate approval of the candidate without either interview or audition. His justification for this omission of due diligence was that the church’s attendance was suffering for lack of choral participation in the worship and that the post needed to be filled immediately in order to turn the situation around. (Lack of a choir director was not the reason attendance had fallen off, but it made a convenient excuse to direct attention away from the real reasons.) Pastor DeSilva also presented an altered job description to the music council. He wanted a full-time "Minister of Music" who would direct the choir, choose all other music to be performed during all worship services, be a backup organist, chair of the music council, and report directly to the senior pastor rather than any elected committee. At that time the music counsel chairmanship was an elected position with an incumbent who would be forced out of office if this new position and job description were approved. After lengthy debate the music counsel voted that they wanted a simple choir director, not this fancy new all-encompassing position. (No action was taken regarding the candidate Pastor DeSilva had put forward.)

At a meeting of the ministries board the next morning (May 3) Pastor DeSilva again brought up the new Minister of Music position he wanted to create. He again made his pitch about the music department being in a "pitiful" state, and how the decision simply couldn't be delayed any longer, despite concerns about the matter being rushed and not given due consideration. The vote of the music counsel was glossed over as an expression of "concern" about the new position heading the music counsel. (The music counsel’s official representative on the ministries board didn’t challenge the pastor’s spin.) The proposed job description for this new position caused some heated debate which Pastor DeSilva arbitrarily cut off. He then called for a vote on the job description for the Minister of Music position. It was approved. Pastor DeSilva also introduced the resume of his candidate for the position, but stated that it was for information only, as the accountability board would be making the final decision.

The accountability board met the next week to interview Pastor DeSilva’s candidate for Minister of Music. Pastor DeSilva was recovering from a medical procedure and couldn’t attend the meeting, so he sent the head elder as his proxy. (Proxies are expressly forbidden by the Church Manual, but Pastor DeSilva sent one anyway.) During the meeting the music counsel chair (who was an invitee at that particular meeting) mentioned that she had another name for consideration. She hadn't put it forward because the pastor's mind seemed made up and it didn't appear that alternate candidates were welcome. The head elder pushed for the immediate hire of Pastor DeSilva's candidate, but the accountability board decided to interview the other one first. It was agreed that the other candidate would be interviewed on the following Monday and that both candidates would be given the opportunity to audition as guest choir directors before a decision would be finalized.

During a business meeting on May 17 the matter of the new Minister of Music position came up in the context of evaluating the annual budget and finding salary for the position. The proposal was that this new position should come with a salary of $20,000 for a six month "trial." (Takoma Park has previously given three month trials, but when the proposed duration was questioned Pastor DeSilva simply claimed that “we’ve always done six month trials.” This wasn’t true, but no one chose to call the pastor a liar in front of the business meeting.) There was extensive discussion about whether or not $20,000 was an appropriate salary for six months of work, but it was finally approved.

When the budget discussions concluded Pastor DeSilva again brought up the Minister of Music position. He wanted action from the meeting on whether to hold an emergency business meeting when the accountability board was ready to recommend a candidate or simply let the accountability board hire someone and bless their decision at the next regularly scheduled business meeting. Pastor DeSilva strongly pushed the second option, citing the “bother” of having an emergency business meeting and the supposed need to fill this new position quickly. He was in such a hurry that he didn’t even want to allow the auditions that the accountability board had decided to give both candidates. He even went so far as to express indignance at the concept, claiming that nothing could be learned from the auditions (a remarkable statement given what was learned from the audition of his first candidate) and that the church didn’t require him to audition before hiring him as pastor. It was ultimately decided to proceed with the auditions and have an emergency business meeting to approve a candidate.

After that matter was decided a member tried to make a motion to amend the proposed job description for the Minister of Music to exclude the part about being chair of the music counsel. Pastor DeSilva refused to acknowledge the motion. He claimed first that because the ministries board had already voted it that the business meeting couldn't change it. Then he changed his argument and said that as senior pastor it was his right to write all job descriptions in the church and that he didn't have to get any approval for them. These two arguments are, of course, both faulty for the same reason. The business meeting is the highest authority in the congregation and has the right to overrule any decision of any other committee or employee, including the pastor. By refusing the motion Pastor DeSilva placed himself above the business meeting, in direct contradiction to the order called for in the Church Manual.

The alternate candidate for the Minister of Music position was interviewed by the accountability board on May 18, 2009. It was discovered that he was not a US citizen and didn't have his work papers in order, so that was the end of that. On Sabbath morning, May 23, Pastor DeSilva announced there would be an emergency business meeting on May 27 to hold a "courtesy vote" to hire the new Minister of Music. Pastor DeSilva got his courtesy vote at the May 27 meeting.

Next: A Word

Religious

Thoughts on a Snow Day

Since the entire state of Maryland seems to be stuck under a snow bank for the time being we have an entertainment suggestion to offer: read chapter eight of The Great Controversy. For those who don't happen to have a hard copy of the book it can also be found online. Simply follow the link below, click on "Go to: Book and Page," select The Great Controversy, p.145, and hit Search.

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default

The chapter is entitled, "Luther Before the Diet," and describes Martin Luther's defense of his beliefs before the German emperor. It's quite interesting.

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 19

“It is a fact widely ignored, though never without danger, that error rarely appears for what it really is. It is by mingling with or attaching itself to truth that it gains acceptance. The eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil caused the ruin of our first parents, and the acceptance of a mingling of good and evil is the ruin of men and women today. The mind that depends upon the judgment of others is certain, sooner or later, to be misled.

“The power to discriminate between right and wrong we can possess only through individual dependence upon God. Each for himself is to learn from Him through His word. Our reasoning powers were given us for use, and God desires them to be exercised. ‘Come now, and let us reason together’ (Isaiah 1:18), He invites us. In reliance upon Him we may have wisdom to ‘refuse the evil, and choose the good.’ Isaiah 7:15; James 1:5” (Education, pp. 230, 231).

“But light and darkness cannot harmonize. Between truth and error there is an irrepressible conflict. To uphold and defend the one is to attack and overthrow the other. Our Saviour Himself declared: 'I came not to send peace, but a sword.' Matthew 10:34. Said Luther, a few years after the opening of the Reformation: 'God does not guide me, He pushes me forward. He carries me away. I am not master of myself. I desire to live in repose; but I am thrown into the midst of tumults and revolutions.'--D'Aubigne, b. 5, ch. 2” (The Great Controversy, pp. 126, 127).

“God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe His word to awake out of sleep. Precious light has come, appropriate for this time. It is Bible truth, showing the perils that are right upon us. This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures, and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold” (Gospel Workers, p.299).

The Epic, Pt. 56

On April 30, 2009 Brother G received a phone call from Elder Ramirez, who said that he would be sending Brother G an email later in the day with minutes of the previous meeting. Elder Ramirez also informed Brother G that the Potomac Conference Executive Committee would next meet on May 28, 2009. (He did not explicitly state whether or not the Group would be allowed to appear at that meeting). He did say that Elder Miller had decided to resume direct oversight of the “process” and wanted to meet with the representatives of both sides of the dispute on May 19. The purpose of this meeting was explained only as explaining the process of presenting this matter to the executive committee. Elder Ramirez also said that the attendees of this meeting would be everyone who had been at the last one plus Elder Miller and two members of the executive committee (Brother G wasn’t told which two or why these additional individuals were to be present). Brother G asked whether Elder Ramirez intended to include the information about the May 19 meeting in the email Elder Ramirez had said he would be sending later in the day. His response was, "No, that's why I'm calling you," but when the email showed up it did include the same information about the proposed meeting.

“Dear [Brother G] and Pastor DeSilva,

“In preparation for the Executive Committee meeting on Thursday, May 28, 2009, Bill is scheduling a special meeting with the three representatives from each group for Tuesday, May 19 at 4 pm at the Buccaneer House. Please confirm that you will be able to attend. I am also attaching the minutes from our last meeting. Please review them to ensure that they reflect the content of the meeting. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you for continuing to be a part of this process. I wish you a blessed day.

“Jorge A. Ramírez”

The minutes Elder Ramirez sent are included below. They have been reformatted slightly in the transition to this forum because Blogger doesn’t seem to acknowledge tabs, but the content is unaltered.

“Takoma Park Church Leadership and Small Church Group Representatives Special Meeting
“April 16, 2009
“6:00 pm
“Minutes

“Present: [Elder J-misspelled], [Elder D-misspelled], pastor Alan DeSilva, [Elder C-misspelled], [Brother X-misspelled], [Brother G] and Jorge Ramirez

“Welcome
“Elder Jorge Ramirez introduced himself and welcomed representatives from both groups. He thanked everyone for being present.

“Devotional
“Elder Ramirez shared a brief devotional from Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 299-301 dealing with division and discord in the church. An appeal was made to both parties to consider in prayer the unity that can only be achieved in Christ.

“Prayer
“Elder Ramirez offered prayer to begin the meeting.

“Summary of last meeting
“Elder Ramirez briefly summarized the contents from last meeting between [Brother G] and pastor Alan DeSilva. The issue at hand is: ‘The present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.’ After much discussion between the two parties, pastor DeSilva submitted in good faith a proposal to [Brother G] to resolve the disagreement. The proposal was: ‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.’ Further, the proposal was subject to the following conditions: (1) Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual, and (2) This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.

"[Brother G] thanked pastor DeSilva for making this proposal, but indicated that as a representative from the group he would have to present such proposal to them for their consideration.

“Process leading to this meeting
“On February 15, 2009 Elder Ramirez received an email from [Brother G], indicating that the group had met and considered pastor DeSilva’s proposal but had some objections and therefore could not accept it. The group asked that another meeting be scheduled with larger representation from both sides to further discuss the matter.

“Elder Ramirez responded the same day indicating that the group’s request to meet with a larger group was appropriate. He further asked that the names of the three representatives as well as an outline of their objections be send to him in writing before the meeting could take place. He would work on scheduling the meeting date. The requested information was sent in and the meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 16 at 7 pm.

“Review of process for this meeting
“Elder Ramirez indicated that the Takoma Park church group would have 20 minutes to introduce their objections to pastor DeSilva’s proposal with no interruptions. After their presentation, pastor DeSilva and the church leadership would also have 20 minutes to respond to the objections. After this, the Takoma Park church group representatives would have an additional 15 minutes to add any further comments, followed by 15 minutes of rebuttal by the church leadership representatives. There was consensus by both parties as to the process to be followed for this meeting.

“Takoma Park church group rep’s
“[Brother G] explained that a written statement outlining the group’s objections to pastor DeSilva’s proposal would be read by [Brother X-mispelled], followed by further clarification from other members of the group. Also, he indicated that two additional documents were being distributed as supporting evidence. Eventually, the document showing three columns was disallowed due to the fact that the group’s representatives could not explain it. [Brother X-misspelled] went on to read the three-page paper outlining the group’s objections.

“Takoma Park church leadership
“Pastor DeSilva and the rest of the church leadership responded by pointing out areas of concern and disagreement to the group’s objections. Some of their main observations were: (1) Church Manual is a guideline not doctrine, (2) In large churches such as Takoma Park, sometimes there is a need to create certain ministries and reorganize it’s structure in order to become more effective in carrying the mission of the church. In addition, they reiterated their strong conviction that the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is in harmony with the Church Manual. They requested further clarification on a few items.

“Takoma Park church group rep’s
“Representatives from the group responded to some of the concerns raised by the church leadership. In addition, it was pointed out that the document that gives direction to this new structure was a document that was created by the Conference. Further, it was made very clear that the Paul Borden Report is the main issue. This was a recommendation coming from a Baptist minister.

“Takoma Park church leadership
“The church leadership once again expressed their concerns as to the strong language on some of the issues raised. Once again, it was evident that there was overwhelming disagreement as to the nature of the issue.

“Resolution
“After further discussion, both parties felt that it would be useless to continue the meeting since the disagreements between the two parties remained unchanged. Therefore, it was voted to refer this issue to the Potomac Conference Executive Committee for final resolution.

“It was further agreed by both parties that the Conference Executive Committee would be the final stop in this matter and that their decision would be final.”

The Group, upon reviewing these minutes, concluded that they did not accurately reflect the Group’s understanding of what had taken place in the previous meeting. Beyond the numerous misspellings of names there were other errors, most notably the assertion that both sides had agreed that the decision of the Executive Committee would be final. The Group had always maintained a policy that representatives were not empowered to make agreements, only to present and report the results. This policy had not been set aside for this meeting. Even if it had, none of the Group’s representatives had any understanding of having entered into such an agreement. It was clear that substantial corrections needed to be made to the minutes.

Next: A Minister of Music

Religious

The Right Way

What a Church Board Does

“The church board is composed of the principal officers of the church. It has a number of important responsibilities, but its chief concern is the spiritual nurture of the church and the work of planning and fostering evangelism in all of its phases.

“The gospel commission of Jesus makes evangelism, proclaiming the good news of the gospel, the primary function of the church (Matt. 28:18-20). It is therefore also the primary function of the church board to serve as the chief committee of the local church. When the board devotes its first interests and highest energies to every-member evangelism, most church problems are alleviated or prevented. A strong, positive influence is felt in the spiritual life and growth of the membership.

“Included in church board responsibilities are:
1. Spiritual nurture.
2. Evangelism in all of its phases.
3. Maintenance 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.” (Church Manual, p. 90)

To put it simply, all aspects of running the local congregation are to be under the supervision of the church board. It is the church board's responsibility to keep things running smoothly while not losing sight of the fact that its primary task is evangelism. In order to keep its focus on evangelism the church board must discipline itself to deal with all other matters in an efficient and timely manner. This goal can be aided by the creation of subcommittees.

“Committees of the Board—The church board should permit no other business to interfere with planning for evangelism. Should other business be too time-consuming, the board may appoint committees to care for specific areas of church business, such as finance or church building projects. Such committees will then make recommendations to the church board. In this way the resources, of the board are conserved for its primary task—evangelism. (See Notes, #10, p. 100.)” (Church Manual, p. 92)

How the Church Board Should Spend Its Time

“Work of the Board—1. Planning evangelism in all of its phases. Since evangelism is the primary work of the church, the first item on the agenda of each church board meeting is to relate directly to the evangelization of the outreach (missionary) territory of the church. In addition, once each quarter of the year the entire church board meeting can well be devoted to plans for evangelism. The board will study local field committee recommendations for evangelistic programs and methods. It will determine how these can best be implemented by the church. The pastor and the church board will initiate and develop plans for public evangelistic campaigns.

“2. Coordinating outreach programs of departments. The church board is responsible for coordinating the work of all church departments. This includes the outreach programs of Personal Ministries, Sabbath School, Children’s Ministries, Youth, Health Ministries, and Education. Each of these departments develops its plans for outreach within its own sphere. To avoid conflict in timing and competition in securing volunteer helpers, and to achieve maximum beneficial results, coordination is essential. Before completing and announcing plans for any program, each department should submit its plans to the church board for approval. The departments also report to the church board on the progress and results of their outreach programs. The church board may suggest to the departments how their programs can contribute to the preparation, conduct, and follow-up of a public evangelistic campaign.

“3. Encouraging and helping the Personal Ministries Department of the church to enlist all church members and children in some form of personal outreach (missionary) service. Training classes should be conducted in various lines of outreach ministry.

"4. Cooperating with the Interest coordinator of the church to ensure that every reported interest in the message, aroused through whatever source, is personally and promptly followed up by an assigned layperson.

"5. Encouraging each department to report at least quarterly to the church board and to the church membership at business meetings and/or in Sabbath day meetings.

"6. The details of church business should be considered by the board, and the treasurer should report the state of the church’s finances on a regular basis. The church roll should be studied, and inquiry should be made into the spiritual standing of all the members, and provision made for visiting any sick, discouraged, or backslidden member. The other officers should report concerning the work for which they are responsible." (Church Manual, pp.91, 92)

Here we have inherent accountability. If every department is expected to report on its activities, plans, and results it becomes immediately obvious if a department is not participating/performing. The church board is likewise to be mindful of the church membership and arrange assistance for those who are struggling.

Who is on the Church Board

The Church Manual provides a specific list of officers who must be present on a church board. (See the Church Manual, pp.90, 91 for this list.) Local churches are allowed to customize their church board membership by including more individuals or positions than the Manual specifies, but not by subtracting officers from the provided list.

“In many cases two or more of these offices are carried by one individual. Additional members of the board may be elected by the church if desired. The minister appointed by the local field to serve the church as its pastor is always a member of the church board.

“Officers—The chairman of the church board is the minister appointed to serve the church as pastor. If the pastor prefers not to act in this capacity or is unable to be present, he may arrange for the church elder to preside as chairman on a pro tem basis. The church clerk serves as secretary of the board and is responsible for preserving the minutes of the meetings.” (Church Manual, p.91)

How to Hold a Church Board Meeting

“Meetings—Because the work of the church board is vital to the life, health, and growth of the church, it needs to meet at least once each month. In larger churches more frequent meetings may be needed. It is well to fix the monthly meeting time for the same week and the same day each month. (Example: The first Monday of each month.)

“The church board meeting is announced at the regular Sabbath worship service. Every effort should be made to have all board members present at each meeting.

“Each church should determine at one of its regularly called business meetings the number of church board members who must be present at a church board meeting to constitute a quorum. Votes by proxy or letter shall not be accepted.” (Church Manual, p. 91)

Again we see inherent accountability in the specification of a quorum. If a reasonable quorum cannot be achieved it is clear that the leadership of the church is not committed to the work to which it was elected, and the church should take appropriate action if a pattern is evident in this regard.

Business Meetings

“Church business meetings duly called by the pastor, or the church board in consultation with the pastor, may be held monthly or quarterly according to the needs of the church. Members in regular standing on the roll of the church conducting the business meeting may attend and vote. A quorum shall be decided by the church in a business meeting or by the church board. Votes by proxy or letter shall not be accepted. …A duly called business meeting of the church is a meeting that has been called at the regular Sabbath worship service, together with proper announcements as to the time and place of the meeting. At such meetings, at which the pastor will preside (or will arrange for the local elder to preside), full information should be given to the congregation regarding the work of the church. At the close of the year, reports should be rendered covering the activities of the church for the entire year, and, based on those reports, the church should approve a full plan of action for the next year. When possible, reports and the next year’s plan of action should be presented in writing. (See Notes, #9, p. 99.)” (Church Manual, p. 89)

From the Notes—“Reports may comprise the following activities:
“a. A report from the clerk, showing the present membership of the church and the number of members received and those transferred to other churches. Note also should be made, giving the number but not necessarily the names, of those who may have had to be removed from fellowship during the year, as well as those who have died. A brief statement of the decisions of the church board in its meetings would naturally be of interest to all members of the church.
“b. A report from the Personal Ministries leader, giving a statement of outreach (missionary) activities, including Community Services activities, together with any plans for future work. This should be followed by a report from the Personal Ministries secretary.
“c. A report from the treasurer, showing the amount of tithe received and sent to the conference/mission/field treasurer; also a full statement of mission offerings received and forwarded; and a statement showing local church funds received and disbursed.
“d. A report from the deacons and deaconesses, concerning visits to the members, their activities in behalf of the poor, and any other features that come under their supervision.
“e. A report from the secretary of the young people’s society, outlining the activities in outreach (missionary) and other lines by the youth of the church.
“f. A report from the Sabbath School secretary, giving the membership and other matters pertaining to the Sabbath School.
“g. A report from the treasurer as to the financial status of the church school, with details as to its needs in equipment and other matters.
“h. A report from the principal or teacher of the church school, covering such matters as enrollment, the educational progress of the school, baptisms among the schoolchildren, and the results of the children’s efforts in denominational endeavors.
“i. A report from the Home and School Association leader, covering the activities and needs of that organization.
“j. A report from the Communication secretary, covering press, radio, television, and other related activities involving church and community.” (Church Manual, pp. 99, 100)

When conducted according to these principles a business meeting becomes a prayer, praise, and testimony meeting. It should generate excitement for the work of the church as the membership is informed about the successes and challenges the various efforts are encountering. Business meetings would also become fertile ground for recruitment as members seek to be a part of the efforts described by the leadership.