Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 26

"Have faith in God. Unbelief can only deny and destroy. Faith lifts the head in confidence and trust. True workers walk and work by faith. Sometimes they grow weary with watching the slow advance of the work, when the battle wages strong between the powers of good and evil. But if they refuse to fail or be discouraged, they will see the clouds breaking away, and the promise of deliverance fulfilling. Through the mist with which Satan has surrounded them, they will see the shining of the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness.

"Work in faith, and leave the results with God. Pray in faith, and the mystery of God's providence will bring its answer. At times it may seem that you can not succeed; but work and believe, putting into your efforts faith and life and hope and courage. After you have done what you can, wait for the Lord, declaring his faithfulness, and he will bring his word to pass. Wait, not in fretful anxiety, but in undaunted faith and unshaken trust" (Southern Watchman, December 4, 1902 par. 6 & 7).

"Feeling is not faith; the two are distinct. Faith is ours to exercise, but joyful feeling and the blessing are God's to give. The grace of God comes to the soul through the channel of living faith, and that faith it is in our power to exercise.

"True faith lays hold of and claims the promised blessing before it is realized and felt. We must send up our petitions in faith within the second veil, and let our faith take hold of the promised blessing, and claim it as ours. We are then to believe that we receive the blessing, because our faith has hold of it, and according to the word it is ours. 'What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.' Mark 11:24. Here is faith, naked faith, to believe that we receive the blessing, even before we realize it. When the promised blessing is realized and enjoyed, faith is swallowed up. But many suppose they have much faith when sharing largely of the Holy Spirit, and that they cannot have faith unless they feel the power of the Spirit. Such confound faith with the blessing that comes through faith.

"The very time to exercise faith is when we feel destitute of the Spirit. When thick clouds of darkness seem to hover over the mind, then is the time to let living faith pierce the darkness and scatter the clouds" (Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen G. White, p.126).

The Epic, Pt. 81

Late in November 2009 Brother G and Elder Ramirez crossed paths and the conversation turned to conditions at Takoma Park. Brother G told Elder Ramirez how the situation had gotten worse rather than better. Later (on November 24, 2009), Brother G sent Elder Ramirez an email to document the exchange.

“Dear Jorge,

“I trust this letter will find you and your family well and enjoying your vacation.

“At our last meeting you had asked how the Takoma Park church was progressing. Sadly, there is no good news.

“After the Executive Committee recommendation, we refrained from further action to see what changes would be made. Unfortunately, it seems that Alan took this as a sign of victory. The new list of church officers, the majority picked by Alan, is further proof of his statement to eliminate those people that had opposed him.

“For over two years we have prayed and worked to stop the decline of the membership of the Takoma Park church. The Conference must address these issues, so that our church can return to its former glory and be a witness to the community.

“With God’s blessings,
“[Brother G]”

About a week later (on November 30, 2009) Elder Ramirez wrote back.

“[Brother G],

"Thank you for your update. I will share this with Bill, and take the necessary steps to revisit this issue. Have a blessed day.

“Jorge A. Ramirez”

We don’t know what Elder Ramirez deemed to be the “necessary steps,” but we have yet to discern any intention on the part of the Potomac Conference to revisit the issue and address the ongoing impediments to improvement in the conditions at Takoma Park.

Next: Discordant

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 80

When the nominating committee’s results were presented to the congregation on November 14, 2009 it was clear that Pastor DeSilva had made use of his position as chairman of the committee to carry out his longstanding threat to remove from office those who had opposed the change in governance. Every member of the church board (formerly church ministries board) who had publicly spoken against the change was removed from office. (Since all elders are also members of the church board this also meant that all elders who had publicly opposed the change were removed.)

But Pastor DeSilva had not been content to stop there. He also used his influence to remove as many white people in general as he could. The only ones who escaped his targeting were those who had actively supported him in the governance change. In one example of this, a white retiree had long served as a representative on the school’s board. During the nomination process Pastor DeSilva went to visit this woman and asked if she wished to continue serving in this capacity. She replied that while some ongoing health issues might prevent her from attending every single meeting she very much wanted to continue serving. Pastor DeSilva turned around and reported to the nominating committee that because of her health issues she did not want to continue serving, so naturally she was not renominated.

This woman (and others like her who fell victim to this purge) had not taken a side on the governance issue or done anything else to provoke Pastor DeSilva—other than being white. We could offer several theories in explanation of this behavior, but ultimately the “why” is irrelevant. There is no explanation which makes such behavior acceptable (and yes, we would object just as strongly if there was evidence that he had targeted any other racial group this way). The bottom line is that this is yet another example of Pastor DeSilva abusing his power and no one making any attempt to stop him.

Next: Inaction

Religious

Letter and Spirit

How is Pastor DeSilva’s interpretation of the conference’s recommendation that the church board study the Church Manual contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the recommendation?

If we were engaging in the much-abhorred elementary school exercise of diagramming sentences we would find that the subject of the sentence, “The newly renamed Church Board should study pp. 90-92 in the manual to make sure the Board functions as stated,” is “Board.” It isn’t “individuals” or “members [of the board].” If the recommendation had used either of these terms Pastor DeSilva’s interpretation would have merit, but it didn’t use either of them. The action of this sentence is clearly targeted at a corporate body known as a “board” in its official, assembled, corporate capacity.

The verb applied to this subject is “study.” This specified action requires something deeper than the simple “reading” that Pastor DeSilva called for. It also requires more than being notified of the contents by a third party, which Pastor DeSilva stipulated as the proper course of action should any board member discover a deficiency in the board’s function. “Study” requires “a close and prolonged process of observation, inquiry and thought.”

The “letter of the law” in this recommendation, therefore, is that the corporate body which is the “board” must come together in an unhurried official gathering and not only read but discuss and carefully think about the contents of the specified material for the purpose of gaining a corporate understanding thereof.

Why would the conference executive committee make such a recommendation? In The Lord’s Anointed, Pt. 3 (posted 12-4-09) we discussed the concept of different levels of knowing. Here we see the concept come into play again. What this recommendation calls for is the highest, most direct and personal level of knowing. It is not enough for the board to be told by one or even several of its members that something isn’t right. Even if they were to accept such a declaration it would be far too easy to slip back into the old way of doing things without a personal conviction about the importance of the change. Another difficulty with such a scenario is that those who accept the declaration of a few without knowing the truth for themselves can be accepting error. Finally, direct corporate study is necessary for the members of the board to take ownership of the principles covered in the specified material.

The “spirit of the law” in this recommendation, then, is that the members of the board cease to be passive agents swayed by the pastor or anyone else with passion and charisma and become knowledgeable, rooted leaders who clearly understand and can articulate, defend, and act in accordance with the principles of the Church Manual. This is what Pastor DeSilva refused to permit because it would be a waste of time. The result of this refusal was that the recommendation, which had been approved by the business meeting, was set aside and ignored.

The Epic, Pt. 79

When the church board finally met on October 4, 2009, Sister L asked as a matter arising from the minutes when the church board would be following through on the conference’s recommendation to study the Church Manual. Pastor DeSilva responded that he didn’t recall that there was a recommendation to study the Church Manual. Sister L reminded him of the obligation by quoting the recommendation, “The newly renamed Church Board should study pp. 90-92 in the manual to make sure the Board functions as stated.”

Pastor DeSilva declared that he understood that recommendation to mean that individual members of the board should read the Manual, and if they saw any deficiencies they could bring up the matter. This was contrary to Sister L’s understanding of the recommendation, which was that the entire church board was supposed to review the stipulated pages in the Manual as a body during an official meeting in order to achieve a unified corporate understanding, and she said as much. Pastor DeSilva refused to listen. He insisted that there was “no consensus needed” because the church had already adopted “everything that’s written there.” Even further, he claimed that such a corporate study of the Manual would be a waste of time. After Pastor DeSilva made these statements he abruptly changed the subject by calling for other business.

This exchange was recorded in the meeting’s minutes as, “It was asked whether the Board was going to spend time studying the pages in the Church Manual recommended by the Potomac Conference. The Pastor suggested that each member should study the pages privately and bring up any items [that] were not being addressed.” Interestingly, when the subject came up again at the board meeting held on November 8, 2009, that meeting’s minutes spun it that, “Support and Accountability Council’s responsibility is to make sure the Church Board is following the Church Manual.” At no time since the approval of the conference’s recommendations has the Support and Accountability Council met to evaluate whether the board is following the Church Manual. (Pastor DeSilva’s interpretation of the conference’s recommendation will be analyzed in a separate post.)

The matter of membership transfer procedure came up somewhat later in the meeting. When it did Pastor DeSilva again attempted to explain the supposed new transfer approval system, but this explanation came out more convoluted than the one he had given to Elder E. He followed it with a declaration that since the church had decided to follow the Manual, and since the Manual speaks about transfers, they were going to start enforcing the Manual’s requirement that transfers be approved by the church board before being listed in the bulletin. (As worthy a step as this is, it ignores the fact that the Manual also requires all transfers to be voted on by the congregation, which had not been happening either.)

Other items of business discussed at this meeting included the finance committee’s creation of the budget for the next year (which was being done without consulting the department heads about their needs because the committee was confident that it already knew them), the estimated conclusion of the nominating committee’s work in mid-November, and Pastor DeSilva’s plans for the new year. The latter included a leadership retreat at the beginning of the year and a 10-day vegan fast for the entire church. Pastor DeSilva explained that he had chosen a period of 10 days for the fast because that was the amount of time which had elapsed between Jesus’ ascension into heaven and the baptism of the Holy Spirit which had been given to the disciples on Pentecost.

Two other items received somewhat more detailed attention. The first was the dwindling number of children showing up on time for Sabbath School. There was an extended discussion about the cause of this trend, which was generally concluded to be a lack of commitment. (Why members were no longer committed was not explored.)

The other discussion was about the preparations for the annual Thanksgiving baskets and holiday decorations for the sanctuary. For years these tasks (and others like them) had been attended to so quietly and faithfully that they hadn’t required any discussion in board meetings about how they should be accomplished. This work had been done by the same “old white people” who had recently been told that if they didn’t like the way things were in the church they should leave. They hadn’t left the church, but they had left the pastors and their supporters to their own devices, and the voids they left were now being felt.

Next: Purged

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 78

At the beginning of 2009 the church office issued an events calendar to the church officers as a template for filling in their events. This template calendar listed several administrative events. The most notable of these was the beginning of the election process with selection of the large committee on September 12, 2009. Subsequent calendars featuring events from the various departments had this item removed, but the Group had already taken note.

When September 12 came the Group was puzzled by an apparent lack of action on this item. We concluded after the fact that some bulletins had been stuffed with nomination forms and others had not. When questioned about it Elder J claimed that there had been an announcement about the process from the front, but none of the Group were able to testify to having heard such an announcement. The results of these nominations were not brought back to the church for confirmation of the exact makeup of the large committee. When questioned about how the committee had been selected Pastor DeSilva stated on separate occasions that the committee was made up of those with the most votes on the nomination forms and that “they” had tried to get a diverse group that truly represented the church. These statements cannot both be true as they are mutually exclusive.

For many in the congregation the first indication that the election process had begun was the report of the large committee (recommending the membership of the nominating committee) which was published in the bulletin on September 26, 2009. Pastor DeSilva made a point of claiming his right to be chairman of the nominating committee, saying that if we wanted to do things by the Church Manual we would get exactly that. However, this new-found zeal for playing by the rules only seemed to come upon him when the rules somehow benefited him. For example, contrary to the Church Manual (p.153, edition 17) the church board did not make a decision about the proper size for the nominating committee before the nomination process began.

Next: Circumnavigated

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 77

The Takoma Park Church held a special business meeting on September 13, 2009. The primary purpose of this meeting was to approve the selection of a new youth pastor. (The previous youth pastor had left for another position at the beginning of July.) Elder Ramirez was present as the conference representative who had been working with the accountability council in making the selection. Pastor DeSilva made sure to play to this audience in managing the meeting.

The discussion of matters arising from the minutes gave Pastor DeSilva an opportunity to impress Elder Ramirez. He began by describing how wonderful the reconciliation meeting had been. He referred to it as having been “successful,” “very well conducted,” and “profitable for our church.” He then took a question about the matter of the school merger, confirming that the initiative had been defeated and was therefore dead. The next question asked was whether the church board had yet met to fulfill the executive committee recommendation of examining the Manual to see whether the board was functioning properly. Pastor DeSilva responded that it hadn’t happened yet, but that it would be looked at the next time the church board met.

After these questions on matters arising from the minutes the meeting moved on to its primary agenda item, approval of the new youth pastor. After a brief introduction and a few questions from the floor (which were made even fewer by Elder Ramirez’s recommendation that a limit of one question per member be enacted) the candidate was approved. After this vote Elder Ramirez left.

The next item considered was an adjustment of the church’s annual budget to compensate for an offering shortage. Oddly, this voted belt-tightening was entered into the minutes of the meeting as, “Finance Committee Report: [The finance committee chairman] presented the finance report.” The best guess we can offer about the reasoning behind the decision to be vague about this item is that on at least one occasion during the course of this conflict Elder Miller had insisted on seeing minutes from various church meetings to see for himself what was going on, and should this happen again Pastor DeSilva didn’t want it coming to his attention that the church was unable to meet its initial budget.

The final subject of this meeting was a change to the order of service for the divine worship hour. This wasn’t suggested as a matter for discussion and vote; Pastor DeSilva simply announced that the change was going to occur and allowed questions for clarification. The most significant change was that the offering collection was being moved to immediately after the sermon. The reason given for this was that many members habitually came in late, in time to hear the sermon but after the offering had already been taken. This shift would allow these latecomers to participate in the offering and presumably increase intake. The announcement of the change in order of service didn’t make it into the minutes of this meeting at all.

Next: Hit or Miss

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 76

The constituency meeting of Takoma Park’s school, which was to be the last step in finalizing the merger with the neighboring school, was held on August 27, 2009. The initiative to merge the schools had come from the Potomac Conference. Both schools were dropping in enrollment. Money was tight and getting tighter. When the conference was contacted about possible solutions to the problem, the idea of a merger was proposed. This idea was not at all new. Merging the schools had been discussed off and on for at least 25 years. This time the conference hired a consultant for the specific task of accomplishing the merger of the two schools. This final meeting did not go as the conference expected or wanted.

It was an extremely hot summer evening and the meeting was held in the school’s gym, which is not air conditioned. The passion of the discussion rose as high as the temperature. Many parents got up and spoke of their love for the school. They said that there were valid reasons that their children were not at the other school. Some people even mentioned that they drove by the other school on their way to and from school each day. Teachers were standing in the back of the gym crying. They were so sure that their school would be closing.

The decision was finally put to a written vote. After the votes were collected several members of the audience got up and helped to tally the votes. Then the consultant got up to announce the results. He announced that the vote was 19-18 to merge the two schools. At this, one of the gentlemen who had helped count the votes got the consultant’s attention and there was a whispered conversation. The consultant turned pale and his smile disappeared. When he came back to the mic, the consultant stated that he had misunderstood the results and that the vote was 19-18 to keep the school open.

The conference was not prepared to accept this. After a few minutes of discussion among some of the top conference officials in attendance at the meeting, the consultant got up again and offered the delegates three possible next steps to choose from. They could 1) vote again, 2) take a break and pray awhile and then vote again, or 3) the original vote could stand. The delegates did not feel that another vote was necessary. They had been told that whatever they decided would be final. Neither did they feel that additional prayer was necessary. Delegates to the meeting had been praying for months about the decision that was to be made. They also did not feel that anyone was likely to change their vote. Finally, Pastor DeSilva got up and suggested to the conference officials that they accept that the plan was defeated.

When the meeting was over teachers, parents, and alumni met together in small groups at the back of the gym. Some of the teachers went to one of the classrooms so that they could cry in private. They were so amazed at the miracle God had performed for them. One person was heard to say, “The hard work has just begun.”

Supporters of the school left knowing that God had intervened. They also knew that there was a long road ahead of them. Much was left to do, but God had shown them in a mighty way that they were not alone.

Next: For Show

Justice

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 25

"Calling the twelve about Him, Jesus bade them go out two and two through the towns and villages. None were sent forth alone, but brother was associated with brother, friend with friend. Thus they could help and encourage each other, counseling and praying together, each one's strength supplementing the other's weakness. In the same manner He afterward sent forth the seventy. It was the Saviour's purpose that the messengers of the gospel should be associated in this way. In our own time evangelistic work would be far more successful if this example were more closely followed" (The Desire of Ages, p. 350).

"The servant is not above his master. The Prince of heaven was called Beelzebub, and His disciples will be misrepresented in like manner. But whatever the danger, Christ's followers must avow their principles. They should scorn concealment. They cannot remain uncommitted until assured of safety in confessing the truth. They are set as watchmen, to warn men of their peril. The truth received from Christ must be imparted to all, freely and openly. Jesus said, 'What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops'" (Ibid, p.355).

"Jesus Himself never purchased peace by compromise. His heart overflowed with love for the whole human race, but He was never indulgent to their sins. He was too much their friend to remain silent while they were pursuing a course that would ruin their souls,--the souls He had purchased with His own blood. He labored that man should be true to himself, true to his higher and eternal interest. The servants of Christ are called to the same work, and they should beware lest, in seeking to prevent discord, they surrender the truth. They are to 'follow after the things which make for peace' (Rom. 14:19); but real peace can never be secured by compromising principle. And no man can be true to principle without exciting opposition. A Christianity that is spiritual will be opposed by the children of disobedience. But Jesus bade His disciples, 'Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.' Those who are true to God need not fear the power of men nor the enmity of Satan. In Christ their eternal life is secure. Their only fear should be lest they surrender the truth, and thus betray the trust with which God has honored them" (Ibid, p.356).

The Epic, Pt. 75

On August 5, 2009 Takoma Park’s organist, Dr. K, sent Pastor DeSilva a letter stating that he was resigning the position. Dr. K was not Adventist, but he had served the Takoma Park Church with distinction for 13 years. He had once commented to a church member that he believed all of the things that Adventists believed, but chose to remain Episcopalian because he liked their worship style, and therefore kept two Sabbaths each week.

Dr. K had been growing dissatisfied with the situation at Takoma Park for some time. The chair of the Music Council had repeatedly spoken to Pastor DeSilva about Dr. K’s dissatisfaction. He had brushed her concerns aside. Dr. K. continued to stay at Takoma Park hoping that things would change for the better. He had made friends with people in the congregation and did not want to leave fellow musicians between a rock and a hard place.

As a professional musician Dr. K had worked for many congregations over the years and had been in the unique position of being an outside observer on the inside of events in those myriad of congregations. His observation when this whole situation began was that he had seen this before, and that bringing consultants in always meant the destruction of the congregation.

Dr. K finally reached his breaking point at the first Music Council meeting chaired by the new Minister of Music. Dr. K quickly saw that the music program would be shifting away from the traditional service that he was comfortable with. He had made the comment more than once that he did not need the job at Takoma Park. He did it because he enjoyed it. When he saw that changes were being made that he could not agree with, he chose to resign. Dr. K would have made the announcement at the end of that Music Council meeting but Pastor DeSilva had already left. Dr. K. was too much of a gentleman to make an announcement like that without first letting the senior pastor know of his intentions. As soon as Dr. K sent the letter to Pastor DeSilva he called two of the members that he had worked with closely over the years and let them know of his decision. He did not want them to hear the news via the “Adventist Grapevine.”

When Pastor DeSilva received Dr. K’s resignation he realized what a loss his departure would be for the church and tried to talk him out of it. Pastor DeSilva and his wife took Dr. K out to lunch. They tried to talk Dr. K into remaining at least until the end of the year. Dr. K told them that his mind was made up and he would remain only through the end of the month. Pastor DeSilva continued to try to change Dr. K’s mind, but it was made up. His decision was months in the making.

Dr. K’s last day playing at Takoma Park was August 29, 2009. At a private farewell party for Dr. K sometime later he commented that he was open to returning to Takoma Park in the future should the situation improve; he just couldn’t continue there under the present conditions.

Next: Miraculous

Justice

The Epic, Pt. 74

An elders’ meeting was held on August 10, 2009, which was a Monday. It was announced to the elders in the Sabbath bulletins on August 1 and August 8. The Sunday afternoon before the meeting was to take place (August 9) Elder J called Brother G to inform him that the upcoming elders’ meeting was also to be the reconciliation meeting and to ask his help in spreading the word to the rest of the Group. With barely 24 hours’ notice of the meeting’s new purpose (and in some cases, as little as four hours’ notice) some simply couldn’t make it. Others who showed up a few minutes late found the doors locked, and so were unable to enter and participate.

When Elder J began the meeting he was visibly uncomfortable. He obviously didn’t care for the spotlight role Pastor DeSilva had put him in by commissioning him to administer the reconciliation. He started out with a clichéd speech about a lot having happened over the past few years and needing to put everything on the table so the church could move on, etc. As an example of the supposed rift in the church he observed that he and Brother H had been friends for many years, but that the two of them didn’t talk any more since all of this had happened.

Brother H responded to this singling out by pointing out that in the beginning he had sat down with Elder J and explained to him why the altered governance was wrong from academic, historical, practical, Adventist, and biblical perspectives. Brother H reminded Elder J that his response had been that he had spoken with his father and with Pastor DeSilva and that both of them had told him there was nothing wrong. Brother H had concluded that if that was as far as Elder J was willing to go in analyzing the situation there was nothing more he could say to Elder J, but that didn’t mean he had refused to communicate with him. Brother H pointed out that if Elder J had ever wanted to talk about this or any other issue he had his contact info and could have gotten in touch at any time. This response didn’t seem to make an impression with Elder J.

As the meeting progressed it became clear from both the statements actually expressed and the body language demonstrated that the pastors and their supporting elders had come into the meeting with their minds already made up. One of the elders brought up one of the rumors Pastor DeSilva had been promoting about the Group’s motives, namely that this was all just a ploy to get rid of him as pastor. This elder spoke of how disgusted he was and expressed concern about what character of pastor Takoma Park would be left with if Pastor DeSilva were to leave. Another elder came right out and told the Group, “If you don’t like the way things are, leave.”

We should note here that throughout the course of the Epic we have largely ignored the various spurious accusations Pastor DeSilva has used to divert attention from the real issues and build sympathy for his position among the congregation. The list of these “red herrings” includes, but is not limited to, 1) "this is just a bunch of old white people trying to maintain power in the church," 2) "this is about music style," and, of course, the aforementioned 3) "they just don’t like me and are trying to get rid of me." None of these are true. While we have witnessed some truly disturbing and unconscionable behavior from our pastors during the course of this dispute their removal has never been what this is about. We admit that the thought of their departure has crossed our minds, but only in the context of wishing for leaders who would be fair and unbiased about the whole matter, which is something our current pastors have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of.

Various Group members attempted to unwind this myriad of misconceptions and outright lies the majority of the elders had bought into, but to no avail. Pastor DeSilva responded by repeating his favorite insinuations about the Group wrecking the church and reinforced his supporters. At the end of the meeting the Group was asked if they would like to have another one, but given how unproductive this one had been the Group concluded that a second meeting wouldn’t accomplish anything and declined the offer.

Next: Collateral Damage

Religious

By the Numbers

We mentioned in the Epic, Pt. 73 that after the executive committee’s recommendations had been accepted by the Takoma Park Church the Group decided to sit back and see how Pastor DeSilva would do in growing the church. As it has now been a little over a year since that happened this post will take a quick look at some stats of the church over the past year, with a view toward assessing whether things have improved in any measurable way. In doing so we will be getting a little ahead of ourselves in terms of the Epic, but it seems worthwhile to connect these particular dots while they are fresh. Rest assured, we aren’t abandoning a systematic telling of events; we just want to compare a few numbers now.

On August 8, 2009 70 people attended First Service and 340 people attended Second Service at Takoma Park, for a total of 410 people in attendance at worship services that Sabbath. The financial statistics in that week’s bulletin (up to date through the previous week, August 1, 2009) reported $254,701 in offerings and $620,131 in tithe year-to-date.

Last Sabbath (August 7, 2010) 48 people attended First Service and 193 people attended Second Service at Takoma Park, for a total of 241 people in attendance at worship services that Sabbath. The financial statistics in last week’s bulletin (up to date through July 31, 2010) reported $241,602 in offerings and $567,778 in tithe year-to-date.

Let’s unpack these numbers, starting with the financial reports. The first excuse likely to be offered for the decline in this area is the economy. Yes, it’s down. However, it hasn’t had so big an impact as is seen in Takoma Park’s numbers.

Those who were paying close attention to the events of the recent General Conference Session in Atlanta will have noticed that they included a report from the General Conference treasurer, Robert Lemon. This report was reproduced by the Review, and can be found both online and in print. This report included statistics on just what impact the economy had had on the Church’s revenue. Elder Lemon made note both of the worldwide numbers and those specific to the North American Division (NAD).

Here’s how the comparison works out. Over the past year Takoma Park has seen an 8.4% decline in tithe; tithe across NAD declined only 1.7% for calendar year 2009. Takoma Park’s offerings declined 5.2% over the last year while NAD saw only a 2.1% drop in mission offerings (the only kind of offering that would be tracked at the division level) for calendar year 2009. Suffice it to say, Takoma Park can blame only a portion of its declines on the economy.

The attendance numbers, which cannot be blamed in any portion on the economy, paint an even starker picture. For our sample week there was a 41.3% drop from 2009 to 2010. Since both numbers were taken from the same time of year this plummeting figure cannot be explained away by seasonal variation, either.

What does require explanation is how the attendance drop can be so much greater than the financial drop. The answer is that Takoma Park has on its roles a substantial number of individuals who like having their membership officially located at “the historic Takoma Park Church” and support it financially even though they don’t live anywhere near it. They constitute a consistent and sizable source of income not affected (or perhaps even aware) of the goings-on at Takoma Park. Therefore, the attendance number becomes the more reliable indicator of the state of the active congregation.

For this past year Pastor DeSilva has had full sway in the congregation and the measurable indicators of congregational health aren't even holding steady, they're dropping. We leave it to you, our readers, to come to your own conclusions about the cause of this decline.

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 24

"A Constant Peril.

"For years there has been a growing tendency for men placed in positions of responsibility to lord it over God's heritage, thus removing from church-members their keen sense of the need of divine instruction and an appreciation of the privilege to counsel with God regarding their duty. This order of things must be changed. There must be a reform. Men who have not a rich measure of that wisdom which cometh from above, should not be called to serve in positions where their influence means so much to church-members.

"In my earlier experiences in the message I was called to meet this evil. ...I had to bear my testimony of warning against it, because souls were being led to look to man for wisdom, instead of looking to God, who is our wisdom, our sanctification, and our righteousness. And now the same message has again been given me, more definite and decisive, because there has been a deeper offense to the Spirit of God.

"An Exalted Privilege.

"God is the Teacher of His people. All who humble their hearts before Him, will be taught of God. 'If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.' The Lord wants every church-member to pray earnestly for wisdom; that he may know what the Lord would have him do. It is the privilege of every believer to obtain an individual experience, learning to carry his cares and perplexities to God. It is written, 'Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you.'

"I write thus fully, because I have been shown that ministers and people are tempted more and more to trust in finite man for wisdom, and to make flesh their arm. To conference presidents and men in responsible places, I bear this message: Break the bands and fetters that have been placed upon God's people. To you the word is spoken, 'Break every yoke.' Unless you cease the work of making man amenable to man, unless you become humble in heart, and yourselves learn the way of the Lord as little children, the Lord will divorce you from His work. We are to treat one another as brethren, as fellow-laborers, as men and women who are, with us, seeking for light and understanding of the way of the Lord, and who are jealous for His glory.

"God declares, 'I will be glorified in My people;' but the self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside, and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue, your faith will soon become extinct. God is in every place, beholding the conduct of the people who profess to represent the principles of His word. He asks that a change be made. He wants His people to be molded and fashioned, not after man's ideas, but after the similitude of God. I entreat of you to search the Scriptures as you have never yet searched them, that you may know the way and will of God. O, that every soul might be impressed with this message, and put away the wrong!

"This message is spoken to our churches in every place. In the false experience that has been coming in, a decided influence is at work to exalt human agencies and to lead some to depend on human judgment, and to follow the control of human minds. This influence is diverting the mind from God. God forbid that any such experience should deepen and grow in our ranks as Seventh-day Adventists. Our petitions are to reach higher than erring man--to God. 'And this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us.' God does not confine Himself to one place or person. He looks down from heaven upon the children of men; He sees their perplexities, and is acquainted with the circumstances of every experience of life. He understands His own work upon the human heart, and needs not that any man should direct the workings of His Spirit" (Jehovah Is Our King, pp. 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20).

The Epic, Pt. 73

Pastor DeSilva had claimed since the institution of the altered governance structure that the Group had been inhibiting his ability to minister effectively, and that this was the reason the church had not prospered under the altered structure. The Group couldn’t see how addressing concerns through proper channels could constitute an impediment to ministry, but with the passage of the executive committee’s recommendations the Group decided it was time to step back and see what Pastor DeSilva would do in implementing them and growing the church.

The newly renamed church board didn’t meet in either August or September of 2009. What did happen during those months (or more precisely, between July 25 and September 26, 2009) was a series of illegitimate membership transfers. This subject was touched on briefly in the post, I attended an apostate church this morning, posted August 8, 2009.

Briefly, the proper procedure for membership transfers is for the name to be brought before the church board and approved, then given first and second readings by being printed in the church bulletin on two consecutive weeks, and finally to be voted on by the church on the second week that it appears in the bulletin. This process is gone through first in the congregation that the member is leaving, and then again in the congregation they are joining. The transfer is not considered complete until the receiving congregation notifies the departing congregation that the member has been voted in at the new church. All of this is detailed in the Church Manual.

What happened during these two months was that 18 membership transfers were printed in the bulletin for first and second readings without having been first brought before the church board. Even worse, no vote of the church was taken regarding any of these names. Of those 18, three were transfers in and 15 were transfers out.

The Group was dumbfounded by this blatant disregard for Church Manual procedure, particularly in light of the fact that membership transfers had been brought up during the business meeting on July 19, 2009 as a function of the church board which had been ignored under the altered governance and Pastor DeSilva had specifically stated that improper handling of transfers, “can’t happen any more if we take this vote.”

Finally, a member of the Group, Elder E, confronted Pastor DeSilva about this impropriety during an elders’ meeting, pointing out to Pastor DeSilva the specific portions of the Church Manual pertaining to membership transfers. The justification she was given for the way transfers had been conducted recently was truly fantastic. She was told that it was an oversight on their part—the transfers should not have been put in the bulletin and not voted by the congregation because all transfers were now handled by the General Conference. Supposedly, all the churches do now is the application for transfer. It then goes to the GC and they do the rest. Afterwards, the churches are told that it is okay. Then they put it in the bulletin and the church votes. We aren’t clear on how putting the names in the bulletin was an oversight if the final step in this supposed new process is for the names to appear and be voted on as usual, but it doesn’t matter because none of this is true.

This “explanation” is an imaginative spin on a new service being offered by the North American Division. Simply, this service allows church clerks throughout the division to connect electronically to send the relevant data about transfers back and forth. This reduces the time involved in the process stipulated by the Manual, but does not in any way alter the steps, much less take over the task of approving or disapproving of transfers. Quite frankly, it is ludicrous to think that the General Conference could consider and approve every transfer for its over 16 million members worldwide.

The evidence presented by Elder E did seem to ultimately have an effect. Pastor DeSilva never admitted that there had been any impropriety in the 18 transfers over these two months, but by the time the church board finally met in October he was touting the incident as an example of how he would make corrects in procedure if anyone pointed out to him that the Manual stipulated anything that he wasn’t currently doing. (We’ll explain the context of this statement when we describe the October church board meeting.)

There is one other thing we need to say while on the subject of membership transfers at Takoma Park. It is our understanding from various sources that there is a backlog of transfers out. We can only imagine that Pastor DeSilva is refusing to act on them because he doesn’t want it publicly seen just how many people have left Takoma Park as a result of this whole fiasco. Individuals caught up in this backlog who call the church office to inquire about the holdup are told simply that the transfer is “in process.”

Next: "Reconciliation"

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 72

In the days leading up to the business meeting at which the executive committee’s recommendations were to be discussed Elder J communicated with Elder B, trying to convince her and the Group not to push for passage of the executive committee’s first recommendation that the name of the ministries board be changed to “church board.” His logic was that it was just a name, and so long as the function recommendation was followed the name didn’t really matter. The only answer Elder B gave him was that she would put it to the rest of the Group. The rest of the Group saw no merit in this argument. If the name truly didn’t matter, why was Elder J trying so hard to prevent the change? It appeared to the Group that this was an attempt to either claim some sort of partial victory for the pastors’ position or set up an argument that if one part of the Manual (the specified name of the board) could be set aside, then so could other parts.

The business meeting took place on July 19, 2009. This time Elder Miller was in attendance as conference observer. Elder Bediako was also present. Pastor DeSilva introduced the subject of the executive committee’s recommendations by saying that there had been “uneasiness and misunderstanding” about the new governance structure that these recommendations were seeking to clarify. (The group takes exception to the word “misunderstanding.” We understand the altered structure quite clearly—and disagree with it.) He said that the executive committee respected the authority of the local church to make decisions for itself so long as it was within the parameters of the Church Manual. (This statement is legitimate so far as it goes, but, again, in this case the parameters of the Church Manual have been exceeded.) Pastor DeSilva went on to say that he was going to explain the recommendations so that there would be no misunderstanding. He claimed that there was nothing about the recommendations which overturned any previous action the church had taken; the recommendations were a “complimentary action” to clarify some ambiguities.

Pastor DeSilva didn’t have much to say about the recommendation to change the name of the ministries board. Regarding the recommendation to change the name of the accountability board he asserted that it was a good recommendation because it wasn’t changing much but the name which might be misleading because it would seem to indicate that the accountability board might have executive functions when it didn’t. He further asserted that the accountability board had always answered to the church board and existed only for support and accountability, not the devising of any plans. (Another lie: as of the moment this assertion was made the accountability board had never once made a report to the ministries board.) The next thing out of Pastor DeSilva’s mouth was that the accountability board would continue to function as it was functioning, being the personnel committee of the church and answering to the business meeting. (We feel compelled to point out that this assertion is in direct contradiction with the assertion before it.)

Regarding the recommendation about the functions of the church board Pastor DeSilva said that the ministries board was already complaint with the Church Manual’s function list and that if anything was found to be missing it would be implemented. Pastor DeSilva asked the head elder to call an elders’ meeting within a month to be the reconciliation meeting called for in the recommendations.

When the floor was opened for comments Mrs. DeSilva was the first one to be recognized. She expressed opposition to the recommendation that the ministries board be renamed, claiming that the name “ministries board” better reflected what the body was supposed to be doing. The next member to be recognized simply asked whether the recommendations meant that we were returning to a proper Seventh-day Adventist structure. Pastor DeSilva’s response was that yes, we would have a proper Seventh-day Adventist structure, but then he went on to add that he and the conference didn’t feel that the altered governance had been outside the proper Adventist structure.

Elder B was recognized next, and she took the opportunity to speak to Mrs. DeSilva’s concern that there needed to be a body with the word “ministry” in its name that would keep the church focused on ministry activities. She pointed out that it would be acceptable according to the Manual (and had been part of the Group’s specified remedy) to form a separate “ministries council” whose sole function would be to plan ministry and which would answer to the church board. She reiterated, however, that according to the Manual the church board must be the administrative body directly under the business meeting. No interest was shown in this solution to the concern. Elder B also touched briefly on some of the other major points in the Group’s appeal in an effort to counteract Pastor DeSilva’s whitewashing of the whole matter as not in any way implying that there had been anything wrong.

Elder B’s statements upset Pastor DeSilva and he became defensive, claiming that the accountability board had never had an executive function and that, “People have accused me of usurping executive function and that’s not true.” He went on to say that there would be no more charts because charts could be left to various and sundry interpretations. (This was an incredibly papal statement. Basically, he was saying that he as the pastor was the only one who had the right to know, understand, or interpret the structure of the church and that we, the members, were supposed to simply accept his interpretation.) He also asserted that the chart had been redone every week in an effort to get it to accurately portray the altered governance system. (Even recognizing the element of hyperbole in this statement, it flies in the face of Pastor DeSilva’s contention all along that the charts were decided on by the church, as there is no way the church could approve changes to the charts with anything even remotely resembling that frequency.)

This outburst from Pastor DeSilva left the Group even more concerned than ever that Pastor DeSilva wasn’t understanding or taking seriously either the concerns we had expressed or the recommendations the conference had made. A couple Group members spoke up, asking pointedly whether voting these recommendations was truly going to result in reinstatement of a proper church board and representative system of government. Pastor DeSilva’s response was, “Yes, yes, yes. If we vote it, regardless of whether I say yes or no, it’s voted; it’s on paper.”

Elder Bediako was the next to be recognized. He took issue with the statement in the executive committee’s recommendation to change the ministries board’s name that the Church Manual doesn’t state that another name is incompatible. He stated that “church board” was the name used by the Manual, and as such was the only acceptable name for the body. He further stated that any attempt to change the name of the body must be approved by a General Conference Session.

Pastor DeSilva attempted to deflect this statement by redirecting it to Elder Miller, saying that Elder Miller should take it back to the executive committee and that it had no bearing on the current discussion. Elder Bediako allowed that it was appropriate for the message to get back to the executive committee, but he attempted again to impress upon Pastor DeSilva and the others listening that it was not acceptable to change something specified by the Manual, even something so seemingly minor as the name “church board,” without the approval of the General Conference. Unfortunately, this was something Pastor DeSilva didn’t want to hear. He cut Elder Bediako off, reframed his entire statement as being in support of the recommendations, and recognized the next speaker.

The next question was whether approval of the executive committee’s recommendations would mean a return to the practice of holding open meetings, which had been standard before the change in governance. Pastor DeSilva replied that it would not. He supported this position by claiming that allowing committees to have present people other than those elected to that particular committee would be an act of executive function and that all committees would have to obtain permission from the business meeting in advance in order to have anyone other than the members of that committee in the room during meetings.

The questioner observed that this was a change he was making. Pastor DeSilva responded that it wasn’t a change, and that it was in fact in the Church Manual that way. (The Church Manual says no such thing. However, if one follows this line of logic it leads to a knot around Pastor DeSilva’s neck. If inviting, or even allowing, individuals other than members of a committee into the room during meetings constitutes an act of executive function, then Pastor DeSilva’s repeated assertions that the accountability board doesn’t have and has never exercised executive function are undone by his own presentation to the executive committee. You will recall that when questioned by an executive committee member Pastor DeSilva said that when it was making hiring decisions the accountability board invited relevant leaders to participate in their discussions. As these invitees were never approved by the business meeting the accountability board was engaging in executive function by Pastor DeSilva’s own definition of that term.)

Elder B, still skeptical that approval of the recommendations would mean a return to a church board according to the Church Manual, pointed out that one of the duties of the church board according to the Manual is to approve all membership transfers, which had not been happening under the altered governance structure. Pastor DeSilva defended this omission by saying that the Takoma Park Church had been inconsistent about following that requirement for the entire 13 years that he had been here. He then stated that, “It can’t happen any more if we take this vote.”

The executive committee’s recommendations were then voted on and approved without being amended in any way. It was also voted that responsibility for organizing a reconciliation meeting would be delegated to the head elder, Elder J. Pastor DeSilva followed the voting with a proclamation that the entire matter was now concluded and that, “Any more disaffection from any side would be considered divisive behavior as far as the Manual is concerned.” (Translation: “Say anything more about this and I’ll bring you up for church discipline.”)

Pastor DeSilva followed this proclamation by announcing to Elder Miller that he wanted a letter from him stating that the structure of the Takoma Park Church was thoroughly in line with the Manual, and that he would send this letter from Elder Miller to the entire membership along with one of his own to “lay the whole thing to rest.” Then, apparently realizing how demanding his approach had been, Pastor DeSilva softened his tone and asked Elder Miller whether that would be possible. Elder Miller’s reply was that he would consider it. (No such letter has ever been issued.)

Next: Benefit of the Doubt

Religious

The Epic, Pt. 71

The next regularly scheduled ministries board meeting took place on July 12, 2009. It was at this meeting that the ministries board was to discuss and vote on the recommendations of the executive committee. As promised, the conference sent a representative to observe—the (then) new conference treasurer Elder Wilson. He was so new that he hadn’t been part of the conference administration a month and a half before when the Group had made its case to the executive committee.

When Pastor DeSilva reached the agenda item of addressing the executive committee’s recommendations he went through them one by one, giving his interpretation of each one. He claimed that there was nothing wrong with the way the accountability board was currently functioning, citing Elder Miller’s statements about the lack of consistency about how local churches manage hiring. He argued that since there was no rule about how the hiring was to be done and the accountability board was the church’s personnel committee, that it was alright for it to continue reporting to the business meeting. (In making this argument he ignored two significant points. First, personnel issues are not the only ones delegated to the accountability board, and even if it were acceptable for personnel issues to be reported directly to the business meeting that would not make it acceptable for the accountability board’s other responsibilities to receive the same treatment. Second, even though the conference pointed out that there was no consistency about handling personnel issues the executive committee had still recommended that, “The Support and Accountability Board…reports to the Church Board.”) Pastor DeSilva went on to assert that Elder Miller had told him the configuration of the accountability board was correct because that was the way the church business meeting had voted it. (Again, for the record, the church business meeting had not actually voted it.)

When Pastor DeSilva got to recommendation C (“The primary role of the Church Board is to discuss and plan the evangelism outreach for the church. The newly renamed Church Board should study pp. 90-92 in the manual to make sure the Board functions as stated”) he announced that there was no reason why the church shouldn’t approve it because the church was already doing it. He went so far as to say, “So far as I’m concerned we’re compliant with C right now.”

When the floor was opened for questions Elder B challenged Pastor DeSilva’s assertion that the current governance was compliant with the Church Manual. He responded by asking what was not in compliance. Elder B pointed out that according to the charts of the current governance the senior pastor was above the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva tried to blow that off by claiming that he had no executive function. Next Elder B pointed out that the accountability board reported to the business meeting rather than the ministries board, which he was claiming to be the church board. Pastor DeSilva replied that the accountability board had always reported to the church board. (Not only was this a lie—up to that point the accountability board had not made a single report to the ministries board—it was also a direct contradiction of what he had said a few minutes earlier in claiming that the accountability board could and would continue reporting directly to the business meeting.) Elder B continued by pointing out that the finance committee didn’t report to the ministries board/church board. Pastor DeSilva responded that, “So far as I’m concerned we’ve had finances every meeting that I’ve had.” Seeing that, as usual, Pastor DeSilva was using lies and misdirection to avoid admitting any wrongdoing Elder B didn’t bother to push the point any further.

Sister L was recognized next. She observed that in light of the discrepancies of perception about how the newly-formed church board functioned a temporary subcommittee ought to be formed to create written terms of reference to bring clarity to what the body did and how it did it. Rather than addressing the suggestion Pastor DeSilva chose to focus on and take issue with Sister L’s description of the church board as “newly-formed,” claiming that there had always been a church board at Takoma Park. Sister L tried to refocus him on the substance of the suggestion, but he didn’t want to let go of his complaint that the church board was not “newly-formed.”

At that point Elder Wilson jumped in, asking Sister L whether the suggestion she was making wasn’t already covered under the executive committee’s recommendation D. Sister L pointed out that the purpose of recommendation D was to achieve interpersonal reconciliation, and that it specifically excluded discussion of any issues during the meetings it recommended. (This interjection by Elder Wilson underscores just how little awareness he had of the issues and substance he had been sent to the meeting to observe. We are not accusing him of wrongdoing—it is no crime to be so new to a job that you do not yet know what is going on around you—but his lack of familiarity with the subject at hand made him ineffectual in the task he had been sent to perform on that occasion. Just to remind everyone, that task was to monitor how Pastor DeSilva addressed the executive committee’s recommendations to see that he didn’t ignore them, gloss over them, or sweep them under the proverbial rug. This is a task he could hardly perform when he wasn't even clear on the substance of the recommendations.)

At this point in the discussion Pastor DeSilva took the floor again to deliver what he claimed was a message from Elder Miller. He said that Elder Miller wanted to clarify that he didn’t feel that the executive committee’s recommendations disagreed with the voted intention of the Takoma Park Church regarding its structure and that he believed that the integrity of the church’s vote was intact. Elder Miller was further represented as having said that he didn’t have the authority, or wouldn’t take the authority, to make a recommendation that was contrary to the voted will of a local church in business session and that the changes they were recommending didn’t affect the direction the church had chosen. Pastor DeSilva concluded by claiming that the executive committee was excited about and endorsed the support and accountability council. (Whether these things were actually said by Elder Miller or were only things Pastor DeSilva wished he had said we can’t be sure. No written documentation was presented in support of this “message.” In any case, we have already substantially disproven this argument of the independence of the local church business meeting in Us and Them and What Has Been Done All Along.)

Elder J was recognized, and he expressed concerns about how follow-through on the recommendations would be accomplished. Pastor DeSilva responded that ensuring that the church board was functioning properly would be the responsibility of the accountability board. At this point Elder B asked whether a corrected chart would be produced to accurately depict the relationships of the various governing bodies. Pastor DeSilva returned to his old argument that charts are never 100% accurate. He went on to defend the charts that had been circulating by claiming that there wasn’t actually anything wrong with them; the problem was that people were just reading them wrong. In support of this statement he argued that things are not always as they appear. (This statement is indisputable, especially when Pastor DeSilva is ignoring stated parameters in order to do whatever he wants.) As Elder B pushed the point she referred to the charts as being Pastor DeSilva’s. He jumped on this and claimed that they weren’t his charts; they were voted by the church. (Another lie; none of the governance charts he produced were ever voted by a church business meeting. See the Epic, Pts. 4, 11, 12, and 26.)

Finally, a vote was taken and the recommendations were approved. As soon as the vote was complete Pastor DeSilva pronounced that the issue was now closed. He informed Elder Wilson that since the issue was now closed he expected a letter from the conference endorsing the Takoma Park Church as being in harmony with the Church Manual. He further announced an intention to include such a letter from the conference with one of his own that he would mail to every member of the congregation.

The other significant issue at this meeting of the ministries board was the merger between the elementary school supported by the Takoma Park Church with another local elementary school. The case was made that both schools had been suffering declining attendance in recent years and were occupying old facilities that needed care. The plan was to move the population from one school into the other facility, sell the vacated facility, and use the money to pay off debts and improve the remaining facility. The plan had already been approved by the other school’s church, and all that remained was approval from Takoma Park’s board and business meetings and a constituency meeting of Takoma Park’s school. The ministries board approved the merger. (This issue will be described in greater depth when we get to the story of the school’s constituency meeting.)

Next: At the Business Meeting

Religious

What Has Been Done All Along

As mentioned previously, a new edition of the Church Manual was decided on by the General Conference Session which met in Atlanta a couple weeks ago. A transcript of the discussions and votes of each change item can be found on the Adventist Review website. We would like to highlight a couple of these exchanges on items of particular significance to Takoma Park and the Potomac Conference. Each item was introduced by the secretary of the General Conference Church Manual Committee, Homer Trecartin.

HOMER TRECARTIN: Mr. Chairman, there is an addition highlighting the interconnected relationship of church organizations…
“There are several organizational levels within the Church leading from the individual believer to the worldwide organization of the work. Membership units in each of these levels periodically convene formal business sessions known as constituency meetings or sessions. (The constituency meeting or session of a local church is generally referred to as a business meeting.) In Seventh-day Adventist Church structure, no organization determines its own status nor does it function as if it had no obligations to the Church family beyond its boundaries.”

This addition was officially moved and seconded, and the floor opened for discussion.

[Commenting Delegate #1]: I have a question on the last portion of this particular item. It says, "In Seventh-day Adventist Church structure, no organization determines its own status nor does it function as if it had no obligations to the Church family beyond its boundaries."
Can you explain why we need that? Have things changed? If so, how?

HOMER TRECARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure that it’s because anything has changed, except that there have been several issues that have been dealt with in different areas where it needed to be clear that a local church does not vote itself to be a local church as part of that conference sisterhood of churches. That is voted by the conference. Just as a local conference can’t vote itself into existence, and say we are now part of the sisterhood of unions. Or a local union can’t vote itself into the sisterhood of unions in a division. And so there have been several issues, and it was felt that this clarification was needed to say that no organization in the Seventh-day Adventist Church votes its own status, but also to remind everyone that they have a responsibility to the world church and not just to their own territory.

At this point a delegate expressed the opinion that this statement was too broad and moved that it be referred back to the Church Manual Committee to have the language constricted. That motion was defeated and the discussion continued.

[Commenting Delegate #2]: This section that we are trying to add here is very important for the church. I am coming from a place where we have people who are trying to become [congregational], and this statement solves that problem of local churches usurping their authority of their conference session. Local churches are trying to work as though they operate without the entire church. They are on their own. In other words, this would protect the church from congregationalism, which some churches in parts of the world would like to assume.

After this comment the paragraph was voted on and approved for inclusion in the Church Manual.

The other significant item we would like to highlight was discussed a while later. Again, the item was introduced by Homer Trecartin.

HOMER TRECARTIN: On page 13, lines 4-11, are some additions further explaining the role of the General Conference session and the General Conference Executive Committee. Let me read that paragraph: "The General Conference in Session
determines the fundamental beliefs of the Church, authorizes establishment of unions and the attachment of field units, revises the Church Manual, elects General Conference and division leadership, performs other functions as outlined
in its Constitution and Bylaws, and considers items referred to it by its Executive Committee. The General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions is empowered by the Constitution and Bylaws to act on behalf of the constituents. Thus Church organizations around the world recognize the General
Conference as the voice of the Church." I would move approval of that addition.

The motion was seconded and discussion began. Some concern was voiced that the relationship between the General Conference and the fundamental beliefs needed to be more clearly stated. Specifically, it needed to be clear that our beliefs come from the Scriptures; the General Conference simply makes formal recognition of biblical tenets that have been identified. This item was eventually referred back to the Church Manual Committee for rewording to clarify this point, but not before the following unrelated and significant exchange took place.

[Commenting delegate #3]: The motion changes the church structure from being largely federal to being central and giving importance to the General Conference. This is being done now in the fifty-ninth session. I just want to know if there is anything that led to this thinking.

HOMER TRECARTIN: There is no intention of changing the structure of the church. The practice all along has been that our stated fundamental beliefs are approved by the General Conference in session. But the Church Manual didn’t say that. The General Conference session has always elected division leadership and some of these other things, but the Church Manual didn’t say that. And because of various situations that have been arising, we felt it was important that those be clearly stated. It’s not changing anything; it’s just writing down what has been done all along.

The Church Manual Committee met during Session to consider items that had been referred back to it by the delegates. They then reported back to the business meeting with any changes made as a result of the consultation. The following is the final form of this paragraph, which was reintroduced to the delegates and approved for inclusion in the new edition of the Manual.

The Bible is the foundation and source of belief and practice; on this basis, the General Conference in Session determines the stated fundamental beliefs of the Church. The General Conference in Session also authorizes establishment of unions and the attachment of field units, revises the Church Manual, elects General Conference and division leadership, performs other functions as outlined in its Constitution and Bylaws, and considers items referred to it by its Executive Committee. The General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions is empowered by the Constitution and Bylaws to act on behalf of the constituents. Thus Church organizations around the world recognize the General Conference in Session as the voice of the Church.

“In Seventh-day Adventist Church structure, no organization determines its own status nor does it function as if it had no obligations to the Church family beyond its boundaries.” This statement flies in the face of the interpretation maintained by the Takoma Park pastors and Potomac Conference leadership regarding the local church business meeting’s authority. To paraphrase an old saying, no church entity is an island. Each has relationships and obligations to other entities which are spelled out, among other places, in the Church Manual. We offer the caveat “among other places” because the Manual primarily addresses the relationship between the conference and the local church. Other relationships are described in the Working Policy, etc. All of these policy documents have a common source: the General Conference. “Thus Church organizations around the world recognize the General Conference in Session as the voice of the Church.” And, as Elder Trecartin pointed out, none of this is really new. This is the way the Church has always been understood to operate. The only difference is that these understandings are now being formally articulated to address efforts by some to operate outside the common understanding that has existed all along.

Us and Them

In the Epic, Pt. 61 we promised a discussion of appeal protocol and the involvement of experts from the upper echelons of denominational administration in the business of local congregations. (This was in the context of Pastor DeSilva asserting before the meeting with the conference executive committee that the Group would not have the right to appeal to the union if it was unsatisfied with the executive committee’s response and his talking about how “appalled” he had been to receive the letters of Elders Howard, Parmenter, and Bediako.)

In the Epic, Pt. 69 we promised to explain how the description of Dr. Paterson’s involvement in the formation of the recommendations of the executive committee had been misrepresented by Elder Miller and to provide an analysis of Elder Miller’s presentation to the ministries board.

In the Epic, Pt. 70 we promised to describe the changes in the most recent version of the Church Manual which clarify who has the right to appeal to a union.

Now that all of the pieces of the story bearing on this subject have been told (the subject being the interplay between the local congregation and higher levels of church administration) we are ready to keep these promises and present a consideration of this matter.

It will make most sense if we start with Dr. Paterson’s involvement with the executive committee’s recommendations to the Takoma Park Church. In a conversation some time after the executive committee’s recommendations had been presented Dr. Paterson expressed surprise when members of the Group told him that he had been cited as an authority consulted by the delegation of six from the executive committee as they prepared their recommendations. He declared that he had had no formal discussions with anyone from the conference on the subject of Takoma Park. The only interaction he recalled was an informal chat with Pastor Netteburg and a few others in a restaurant, during which he and Pastor Netteburg discussed what enforcement mechanisms the Church Manual grants to the various levels of the church organization. In that discussion the conclusion that had been reached was that the enforcement mechanism possessed by each level of the church organization is that of disbanding the organization below it.

When Elder Miller had made his presentation to the ministries board his assertion had been that the only power possessed by each level of the church organization was to disband the organization below it. This is a significant difference because in the context of the Church Manual power and enforcement mechanisms are not synonymous. For example, the Church Manual specifies that Bible Instructors may only hold local church office if the conference grants them special permission to do so. (This is to allow them to focus on the particular task of Bible instruction rather than getting caught up in other tasks relating to the local church.) This is a power granted by the Church Manual to the conference. The Manual does not specify any penalty or remedial action (enforcement mechanism) to be used in the event that a local church goes ahead and elects a Bible Instructor to local church office without the conference’s approval (see p.34). The Manual assumes that honorable church members would choose to follow the rules laid out without the need for a penalty to enforce compliance. Therefore, the only scenarios for which the Manual prescribes enforcement mechanisms are those that involve dramatic, flagrant disobedience that calls for severe measures (hence the only enforcement mechanism being disbanding).

Now that we have established that the powers of the various levels of the denominational administration are not so limited as Elder Miller described we need to address what the real boundaries of their powers are. For our purposes we are going to focus that question on the powers pertaining to governance and the Church Manual. We have already discussed the origins of the Church Manual’s authority and the force of its prescriptions in Power (posted 8-28-09), In His Own Eyes (posted 1-7-10), and most recently Bullseye: Corporate Distinctiveness (posted 4-30-10). Rather than repeating those in-depth examinations of the subject we will simply summarize that the authority of the General Conference supercedes that of any other level of the church, including the local congregation. Therefore, any directives generated by the General Conference (which include the Church Manual) are considered binding to the local congregation.

In his presentation to the ministries board Elder Miller had represented the power of the business meeting of the local church as being all but absolute. In reality, there are some limitations. The most notable of these is that the local business meeting cannot adopt any policy or doctrine which is contrary to those held by the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. An example of such a decision which the Group has previously used is that the local church business meeting cannot decide to stop remitting tithe to the conference. To do so would be to declare that it no longer wished to be a Seventh-day Adventist congregation, at which point the conference would have legitimate cause to utilize its enforcement mechanism and disband the congregation. Conversely, there is one matter on which the business meeting has power which the conference is not permitted to exercise. This is the power of deciding issues of discipline. (Discipline is a subject that has "nipped at the heels" of this conflict for some time. We will be addressing it separately in the not-too-distant future.) But again, this power is granted to the local church by the Church Manual, which is a product of the General Conference. It is therefore through the authority of the General Conference that the local church exercises this power—not through the possession of some absolute authority of its own.

So what about this appeal process? The 17th edition of the Church Manual (voted by the 2005 GC Session) puts it this way, “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). The meaning of “churches” in this context, and who is responsible to do the referring to the union, are the points of interpretation which could not be agreed upon by the experts consulted about the Group’s situation.

The 18th edition of the Church Manual (voted by the 2010 GC Session) rephrases the statement, “Church officers and leaders, pastors, and members should consult with their conference for advice pertaining to the operating of their congregation or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If they do not reach mutual understanding, they should consult with their union conference/mission for clarification” (p.20).

There are several points about these statements that should be noted. First, neither edition expressly states (or even implies) that when questions arise regarding the Church Manual that a protocol based on Matthew 18 must be followed. The first step called for once it is clear that a question exists is for the questioning parties to consult the conference. Therefore, all of the extra steps that the Potomac Conference insisted on in our situation had no basis in official Church policy. Second, it is the Church Manual, which is an expression of the will of the General Conference, that delegates primary responsibility for answering questions about the Church Manual to the local conferences. This is a practical measure taken simply because the General Conference couldn’t possibly directly address every single question that might arise in local congregations regarding the Church Manual. However, the simple fact that the General Conference exercises its authority to delegate this task to the local conference means that they also have the authority to take back the responsibility should they see that a particular situation called for such intervention. Furthermore, since the Church Manual originates from the General Conference they are the foremost experts on its content and interpretation. In short, despite Pastor DeSilva’s having been appalled at their decision, there was nothing wrong with the five leaders within the General Conference having written the letters of interpretation that they did. Finally, the 18th edition’s use of “church officers and leaders, pastors, and members” in place of the 17th edition’s “churches” makes it clear that whether or not associations like the Group had standing to make appeals to their union before, they very definitely have that right now.

To summarize, each level of organization has its own legitimate sphere of action. Within the local church the business meeting is the highest authority. So long as it is acting within its designated parameters and all concerned are satisfied that it is doing its job in the way that it ought to there is no reason for any other level of the organization to be involved with its activities. Should questions or concerns arise regarding either the processes or the decisions of the local church the questions or concerns are to be taken to the conference. The conference is to give answers to the best of its ability. Should those answers not provide sufficient illumination on the matter the question or concern is to be taken on to the union. Once a clear answer is received the church is expected to act in accordance with it.

These relationships and processes are defined by the Church Manual. As previously stated, the Church Manual is a product of the General Conference, which is the highest authority within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It defines the relationships between all other levels of the organization and delegates to them the power that they wield, which means that the General Conference gets the final word on the interpretation and use of that delegated power.

The Epic, Pt. 70

The recommendations of the executive committee had made it clear that they either could not or would not answer the question the Group had posed to them. Throughout the appeal process the Potomac Conference administration had treated the Group as if we were squabbling with the pastor over who got to use a prime spot in the church parking lot. Not surprisingly, then, their perspective on resolving the situation was that what was needed was for more heads to get together in order to think up a compromise. This was not the purpose for which we had appealed to the executive committee. Either the Group was correct that the new governance was contrary to the Church Manual, or the pastors were correct that the new governance was not contrary to the Church Manual. The point of our appeal was simple: to have the executive committee render an expert opinion as to which interpretation of the Church Manual was correct. From there the proper course of action would be obvious. If the new governance was judged to be wrong it should be undone. If it was judged to be right there would be no need to make any changes. This simple nature of the matter put before them had been entirely ignored by the executive committee.

To make this point still clearer, allow us to offer a parable before we proceed with our story. A young man had a large family with many siblings. One day he observed his eldest brother taking some pills. He investigated and discovered that they were prescription drugs that his brother had no legitimate reason to be taking. When he confronted his brother about the drug abuse the brother denied everything, claiming that he had only been taking vitamin pills. The young man took what he knew to the rest of the family to seek their help in staging an intervention with the eldest brother. The family was shocked. They went to the eldest brother and he repeated his denial and the story that the pills had merely been vitamins. The family members began taking sides. Some believed the young man, others his eldest brother. Finally, the young man’s father came to him and insisted that he sit down with his eldest brother and reach a compromise because of what the situation was doing to the rest of the family. This demand perplexed the young man. What sort of compromise could he reach with his brother about a drug habit? That his brother would only abuse pills on alternate days? That he would switch to abusing less potent pills? On the other hand, what if somehow he was wrong and his brother was only taking vitamin pills? It would be silly to demand that his brother stop taking vitamins, or even that he take fewer of them. The young man couldn’t escape his conviction that in this situation the truth had to be established and an all-or-nothing course of action taken as a result of that truth.

In the wake of the executive committee’s recommendations the Group was left with three problems. The first was that the fundamental question at the heart of our appeal had gone unanswered. The second was that, in contradiction to his earlier statements, Elder Miller was now insisting that we were not permitted to seek clarification from the union in what had turned out to be the absence of a direct answer from the conference. The third problem was that the conference’s recommendations put responsibility for answering the question in the hands of the Takoma Park Church which, given the heavy-handed way business is conducted by the pastors, effectively meant that the decision was in the hands of Pastor DeSilva. With Pastor DeSilva’s established bias on the subject, this would virtually guarantee that even if the recommendations were approved for formality’s sake that they would never actually be implemented.

To address these matters the Group took a two-pronged approach. First, Sister L communicated with a contact in the North American Division administration, seeking a second opinion on Elder Miller’s interpretation that the Manual would not allow the Group to appeal to the union. Second, Elder B made contact with Elder Ramirez to address the Group’s concerns that there would be no follow-through on Pastor DeSilva’s part regarding the recommendations. Both of these communications had interesting results.

Elder B’s communication with Elder Ramirez took place by phone. During the conversation Elder Ramirez expressed surprise that there had not been more Group members present at the ministries board meeting in which the conference had presented its recommendations. He particularly mentioned the absence of Brother G. Elder B explained that as a member of the accountability board Brother G was specifically excluded from membership on the ministries board, and that since whomever had called the meeting had closed it to all but members of the ministries board, Brother G and other leaders of the church who were not on the ministries board had been prevented from attending. (This exchange highlighted a couple of significant facts. First, there is no single administrative body in the Takoma Park Church that can be called to meet which includes all of the high-ranking elected leaders of the church. Second, in choosing to believe Pastor DeSilva’s interpretations of the workings of the church’s governance the conference found that they did not get what they expected.) On the matter of not being able to trust that Pastor DeSilva would follow through on the recommendations of the executive committee Elder Ramirez promised Elder B that a representative of the conference would attend both of the upcoming meetings at which the recommendations were due to be discussed in order to see that they were taken seriously.

On Friday evening, June 19, 2009, Elder B received another phone call from Elder Ramirez. He wanted to know whether she would be attending camp meeting the next day, and if so, whether they could meet in the afternoon. Elder B responded that she was planning to attend and would be willing to meet. During that meeting the following afternoon it came to light that in researching the question of right to appeal Sister L’s NAD contact had called Elder Miller that Friday to hear directly his views on the subject. In the course of the conversation the NAD contact had mentioned that Sister L had been providing him with regular reports about the situation in Takoma Park. While he didn’t show it in conversation with the NAD contact, Elder Miller was rather unhappy about the conversation and the information that someone in the Group had been in regular contact with NAD administration. The purpose of the meeting between Elder B and Elder Ramirez was to convey this displeasure. It was expressed that if the Group were to attempt to appeal further before the church had taken formal action on the executive committee’s recommendations and the executive committee heard about it that they would consider the Group very arrogant. There was an implication that negative consequences would result from such action. It was also implied that the communication between Sister L and her NAD contact was somehow improper and ought to be stopped by the Group. Elder B was rather taken aback by this “advice,” which was presented as being for the Group’s own good. The Group as a whole, upon hearing about it, was rather taken aback that the conference administration would have the nerve to attempt to dictate whom members of the Group could or could not speak with or that they would seek to restrict the subjects of any such conversations.

On Sunday evening, June 21, 2009, Sister L finally received a formal answer from her NAD contact on how the Church Manual’s statement about appeals ought to be interpreted. The response was that there was no consistent opinion among Church Manual experts. Some believed that a group such as the Group did have the right to appeal to a union executive committee for clarification; others so far restricted the right to appeal as to allow only conferences to do so. (This ambiguity of policy was clarified by changes made to the Church Manual that were just ratified at the GC Session in Atlanta. Our next post will speak to this matter, as well as the long-promised discussions of the powers of the various levels of the denominational hierarchy and analysis of Elder Miller’s presentation to the ministries board, which ultimately all speak to the same issues.)

Next: At the Ministries Board

Religious

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 23

"There have been dishonesty, fraud, the turning away of a man from his rights, and disregarding the principles of the commandments of God. You have had men, schemes, and devising of plans with the idea that you could as a board have power to do anything that would serve the conference, and bring in a revenue. But it was more grievous in the sight of God, because you there were covering the dishonest practises, saying The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we. Yes; but that temple was just as much in need of cleansing as the temple courts in the days when Christ was upon the earth. The Lord hates the mixture he saw in the earthly temple. Unholy bartering in the temple courts brought forth the righteous indignation of an insulted God" (General Conference Daily Bulletin, February 23, 1899 par. 6).

"A strange thing has come into our churches. Men who are placed in positions of responsibility that they may be wise helpers to their fellow-workers, have come to suppose that they were set as kings and rulers in the churches, to say to one brother. Do this, to another, Do that, and to another, Be sure to labor in such and such a way. There have been places where the workers have been told that if they did not follow the instruction of these men of responsibility, their pay from the conference would be withheld.

"It is right for the workers to counsel together as brethren; but that man who endeavors to lead his fellow-workers to seek his individual counsel and advice regarding the details of their work, and to learn their duty from him, is in a dangerous position, and needs to learn what responsibilities are really comprehended in his office. God has appointed no man to be conscience for his fellow-man. It is not wise to lay so much responsibility upon an officer that he will feel that he is forced to become a dictator" (Jehovah Is Our King, pp.12, 13).

"Those who are seeking to know the truth and to understand the will of God, who are faithful to the light and zealous in the performance of their daily duties, will surely know of the doctrine, for they will be guided into all truth. God does not promise, by the masterly acts of His providence, to irresistibly bring men to the knowledge of His truth, when they do not seek for truth and have no desire to know the truth. Men have the power to quench the Spirit of God; the power of choosing is left with them. They are allowed freedom of action. They may be obedient through the name and grace of our Redeemer, or they may be disobedient, and realize the consequences. Man is responsible for receiving or rejecting sacred and eternal truth. The Spirit of God is continually convicting, and souls are deciding for or against the truth. The deportment, the words, the actions, of the minister of Christ may balance a soul for or against the truth. How important that every act of the life be such that it need not be repented of. Especially is this important among the ambassadors of Christ, who are acting in the place of Christ" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, pp.427, 428).