The conference did not make any immediate reply to the messages sent on May 8 and May 11, 2009. With the 19th and the meeting proposed for that date fast approaching the Group began to wonder if the meeting was proceeding, or if the silence meant that it had been called off. On Friday, May 15 Brother G sent another message asking the status of the situation.
On Saturday night, May 16,2009, Elder Ramirez responded to Brother G with a voicemail. His message stated that he was trying to understand the latest email and that he assumed that we wanted him to completely disregard the first email, where we had “several issues.” He further stated that since we did not question the May 19th meeting he was assuming that we were fine with it. (As explained earlier, there is some allowance for confusion regarding which message Elder Ramirez was asked to ignore, but his claim that we had no questions about the May 19th meeting when he had received an entire message full of them was a bit hard to swallow.) The voicemail reiterated who was to be present at the May 19 meeting, when it would take place, and assured Brother G that there was no hidden agenda. It also included a new stipulation—that we should prepare a five-minute statement to introduce our main issues and concerns.
On May 17 Brother G and Elder Ramirez connected by phone, at which time Brother G clarified the confusion about the message he had asked Elder Ramirez to ignore. He also pointed out that the Group did have questions about the May 19 meeting, most notably why it should be necessary at all. Elder Ramirez didn’t provide answers to any of the questions we had posed, but he did positively state that if the Group did not participate in the meeting on the 19th we would not be permitted to appear before the executive committee. The phone call was followed up with an email from Elder Ramirez that night.
“Dear [Brother G],
“It was nice to talk to you and respond to some of your concerns. I am really hoping that you and the other representatives of the group will be able to attend the meeting on Tuesday, May 19 at 4 pm at the Buccaneer House. During this meeting we will review process and final details in preparation for the meeting with the Executive Committee on May 28. Also, please be prepared to talk about the issue in question in five minutes or less. We will have two representatives from the executive committee joining us.
“As to the 'corrected' minutes, I am having a hard time understanding your version of it. I thank you and welcome some of the observations made on punctuation, and spelling of names. But to remove and add words and complete paragraphs I am not sure I am comfortable with that. I will continue to look into this and will give you a respond by Tuesday, during our meeting.
“Again, thank you for the opportunity to dialogue. Have a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
The Group was now faced with the necessity of attending a meeting we didn’t understand and saw no need for in order to prevent our right to appear before the executive committee from being wrenched out of our grasp. We became concerned that if we were to object to any conditions that might be laid down at the May 19 meeting for the executive committee appearance that that also might be used as an excuse to keep us from appearing. Given this possibility the Group decided to agree to anything the conference stipulated which did not compromise our mission.
Next: Stipulations
Religious
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 20
“The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what.
“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance.
“And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning to men, putting human wisdom in place of divine” (Gospel Workers, pp. 298, 299).
"God does not compel men to give up their unbelief. Before them are light and darkness, truth and error. It is for them to decide which they will accept. The human mind is endowed with power to discriminate between right and wrong. God designs that men shall not decide from impulse, but from weight of evidence, carefully comparing scripture with scripture. Had the Jews laid by their prejudice and compared written prophecy with the facts characterizing the life of Jesus, they would have perceived a beautiful harmony between the prophecies and their fulfillment in the life and ministry of the lowly Galilean.
"Many are deceived today in the same way as were the Jews. Religious teachers read the Bible in the light of their own understanding and traditions; and the people do not search the Scriptures for themselves, and judge for themselves as to what is truth; but they yield up their judgment, and commit their souls to their leaders. The preaching and teaching of His word is one of the means that God has ordained for diffusing light; but we must bring every man's teaching to the test of Scripture. Whoever will prayerfully study the Bible, desiring to know the truth, that he may obey it, will receive divine enlightenment. He will understand the Scriptures. 'If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching.' John 7:17, R. V." (The Desire of Ages, pp. 458, 459).
“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance.
“And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning to men, putting human wisdom in place of divine” (Gospel Workers, pp. 298, 299).
"God does not compel men to give up their unbelief. Before them are light and darkness, truth and error. It is for them to decide which they will accept. The human mind is endowed with power to discriminate between right and wrong. God designs that men shall not decide from impulse, but from weight of evidence, carefully comparing scripture with scripture. Had the Jews laid by their prejudice and compared written prophecy with the facts characterizing the life of Jesus, they would have perceived a beautiful harmony between the prophecies and their fulfillment in the life and ministry of the lowly Galilean.
"Many are deceived today in the same way as were the Jews. Religious teachers read the Bible in the light of their own understanding and traditions; and the people do not search the Scriptures for themselves, and judge for themselves as to what is truth; but they yield up their judgment, and commit their souls to their leaders. The preaching and teaching of His word is one of the means that God has ordained for diffusing light; but we must bring every man's teaching to the test of Scripture. Whoever will prayerfully study the Bible, desiring to know the truth, that he may obey it, will receive divine enlightenment. He will understand the Scriptures. 'If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching.' John 7:17, R. V." (The Desire of Ages, pp. 458, 459).
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 59
Below are the corrected minutes of the previous meeting which were prepared by the Group. Like Elder Ramirez’s minutes they have been reformatted because of Blogger’s distaste for tabs. Since Blogger also doesn't do underline or strikethrough words that were added are in green and words that were removed are in red. Content is unaltered.
“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership and Small Church Group Takoma Park Church Plaintive Leadership Representatives Special Meeting
“April 16, 2009
“6:00 pm
“Minutes
“Present: [Elder J], [Elder D], Pastor Alan DeSilva, [Elder C], [Brother X], [Brother G] and Jorge Ramirez
“Welcome
“Elder Jorge Ramirez introduced himself and welcomed representatives from both groups. He thanked everyone for being present.
“Devotional
“Elder Ramirez shared a brief devotional from Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 299-301 dealing with division and discord in the church. An appeal was made to both parties to consider in prayer the unity that can only be achieved in Christ.
“Prayer
“Elder Ramirez offered prayer to begin the meeting.
“Summary of last meeting
“Elder Ramirez briefly summarized the contents from last meeting between [Brother G] and Pastor pastor Alan DeSilva. The issue at hand is: 'The present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.' After much discussion between the two parties, Pastor pastor DeSilva submitted in good faith a proposal to [Brother G] to resolve the disagreement. The proposal was: 'To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.' Further, the proposal was subject to the following conditions: (1) Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual, and (2) This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.
“[Brother G] thanked acknowledged Pastor pastor DeSilva’s for making this proposal, but indicated that as a representative from the group he would have to present such proposal to them for their consideration.
“Process leading to this meeting
“On February 15, 2009 Elder Ramirez received an email from [Brother G], indicating that the group had met and considered Pastor pastor DeSilva’s proposal but had some objections and therefore could not accept it. The Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Group agreed to meet in another meeting, as originally outlined by the Conference, in order to follow Matthew 18, to the asked that another meeting be scheduled with a larger representation from both sides to further discuss the matter.
“Elder Ramirez responded the same day indicating that the Plaintiff Leadership group agreed request to meet with a larger group. was appropriate. He further asked that the names of the three representatives as well as an outline of their objections be sent send to him in writing before the meeting could take place. He would work on scheduling the meeting date. The requested information was sent in and It was set for the meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 16 at 7 6 pm.
“Review of process for this meeting
“Elder Ramirez indicated that the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s group would have 20 minutes to introduce their objections to Pastor pastor DeSilva’s proposal with no interruptions. After their presentation, Pastor pastor DeSilva and the Church Defendant Leadership would also have 20 minutes to respond to the objections. After this, the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s group representatives would have an additional 15 minutes to add any further comments, followed by 15 minutes of rebuttal by the Church Defendant Leadership representatives. There was consensus by both parties as to the process to be followed for this meeting.
“Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership’s group rep’s
“[Brother G] explained that a rebuttal document outlining the Takoma Park Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s objections would be read by [Elder C] followed by further clarification from members of the group. Also, he indicated that the terms of reference for the Support and Accountability and Church Ministries Boards were being distributed as supporting evidence that the joining of them would not reinstate the Church Board according to the Church Manual. A chart of three columns comparing the Terms of References was disallowed because no one could explain the asterisks, while it was plainly explained at the bottom of the chart. [Elder C] read the three-page paper outlining the group’s objections.
“(Original paragraph is deleted.)
“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership’s group rep’s
“Pastor DeSilva and the rest of the church leadership responded by pointing out areas of concern and disagreement to the Takoma Park Church Leadership Plaintiff group’s objections. Some of their main observations were: (1) Church Manual is a guideline not doctrine, (2) In large churches such as Takoma Park, sometimes there is a need to create certain ministries and reorganize it’s structure in order to become more effective in carrying out the mission of the church. In addition, they reiterated their strong conviction that the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is in harmony with the Church Manual. They requested further clarification on a few items.
“Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership’s group rep’s
“Representatives from the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership group responded to some of the concerns objections raised by the Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership group. In addition, it was pointed out that the document that gives direction to this new structure was a document that was promoted created by the Conference Administration. Further, it was made very clear that parts of the Paul Borden Report are is the main issue cause for the lack of a church board. This was a recommendation coming from a Baptist minister.
“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership’s group rep’s
“The Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership group Rep’s once again expressed their concerns objections as to the strong conviction on some of the issues raised. Once again, it was evident that there was overwhelming disagreement as to the nature of the issues.
“Resolution
“After further discussion, both parties felt that it would be useless to continue the meeting since the disagreements between the two parties remained unchanged. Therefore, it was voted to refer this issue to the Potomac Conference Executive Committee for final resolution.
“It was further agreed by both parties that the Conference Executive Committee would be the final stop in this matter and that their decision would be final.”
Next: Confusion
Religious
“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership and Small Church Group Takoma Park Church Plaintive Leadership Representatives Special Meeting
“April 16, 2009
“6:00 pm
“Minutes
“Present: [Elder J], [Elder D], Pastor Alan DeSilva, [Elder C], [Brother X], [Brother G] and Jorge Ramirez
“Welcome
“Elder Jorge Ramirez introduced himself and welcomed representatives from both groups. He thanked everyone for being present.
“Devotional
“Elder Ramirez shared a brief devotional from Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 299-301 dealing with division and discord in the church. An appeal was made to both parties to consider in prayer the unity that can only be achieved in Christ.
“Prayer
“Elder Ramirez offered prayer to begin the meeting.
“Summary of last meeting
“Elder Ramirez briefly summarized the contents from last meeting between [Brother G] and Pastor pastor Alan DeSilva. The issue at hand is: 'The present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.' After much discussion between the two parties, Pastor pastor DeSilva submitted in good faith a proposal to [Brother G] to resolve the disagreement. The proposal was: 'To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.' Further, the proposal was subject to the following conditions: (1) Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual, and (2) This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.
“[Brother G] thanked acknowledged Pastor pastor DeSilva’s for making this proposal, but indicated that as a representative from the group he would have to present such proposal to them for their consideration.
“Process leading to this meeting
“On February 15, 2009 Elder Ramirez received an email from [Brother G], indicating that the group had met and considered Pastor pastor DeSilva’s proposal but had some objections and therefore could not accept it. The Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Group agreed to meet in another meeting, as originally outlined by the Conference, in order to follow Matthew 18, to the asked that another meeting be scheduled with a larger representation from both sides to further discuss the matter.
“Elder Ramirez responded the same day indicating that the Plaintiff Leadership group agreed request to meet with a larger group. was appropriate. He further asked that the names of the three representatives as well as an outline of their objections be sent send to him in writing before the meeting could take place. He would work on scheduling the meeting date. The requested information was sent in and It was set for the meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 16 at 7 6 pm.
“Review of process for this meeting
“Elder Ramirez indicated that the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s group would have 20 minutes to introduce their objections to Pastor pastor DeSilva’s proposal with no interruptions. After their presentation, Pastor pastor DeSilva and the Church Defendant Leadership would also have 20 minutes to respond to the objections. After this, the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s group representatives would have an additional 15 minutes to add any further comments, followed by 15 minutes of rebuttal by the Church Defendant Leadership representatives. There was consensus by both parties as to the process to be followed for this meeting.
“Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership’s group rep’s
“[Brother G] explained that a rebuttal document outlining the Takoma Park Plaintiff Leadership Rep’s objections would be read by [Elder C] followed by further clarification from members of the group. Also, he indicated that the terms of reference for the Support and Accountability and Church Ministries Boards were being distributed as supporting evidence that the joining of them would not reinstate the Church Board according to the Church Manual. A chart of three columns comparing the Terms of References was disallowed because no one could explain the asterisks, while it was plainly explained at the bottom of the chart. [Elder C] read the three-page paper outlining the group’s objections.
“(Original paragraph is deleted.)
“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership’s group rep’s
“Pastor DeSilva and the rest of the church leadership responded by pointing out areas of concern and disagreement to the Takoma Park Church Leadership Plaintiff group’s objections. Some of their main observations were: (1) Church Manual is a guideline not doctrine, (2) In large churches such as Takoma Park, sometimes there is a need to create certain ministries and reorganize it’s structure in order to become more effective in carrying out the mission of the church. In addition, they reiterated their strong conviction that the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is in harmony with the Church Manual. They requested further clarification on a few items.
“Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership’s group rep’s
“Representatives from the Takoma Park Church Plaintiff Leadership group responded to some of the concerns objections raised by the Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership group. In addition, it was pointed out that the document that gives direction to this new structure was a document that was promoted created by the Conference Administration. Further, it was made very clear that parts of the Paul Borden Report are is the main issue cause for the lack of a church board. This was a recommendation coming from a Baptist minister.
“Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership’s group rep’s
“The Takoma Park Church Defendant Leadership group Rep’s once again expressed their concerns objections as to the strong conviction on some of the issues raised. Once again, it was evident that there was overwhelming disagreement as to the nature of the issues.
“Resolution
“After further discussion, both parties felt that it would be useless to continue the meeting since the disagreements between the two parties remained unchanged. Therefore, it was voted to refer this issue to the Potomac Conference Executive Committee for final resolution.
“It was further agreed by both parties that the Conference Executive Committee would be the final stop in this matter and that their decision would be final.”
Next: Confusion
Religious
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 58
Brother G sent two emails to Elder Ramirez on behalf of the Group on Friday, May 8, 2009. The first contained the Group’s questions regarding the proposed meeting on May 19 and the second explained the major issues the Group took with the minutes Elder Ramirez had prepared of the previous meeting. Our corrected minutes were attached to the second message. The two messages and the attached minutes had a common problem—all three used the word “plaintive” where “plaintiff” should have been used. Brother G noticed this mistake after sending the messages, corrected it, and resent the second message and attached minutes on Monday, May 11. In doing so he hoped to avoid a repetition of the earlier situation in which Elder Ramirez chose to repeat our words with spelling errors intact until we made a point of correcting them. Unfortunately, when he asked Elder Ramirez to ignore the message with the wrong word he mistakenly referred to it as the first message he had sent on May 8, which caused some confusion later on as to which message was to be ignored.
Included below are the first message sent on May 8 and the corrected version of the second message which was sent on May 11. Because of their length the Group’s version of the previous meeting’s minutes will be included in the next chapter of the Epic.
“Dear Jorge:
“Your phone call caught me off guard when you proposed a May 19, 2009 meeting. We all had agreed that the next step would be the Conference Executive Committee Meeting. It was equally surprising to the members of the Takoma Park Church Plaintive Leadership members.
“You stated that it was necessary for members of both sides of the issues plus Elder Miller and two members of the Conference Executive Committee to be present. You had also suggested that procedure would be the topic of discussion. Why the presence of two members of the Executive Committee? They know nothing of our presentation and perhaps nothing of Pastor DeSilva’s as well. Thus to review the information from both sides for the edification of the two Executive members while the other members of the Executive Committee are not present is puzzling, being the objective of the meeting on the 19th is one of procedure. We sincerely question the need to have an additional meeting before our appearance on the May 28th Executive Meeting. We, therefore, request a detailed agenda for the May 19th meeting and also request why two Executive Committee members are to be present.
“Our group is requesting that all future communications be written and not oral between us to avoid any future misunderstanding. Also, I, as the liaison between you and members of the Takoma Park Plaintive Leadership members, will better convey your thoughts accurately than I otherwise could do orally.
“Sincerely,
“[Brother G]”
“Dear Jorge,
“On Friday I sent you an email regarding the corrected Minutes. Please disregard that email and its attachments. I am now sending you a CORRECTED copy. Please disregard the first letter sent to you dated May 8.
“Attached are the corrected minutes.
“There are several items which we have corrected in harmony with what took place. There are at least two instances where we wish to clarify our standing as the plaintiff part of the Takoma Park leadership. It is not Pastor DeSilva and Takoma Park Leadership vs 'a small group.' Please note that personnel from the Takoma Park Church Leadership and other general members are both members of what we are designating 'plaintiff leadership' vs 'defendant leadership.' For example: [Brother G] is part of Takoma Park Church Leadership. In reality the entire church is divided. It is not a small group vs church leadership. Today most of the membership no longer attends.
“The other notable item to which we take exception is found in the last two paragraphs of the minutes stating that there was an agreement that the final resolution in this matter is with the Conference Executive Committee. This is incorrect. I had stated that the Union would then become involved, if this issue were not resolved. My comment was based on remarks made by Elder Miller in a letter dated June 17, 2008 to [Elder B] that if we were not satisfied, this issue would go on to the Union. Please see Elder Miller’s attached letter.
“In the corrected minutes attached file I have underlined words to be added and used strikethrough for words to be removed.
“Sincerely,
“[Brother G]”
Next: Minutes, Version 2
Religious
Included below are the first message sent on May 8 and the corrected version of the second message which was sent on May 11. Because of their length the Group’s version of the previous meeting’s minutes will be included in the next chapter of the Epic.
“Dear Jorge:
“Your phone call caught me off guard when you proposed a May 19, 2009 meeting. We all had agreed that the next step would be the Conference Executive Committee Meeting. It was equally surprising to the members of the Takoma Park Church Plaintive Leadership members.
“You stated that it was necessary for members of both sides of the issues plus Elder Miller and two members of the Conference Executive Committee to be present. You had also suggested that procedure would be the topic of discussion. Why the presence of two members of the Executive Committee? They know nothing of our presentation and perhaps nothing of Pastor DeSilva’s as well. Thus to review the information from both sides for the edification of the two Executive members while the other members of the Executive Committee are not present is puzzling, being the objective of the meeting on the 19th is one of procedure. We sincerely question the need to have an additional meeting before our appearance on the May 28th Executive Meeting. We, therefore, request a detailed agenda for the May 19th meeting and also request why two Executive Committee members are to be present.
“Our group is requesting that all future communications be written and not oral between us to avoid any future misunderstanding. Also, I, as the liaison between you and members of the Takoma Park Plaintive Leadership members, will better convey your thoughts accurately than I otherwise could do orally.
“Sincerely,
“[Brother G]”
“Dear Jorge,
“On Friday I sent you an email regarding the corrected Minutes. Please disregard that email and its attachments. I am now sending you a CORRECTED copy. Please disregard the first letter sent to you dated May 8.
“Attached are the corrected minutes.
“There are several items which we have corrected in harmony with what took place. There are at least two instances where we wish to clarify our standing as the plaintiff part of the Takoma Park leadership. It is not Pastor DeSilva and Takoma Park Leadership vs 'a small group.' Please note that personnel from the Takoma Park Church Leadership and other general members are both members of what we are designating 'plaintiff leadership' vs 'defendant leadership.' For example: [Brother G] is part of Takoma Park Church Leadership. In reality the entire church is divided. It is not a small group vs church leadership. Today most of the membership no longer attends.
“The other notable item to which we take exception is found in the last two paragraphs of the minutes stating that there was an agreement that the final resolution in this matter is with the Conference Executive Committee. This is incorrect. I had stated that the Union would then become involved, if this issue were not resolved. My comment was based on remarks made by Elder Miller in a letter dated June 17, 2008 to [Elder B] that if we were not satisfied, this issue would go on to the Union. Please see Elder Miller’s attached letter.
“In the corrected minutes attached file I have underlined words to be added and used strikethrough for words to be removed.
“Sincerely,
“[Brother G]”
Next: Minutes, Version 2
Religious
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 57
By May of 2009 Takoma Park had been without a choir director for about five months. Pastor DeSilva wanted to put in a new director who would ease the music style of the church away from its traditional roots. There were some within the congregation (not a majority, but some) who were clamoring for more contemporary and/or gospel music within the worship repertoire and Pastor DeSilva believed that he could increase his popularity by catering to this demographic. Earlier in the year he had brought in a potential replacement to guest direct for a Sabbath and it had been a fiasco. (It was discovered as a result of this trial run that the woman couldn’t read music, among other things.)
Pastor DeSilva tried again, presenting his new candidate to the music council when it met on May 2, 2009. He asked for immediate approval of the candidate without either interview or audition. His justification for this omission of due diligence was that the church’s attendance was suffering for lack of choral participation in the worship and that the post needed to be filled immediately in order to turn the situation around. (Lack of a choir director was not the reason attendance had fallen off, but it made a convenient excuse to direct attention away from the real reasons.) Pastor DeSilva also presented an altered job description to the music council. He wanted a full-time "Minister of Music" who would direct the choir, choose all other music to be performed during all worship services, be a backup organist, chair of the music council, and report directly to the senior pastor rather than any elected committee. At that time the music counsel chairmanship was an elected position with an incumbent who would be forced out of office if this new position and job description were approved. After lengthy debate the music counsel voted that they wanted a simple choir director, not this fancy new all-encompassing position. (No action was taken regarding the candidate Pastor DeSilva had put forward.)
At a meeting of the ministries board the next morning (May 3) Pastor DeSilva again brought up the new Minister of Music position he wanted to create. He again made his pitch about the music department being in a "pitiful" state, and how the decision simply couldn't be delayed any longer, despite concerns about the matter being rushed and not given due consideration. The vote of the music counsel was glossed over as an expression of "concern" about the new position heading the music counsel. (The music counsel’s official representative on the ministries board didn’t challenge the pastor’s spin.) The proposed job description for this new position caused some heated debate which Pastor DeSilva arbitrarily cut off. He then called for a vote on the job description for the Minister of Music position. It was approved. Pastor DeSilva also introduced the resume of his candidate for the position, but stated that it was for information only, as the accountability board would be making the final decision.
The accountability board met the next week to interview Pastor DeSilva’s candidate for Minister of Music. Pastor DeSilva was recovering from a medical procedure and couldn’t attend the meeting, so he sent the head elder as his proxy. (Proxies are expressly forbidden by the Church Manual, but Pastor DeSilva sent one anyway.) During the meeting the music counsel chair (who was an invitee at that particular meeting) mentioned that she had another name for consideration. She hadn't put it forward because the pastor's mind seemed made up and it didn't appear that alternate candidates were welcome. The head elder pushed for the immediate hire of Pastor DeSilva's candidate, but the accountability board decided to interview the other one first. It was agreed that the other candidate would be interviewed on the following Monday and that both candidates would be given the opportunity to audition as guest choir directors before a decision would be finalized.
During a business meeting on May 17 the matter of the new Minister of Music position came up in the context of evaluating the annual budget and finding salary for the position. The proposal was that this new position should come with a salary of $20,000 for a six month "trial." (Takoma Park has previously given three month trials, but when the proposed duration was questioned Pastor DeSilva simply claimed that “we’ve always done six month trials.” This wasn’t true, but no one chose to call the pastor a liar in front of the business meeting.) There was extensive discussion about whether or not $20,000 was an appropriate salary for six months of work, but it was finally approved.
When the budget discussions concluded Pastor DeSilva again brought up the Minister of Music position. He wanted action from the meeting on whether to hold an emergency business meeting when the accountability board was ready to recommend a candidate or simply let the accountability board hire someone and bless their decision at the next regularly scheduled business meeting. Pastor DeSilva strongly pushed the second option, citing the “bother” of having an emergency business meeting and the supposed need to fill this new position quickly. He was in such a hurry that he didn’t even want to allow the auditions that the accountability board had decided to give both candidates. He even went so far as to express indignance at the concept, claiming that nothing could be learned from the auditions (a remarkable statement given what was learned from the audition of his first candidate) and that the church didn’t require him to audition before hiring him as pastor. It was ultimately decided to proceed with the auditions and have an emergency business meeting to approve a candidate.
After that matter was decided a member tried to make a motion to amend the proposed job description for the Minister of Music to exclude the part about being chair of the music counsel. Pastor DeSilva refused to acknowledge the motion. He claimed first that because the ministries board had already voted it that the business meeting couldn't change it. Then he changed his argument and said that as senior pastor it was his right to write all job descriptions in the church and that he didn't have to get any approval for them. These two arguments are, of course, both faulty for the same reason. The business meeting is the highest authority in the congregation and has the right to overrule any decision of any other committee or employee, including the pastor. By refusing the motion Pastor DeSilva placed himself above the business meeting, in direct contradiction to the order called for in the Church Manual.
The alternate candidate for the Minister of Music position was interviewed by the accountability board on May 18, 2009. It was discovered that he was not a US citizen and didn't have his work papers in order, so that was the end of that. On Sabbath morning, May 23, Pastor DeSilva announced there would be an emergency business meeting on May 27 to hold a "courtesy vote" to hire the new Minister of Music. Pastor DeSilva got his courtesy vote at the May 27 meeting.
Next: A Word
Religious
Pastor DeSilva tried again, presenting his new candidate to the music council when it met on May 2, 2009. He asked for immediate approval of the candidate without either interview or audition. His justification for this omission of due diligence was that the church’s attendance was suffering for lack of choral participation in the worship and that the post needed to be filled immediately in order to turn the situation around. (Lack of a choir director was not the reason attendance had fallen off, but it made a convenient excuse to direct attention away from the real reasons.) Pastor DeSilva also presented an altered job description to the music council. He wanted a full-time "Minister of Music" who would direct the choir, choose all other music to be performed during all worship services, be a backup organist, chair of the music council, and report directly to the senior pastor rather than any elected committee. At that time the music counsel chairmanship was an elected position with an incumbent who would be forced out of office if this new position and job description were approved. After lengthy debate the music counsel voted that they wanted a simple choir director, not this fancy new all-encompassing position. (No action was taken regarding the candidate Pastor DeSilva had put forward.)
At a meeting of the ministries board the next morning (May 3) Pastor DeSilva again brought up the new Minister of Music position he wanted to create. He again made his pitch about the music department being in a "pitiful" state, and how the decision simply couldn't be delayed any longer, despite concerns about the matter being rushed and not given due consideration. The vote of the music counsel was glossed over as an expression of "concern" about the new position heading the music counsel. (The music counsel’s official representative on the ministries board didn’t challenge the pastor’s spin.) The proposed job description for this new position caused some heated debate which Pastor DeSilva arbitrarily cut off. He then called for a vote on the job description for the Minister of Music position. It was approved. Pastor DeSilva also introduced the resume of his candidate for the position, but stated that it was for information only, as the accountability board would be making the final decision.
The accountability board met the next week to interview Pastor DeSilva’s candidate for Minister of Music. Pastor DeSilva was recovering from a medical procedure and couldn’t attend the meeting, so he sent the head elder as his proxy. (Proxies are expressly forbidden by the Church Manual, but Pastor DeSilva sent one anyway.) During the meeting the music counsel chair (who was an invitee at that particular meeting) mentioned that she had another name for consideration. She hadn't put it forward because the pastor's mind seemed made up and it didn't appear that alternate candidates were welcome. The head elder pushed for the immediate hire of Pastor DeSilva's candidate, but the accountability board decided to interview the other one first. It was agreed that the other candidate would be interviewed on the following Monday and that both candidates would be given the opportunity to audition as guest choir directors before a decision would be finalized.
During a business meeting on May 17 the matter of the new Minister of Music position came up in the context of evaluating the annual budget and finding salary for the position. The proposal was that this new position should come with a salary of $20,000 for a six month "trial." (Takoma Park has previously given three month trials, but when the proposed duration was questioned Pastor DeSilva simply claimed that “we’ve always done six month trials.” This wasn’t true, but no one chose to call the pastor a liar in front of the business meeting.) There was extensive discussion about whether or not $20,000 was an appropriate salary for six months of work, but it was finally approved.
When the budget discussions concluded Pastor DeSilva again brought up the Minister of Music position. He wanted action from the meeting on whether to hold an emergency business meeting when the accountability board was ready to recommend a candidate or simply let the accountability board hire someone and bless their decision at the next regularly scheduled business meeting. Pastor DeSilva strongly pushed the second option, citing the “bother” of having an emergency business meeting and the supposed need to fill this new position quickly. He was in such a hurry that he didn’t even want to allow the auditions that the accountability board had decided to give both candidates. He even went so far as to express indignance at the concept, claiming that nothing could be learned from the auditions (a remarkable statement given what was learned from the audition of his first candidate) and that the church didn’t require him to audition before hiring him as pastor. It was ultimately decided to proceed with the auditions and have an emergency business meeting to approve a candidate.
After that matter was decided a member tried to make a motion to amend the proposed job description for the Minister of Music to exclude the part about being chair of the music counsel. Pastor DeSilva refused to acknowledge the motion. He claimed first that because the ministries board had already voted it that the business meeting couldn't change it. Then he changed his argument and said that as senior pastor it was his right to write all job descriptions in the church and that he didn't have to get any approval for them. These two arguments are, of course, both faulty for the same reason. The business meeting is the highest authority in the congregation and has the right to overrule any decision of any other committee or employee, including the pastor. By refusing the motion Pastor DeSilva placed himself above the business meeting, in direct contradiction to the order called for in the Church Manual.
The alternate candidate for the Minister of Music position was interviewed by the accountability board on May 18, 2009. It was discovered that he was not a US citizen and didn't have his work papers in order, so that was the end of that. On Sabbath morning, May 23, Pastor DeSilva announced there would be an emergency business meeting on May 27 to hold a "courtesy vote" to hire the new Minister of Music. Pastor DeSilva got his courtesy vote at the May 27 meeting.
Next: A Word
Religious
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Thoughts on a Snow Day
Since the entire state of Maryland seems to be stuck under a snow bank for the time being we have an entertainment suggestion to offer: read chapter eight of The Great Controversy. For those who don't happen to have a hard copy of the book it can also be found online. Simply follow the link below, click on "Go to: Book and Page," select The Great Controversy, p.145, and hit Search.
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default
The chapter is entitled, "Luther Before the Diet," and describes Martin Luther's defense of his beliefs before the German emperor. It's quite interesting.
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default
The chapter is entitled, "Luther Before the Diet," and describes Martin Luther's defense of his beliefs before the German emperor. It's quite interesting.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 19
“It is a fact widely ignored, though never without danger, that error rarely appears for what it really is. It is by mingling with or attaching itself to truth that it gains acceptance. The eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil caused the ruin of our first parents, and the acceptance of a mingling of good and evil is the ruin of men and women today. The mind that depends upon the judgment of others is certain, sooner or later, to be misled.
“The power to discriminate between right and wrong we can possess only through individual dependence upon God. Each for himself is to learn from Him through His word. Our reasoning powers were given us for use, and God desires them to be exercised. ‘Come now, and let us reason together’ (Isaiah 1:18), He invites us. In reliance upon Him we may have wisdom to ‘refuse the evil, and choose the good.’ Isaiah 7:15; James 1:5” (Education, pp. 230, 231).
“But light and darkness cannot harmonize. Between truth and error there is an irrepressible conflict. To uphold and defend the one is to attack and overthrow the other. Our Saviour Himself declared: 'I came not to send peace, but a sword.' Matthew 10:34. Said Luther, a few years after the opening of the Reformation: 'God does not guide me, He pushes me forward. He carries me away. I am not master of myself. I desire to live in repose; but I am thrown into the midst of tumults and revolutions.'--D'Aubigne, b. 5, ch. 2” (The Great Controversy, pp. 126, 127).
“God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe His word to awake out of sleep. Precious light has come, appropriate for this time. It is Bible truth, showing the perils that are right upon us. This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures, and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold” (Gospel Workers, p.299).
“The power to discriminate between right and wrong we can possess only through individual dependence upon God. Each for himself is to learn from Him through His word. Our reasoning powers were given us for use, and God desires them to be exercised. ‘Come now, and let us reason together’ (Isaiah 1:18), He invites us. In reliance upon Him we may have wisdom to ‘refuse the evil, and choose the good.’ Isaiah 7:15; James 1:5” (Education, pp. 230, 231).
“But light and darkness cannot harmonize. Between truth and error there is an irrepressible conflict. To uphold and defend the one is to attack and overthrow the other. Our Saviour Himself declared: 'I came not to send peace, but a sword.' Matthew 10:34. Said Luther, a few years after the opening of the Reformation: 'God does not guide me, He pushes me forward. He carries me away. I am not master of myself. I desire to live in repose; but I am thrown into the midst of tumults and revolutions.'--D'Aubigne, b. 5, ch. 2” (The Great Controversy, pp. 126, 127).
“God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe His word to awake out of sleep. Precious light has come, appropriate for this time. It is Bible truth, showing the perils that are right upon us. This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures, and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold” (Gospel Workers, p.299).
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 56
On April 30, 2009 Brother G received a phone call from Elder Ramirez, who said that he would be sending Brother G an email later in the day with minutes of the previous meeting. Elder Ramirez also informed Brother G that the Potomac Conference Executive Committee would next meet on May 28, 2009. (He did not explicitly state whether or not the Group would be allowed to appear at that meeting). He did say that Elder Miller had decided to resume direct oversight of the “process” and wanted to meet with the representatives of both sides of the dispute on May 19. The purpose of this meeting was explained only as explaining the process of presenting this matter to the executive committee. Elder Ramirez also said that the attendees of this meeting would be everyone who had been at the last one plus Elder Miller and two members of the executive committee (Brother G wasn’t told which two or why these additional individuals were to be present). Brother G asked whether Elder Ramirez intended to include the information about the May 19 meeting in the email Elder Ramirez had said he would be sending later in the day. His response was, "No, that's why I'm calling you," but when the email showed up it did include the same information about the proposed meeting.
“Dear [Brother G] and Pastor DeSilva,
“In preparation for the Executive Committee meeting on Thursday, May 28, 2009, Bill is scheduling a special meeting with the three representatives from each group for Tuesday, May 19 at 4 pm at the Buccaneer House. Please confirm that you will be able to attend. I am also attaching the minutes from our last meeting. Please review them to ensure that they reflect the content of the meeting. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you for continuing to be a part of this process. I wish you a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
The minutes Elder Ramirez sent are included below. They have been reformatted slightly in the transition to this forum because Blogger doesn’t seem to acknowledge tabs, but the content is unaltered.
“Takoma Park Church Leadership and Small Church Group Representatives Special Meeting
“April 16, 2009
“6:00 pm
“Minutes
“Present: [Elder J-misspelled], [Elder D-misspelled], pastor Alan DeSilva, [Elder C-misspelled], [Brother X-misspelled], [Brother G] and Jorge Ramirez
“Welcome
“Elder Jorge Ramirez introduced himself and welcomed representatives from both groups. He thanked everyone for being present.
“Devotional
“Elder Ramirez shared a brief devotional from Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 299-301 dealing with division and discord in the church. An appeal was made to both parties to consider in prayer the unity that can only be achieved in Christ.
“Prayer
“Elder Ramirez offered prayer to begin the meeting.
“Summary of last meeting
“Elder Ramirez briefly summarized the contents from last meeting between [Brother G] and pastor Alan DeSilva. The issue at hand is: ‘The present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.’ After much discussion between the two parties, pastor DeSilva submitted in good faith a proposal to [Brother G] to resolve the disagreement. The proposal was: ‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.’ Further, the proposal was subject to the following conditions: (1) Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual, and (2) This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.
"[Brother G] thanked pastor DeSilva for making this proposal, but indicated that as a representative from the group he would have to present such proposal to them for their consideration.
“Process leading to this meeting
“On February 15, 2009 Elder Ramirez received an email from [Brother G], indicating that the group had met and considered pastor DeSilva’s proposal but had some objections and therefore could not accept it. The group asked that another meeting be scheduled with larger representation from both sides to further discuss the matter.
“Elder Ramirez responded the same day indicating that the group’s request to meet with a larger group was appropriate. He further asked that the names of the three representatives as well as an outline of their objections be send to him in writing before the meeting could take place. He would work on scheduling the meeting date. The requested information was sent in and the meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 16 at 7 pm.
“Review of process for this meeting
“Elder Ramirez indicated that the Takoma Park church group would have 20 minutes to introduce their objections to pastor DeSilva’s proposal with no interruptions. After their presentation, pastor DeSilva and the church leadership would also have 20 minutes to respond to the objections. After this, the Takoma Park church group representatives would have an additional 15 minutes to add any further comments, followed by 15 minutes of rebuttal by the church leadership representatives. There was consensus by both parties as to the process to be followed for this meeting.
“Takoma Park church group rep’s
“[Brother G] explained that a written statement outlining the group’s objections to pastor DeSilva’s proposal would be read by [Brother X-mispelled], followed by further clarification from other members of the group. Also, he indicated that two additional documents were being distributed as supporting evidence. Eventually, the document showing three columns was disallowed due to the fact that the group’s representatives could not explain it. [Brother X-misspelled] went on to read the three-page paper outlining the group’s objections.
“Takoma Park church leadership
“Pastor DeSilva and the rest of the church leadership responded by pointing out areas of concern and disagreement to the group’s objections. Some of their main observations were: (1) Church Manual is a guideline not doctrine, (2) In large churches such as Takoma Park, sometimes there is a need to create certain ministries and reorganize it’s structure in order to become more effective in carrying the mission of the church. In addition, they reiterated their strong conviction that the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is in harmony with the Church Manual. They requested further clarification on a few items.
“Takoma Park church group rep’s
“Representatives from the group responded to some of the concerns raised by the church leadership. In addition, it was pointed out that the document that gives direction to this new structure was a document that was created by the Conference. Further, it was made very clear that the Paul Borden Report is the main issue. This was a recommendation coming from a Baptist minister.
“Takoma Park church leadership
“The church leadership once again expressed their concerns as to the strong language on some of the issues raised. Once again, it was evident that there was overwhelming disagreement as to the nature of the issue.
“Resolution
“After further discussion, both parties felt that it would be useless to continue the meeting since the disagreements between the two parties remained unchanged. Therefore, it was voted to refer this issue to the Potomac Conference Executive Committee for final resolution.
“It was further agreed by both parties that the Conference Executive Committee would be the final stop in this matter and that their decision would be final.”
The Group, upon reviewing these minutes, concluded that they did not accurately reflect the Group’s understanding of what had taken place in the previous meeting. Beyond the numerous misspellings of names there were other errors, most notably the assertion that both sides had agreed that the decision of the Executive Committee would be final. The Group had always maintained a policy that representatives were not empowered to make agreements, only to present and report the results. This policy had not been set aside for this meeting. Even if it had, none of the Group’s representatives had any understanding of having entered into such an agreement. It was clear that substantial corrections needed to be made to the minutes.
Next: A Minister of Music
Religious
“Dear [Brother G] and Pastor DeSilva,
“In preparation for the Executive Committee meeting on Thursday, May 28, 2009, Bill is scheduling a special meeting with the three representatives from each group for Tuesday, May 19 at 4 pm at the Buccaneer House. Please confirm that you will be able to attend. I am also attaching the minutes from our last meeting. Please review them to ensure that they reflect the content of the meeting. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you for continuing to be a part of this process. I wish you a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
The minutes Elder Ramirez sent are included below. They have been reformatted slightly in the transition to this forum because Blogger doesn’t seem to acknowledge tabs, but the content is unaltered.
“Takoma Park Church Leadership and Small Church Group Representatives Special Meeting
“April 16, 2009
“6:00 pm
“Minutes
“Present: [Elder J-misspelled], [Elder D-misspelled], pastor Alan DeSilva, [Elder C-misspelled], [Brother X-misspelled], [Brother G] and Jorge Ramirez
“Welcome
“Elder Jorge Ramirez introduced himself and welcomed representatives from both groups. He thanked everyone for being present.
“Devotional
“Elder Ramirez shared a brief devotional from Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 299-301 dealing with division and discord in the church. An appeal was made to both parties to consider in prayer the unity that can only be achieved in Christ.
“Prayer
“Elder Ramirez offered prayer to begin the meeting.
“Summary of last meeting
“Elder Ramirez briefly summarized the contents from last meeting between [Brother G] and pastor Alan DeSilva. The issue at hand is: ‘The present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.’ After much discussion between the two parties, pastor DeSilva submitted in good faith a proposal to [Brother G] to resolve the disagreement. The proposal was: ‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.’ Further, the proposal was subject to the following conditions: (1) Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual, and (2) This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.
"[Brother G] thanked pastor DeSilva for making this proposal, but indicated that as a representative from the group he would have to present such proposal to them for their consideration.
“Process leading to this meeting
“On February 15, 2009 Elder Ramirez received an email from [Brother G], indicating that the group had met and considered pastor DeSilva’s proposal but had some objections and therefore could not accept it. The group asked that another meeting be scheduled with larger representation from both sides to further discuss the matter.
“Elder Ramirez responded the same day indicating that the group’s request to meet with a larger group was appropriate. He further asked that the names of the three representatives as well as an outline of their objections be send to him in writing before the meeting could take place. He would work on scheduling the meeting date. The requested information was sent in and the meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 16 at 7 pm.
“Review of process for this meeting
“Elder Ramirez indicated that the Takoma Park church group would have 20 minutes to introduce their objections to pastor DeSilva’s proposal with no interruptions. After their presentation, pastor DeSilva and the church leadership would also have 20 minutes to respond to the objections. After this, the Takoma Park church group representatives would have an additional 15 minutes to add any further comments, followed by 15 minutes of rebuttal by the church leadership representatives. There was consensus by both parties as to the process to be followed for this meeting.
“Takoma Park church group rep’s
“[Brother G] explained that a written statement outlining the group’s objections to pastor DeSilva’s proposal would be read by [Brother X-mispelled], followed by further clarification from other members of the group. Also, he indicated that two additional documents were being distributed as supporting evidence. Eventually, the document showing three columns was disallowed due to the fact that the group’s representatives could not explain it. [Brother X-misspelled] went on to read the three-page paper outlining the group’s objections.
“Takoma Park church leadership
“Pastor DeSilva and the rest of the church leadership responded by pointing out areas of concern and disagreement to the group’s objections. Some of their main observations were: (1) Church Manual is a guideline not doctrine, (2) In large churches such as Takoma Park, sometimes there is a need to create certain ministries and reorganize it’s structure in order to become more effective in carrying the mission of the church. In addition, they reiterated their strong conviction that the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church is in harmony with the Church Manual. They requested further clarification on a few items.
“Takoma Park church group rep’s
“Representatives from the group responded to some of the concerns raised by the church leadership. In addition, it was pointed out that the document that gives direction to this new structure was a document that was created by the Conference. Further, it was made very clear that the Paul Borden Report is the main issue. This was a recommendation coming from a Baptist minister.
“Takoma Park church leadership
“The church leadership once again expressed their concerns as to the strong language on some of the issues raised. Once again, it was evident that there was overwhelming disagreement as to the nature of the issue.
“Resolution
“After further discussion, both parties felt that it would be useless to continue the meeting since the disagreements between the two parties remained unchanged. Therefore, it was voted to refer this issue to the Potomac Conference Executive Committee for final resolution.
“It was further agreed by both parties that the Conference Executive Committee would be the final stop in this matter and that their decision would be final.”
The Group, upon reviewing these minutes, concluded that they did not accurately reflect the Group’s understanding of what had taken place in the previous meeting. Beyond the numerous misspellings of names there were other errors, most notably the assertion that both sides had agreed that the decision of the Executive Committee would be final. The Group had always maintained a policy that representatives were not empowered to make agreements, only to present and report the results. This policy had not been set aside for this meeting. Even if it had, none of the Group’s representatives had any understanding of having entered into such an agreement. It was clear that substantial corrections needed to be made to the minutes.
Next: A Minister of Music
Religious
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Right Way
What a Church Board Does
“The church board is composed of the principal officers of the church. It has a number of important responsibilities, but its chief concern is the spiritual nurture of the church and the work of planning and fostering evangelism in all of its phases.
“The gospel commission of Jesus makes evangelism, proclaiming the good news of the gospel, the primary function of the church (Matt. 28:18-20). It is therefore also the primary function of the church board to serve as the chief committee of the local church. When the board devotes its first interests and highest energies to every-member evangelism, most church problems are alleviated or prevented. A strong, positive influence is felt in the spiritual life and growth of the membership.
“Included in church board responsibilities are:
1. Spiritual nurture.
2. Evangelism in all of its phases.
3. Maintenance of doctrinal purity.
4. Upholding Christian standards.
5. Recommending changes in church membership.
6. Church finances.
7. Protection and care of church properties.
8. Coordination of church departments.” (Church Manual, p. 90)
To put it simply, all aspects of running the local congregation are to be under the supervision of the church board. It is the church board's responsibility to keep things running smoothly while not losing sight of the fact that its primary task is evangelism. In order to keep its focus on evangelism the church board must discipline itself to deal with all other matters in an efficient and timely manner. This goal can be aided by the creation of subcommittees.
“Committees of the Board—The church board should permit no other business to interfere with planning for evangelism. Should other business be too time-consuming, the board may appoint committees to care for specific areas of church business, such as finance or church building projects. Such committees will then make recommendations to the church board. In this way the resources, of the board are conserved for its primary task—evangelism. (See Notes, #10, p. 100.)” (Church Manual, p. 92)
How the Church Board Should Spend Its Time
“Work of the Board—1. Planning evangelism in all of its phases. Since evangelism is the primary work of the church, the first item on the agenda of each church board meeting is to relate directly to the evangelization of the outreach (missionary) territory of the church. In addition, once each quarter of the year the entire church board meeting can well be devoted to plans for evangelism. The board will study local field committee recommendations for evangelistic programs and methods. It will determine how these can best be implemented by the church. The pastor and the church board will initiate and develop plans for public evangelistic campaigns.
“2. Coordinating outreach programs of departments. The church board is responsible for coordinating the work of all church departments. This includes the outreach programs of Personal Ministries, Sabbath School, Children’s Ministries, Youth, Health Ministries, and Education. Each of these departments develops its plans for outreach within its own sphere. To avoid conflict in timing and competition in securing volunteer helpers, and to achieve maximum beneficial results, coordination is essential. Before completing and announcing plans for any program, each department should submit its plans to the church board for approval. The departments also report to the church board on the progress and results of their outreach programs. The church board may suggest to the departments how their programs can contribute to the preparation, conduct, and follow-up of a public evangelistic campaign.
“3. Encouraging and helping the Personal Ministries Department of the church to enlist all church members and children in some form of personal outreach (missionary) service. Training classes should be conducted in various lines of outreach ministry.
"4. Cooperating with the Interest coordinator of the church to ensure that every reported interest in the message, aroused through whatever source, is personally and promptly followed up by an assigned layperson.
"5. Encouraging each department to report at least quarterly to the church board and to the church membership at business meetings and/or in Sabbath day meetings.
"6. The details of church business should be considered by the board, and the treasurer should report the state of the church’s finances on a regular basis. The church roll should be studied, and inquiry should be made into the spiritual standing of all the members, and provision made for visiting any sick, discouraged, or backslidden member. The other officers should report concerning the work for which they are responsible." (Church Manual, pp.91, 92)
Here we have inherent accountability. If every department is expected to report on its activities, plans, and results it becomes immediately obvious if a department is not participating/performing. The church board is likewise to be mindful of the church membership and arrange assistance for those who are struggling.
Who is on the Church Board
The Church Manual provides a specific list of officers who must be present on a church board. (See the Church Manual, pp.90, 91 for this list.) Local churches are allowed to customize their church board membership by including more individuals or positions than the Manual specifies, but not by subtracting officers from the provided list.
“In many cases two or more of these offices are carried by one individual. Additional members of the board may be elected by the church if desired. The minister appointed by the local field to serve the church as its pastor is always a member of the church board.
“Officers—The chairman of the church board is the minister appointed to serve the church as pastor. If the pastor prefers not to act in this capacity or is unable to be present, he may arrange for the church elder to preside as chairman on a pro tem basis. The church clerk serves as secretary of the board and is responsible for preserving the minutes of the meetings.” (Church Manual, p.91)
How to Hold a Church Board Meeting
“Meetings—Because the work of the church board is vital to the life, health, and growth of the church, it needs to meet at least once each month. In larger churches more frequent meetings may be needed. It is well to fix the monthly meeting time for the same week and the same day each month. (Example: The first Monday of each month.)
“The church board meeting is announced at the regular Sabbath worship service. Every effort should be made to have all board members present at each meeting.
“Each church should determine at one of its regularly called business meetings the number of church board members who must be present at a church board meeting to constitute a quorum. Votes by proxy or letter shall not be accepted.” (Church Manual, p. 91)
Again we see inherent accountability in the specification of a quorum. If a reasonable quorum cannot be achieved it is clear that the leadership of the church is not committed to the work to which it was elected, and the church should take appropriate action if a pattern is evident in this regard.
Business Meetings
“Church business meetings duly called by the pastor, or the church board in consultation with the pastor, may be held monthly or quarterly according to the needs of the church. Members in regular standing on the roll of the church conducting the business meeting may attend and vote. A quorum shall be decided by the church in a business meeting or by the church board. Votes by proxy or letter shall not be accepted. …A duly called business meeting of the church is a meeting that has been called at the regular Sabbath worship service, together with proper announcements as to the time and place of the meeting. At such meetings, at which the pastor will preside (or will arrange for the local elder to preside), full information should be given to the congregation regarding the work of the church. At the close of the year, reports should be rendered covering the activities of the church for the entire year, and, based on those reports, the church should approve a full plan of action for the next year. When possible, reports and the next year’s plan of action should be presented in writing. (See Notes, #9, p. 99.)” (Church Manual, p. 89)
From the Notes—“Reports may comprise the following activities:
“a. A report from the clerk, showing the present membership of the church and the number of members received and those transferred to other churches. Note also should be made, giving the number but not necessarily the names, of those who may have had to be removed from fellowship during the year, as well as those who have died. A brief statement of the decisions of the church board in its meetings would naturally be of interest to all members of the church.
“b. A report from the Personal Ministries leader, giving a statement of outreach (missionary) activities, including Community Services activities, together with any plans for future work. This should be followed by a report from the Personal Ministries secretary.
“c. A report from the treasurer, showing the amount of tithe received and sent to the conference/mission/field treasurer; also a full statement of mission offerings received and forwarded; and a statement showing local church funds received and disbursed.
“d. A report from the deacons and deaconesses, concerning visits to the members, their activities in behalf of the poor, and any other features that come under their supervision.
“e. A report from the secretary of the young people’s society, outlining the activities in outreach (missionary) and other lines by the youth of the church.
“f. A report from the Sabbath School secretary, giving the membership and other matters pertaining to the Sabbath School.
“g. A report from the treasurer as to the financial status of the church school, with details as to its needs in equipment and other matters.
“h. A report from the principal or teacher of the church school, covering such matters as enrollment, the educational progress of the school, baptisms among the schoolchildren, and the results of the children’s efforts in denominational endeavors.
“i. A report from the Home and School Association leader, covering the activities and needs of that organization.
“j. A report from the Communication secretary, covering press, radio, television, and other related activities involving church and community.” (Church Manual, pp. 99, 100)
When conducted according to these principles a business meeting becomes a prayer, praise, and testimony meeting. It should generate excitement for the work of the church as the membership is informed about the successes and challenges the various efforts are encountering. Business meetings would also become fertile ground for recruitment as members seek to be a part of the efforts described by the leadership.
“The church board is composed of the principal officers of the church. It has a number of important responsibilities, but its chief concern is the spiritual nurture of the church and the work of planning and fostering evangelism in all of its phases.
“The gospel commission of Jesus makes evangelism, proclaiming the good news of the gospel, the primary function of the church (Matt. 28:18-20). It is therefore also the primary function of the church board to serve as the chief committee of the local church. When the board devotes its first interests and highest energies to every-member evangelism, most church problems are alleviated or prevented. A strong, positive influence is felt in the spiritual life and growth of the membership.
“Included in church board responsibilities are:
1. Spiritual nurture.
2. Evangelism in all of its phases.
3. Maintenance of doctrinal purity.
4. Upholding Christian standards.
5. Recommending changes in church membership.
6. Church finances.
7. Protection and care of church properties.
8. Coordination of church departments.” (Church Manual, p. 90)
To put it simply, all aspects of running the local congregation are to be under the supervision of the church board. It is the church board's responsibility to keep things running smoothly while not losing sight of the fact that its primary task is evangelism. In order to keep its focus on evangelism the church board must discipline itself to deal with all other matters in an efficient and timely manner. This goal can be aided by the creation of subcommittees.
“Committees of the Board—The church board should permit no other business to interfere with planning for evangelism. Should other business be too time-consuming, the board may appoint committees to care for specific areas of church business, such as finance or church building projects. Such committees will then make recommendations to the church board. In this way the resources, of the board are conserved for its primary task—evangelism. (See Notes, #10, p. 100.)” (Church Manual, p. 92)
How the Church Board Should Spend Its Time
“Work of the Board—1. Planning evangelism in all of its phases. Since evangelism is the primary work of the church, the first item on the agenda of each church board meeting is to relate directly to the evangelization of the outreach (missionary) territory of the church. In addition, once each quarter of the year the entire church board meeting can well be devoted to plans for evangelism. The board will study local field committee recommendations for evangelistic programs and methods. It will determine how these can best be implemented by the church. The pastor and the church board will initiate and develop plans for public evangelistic campaigns.
“2. Coordinating outreach programs of departments. The church board is responsible for coordinating the work of all church departments. This includes the outreach programs of Personal Ministries, Sabbath School, Children’s Ministries, Youth, Health Ministries, and Education. Each of these departments develops its plans for outreach within its own sphere. To avoid conflict in timing and competition in securing volunteer helpers, and to achieve maximum beneficial results, coordination is essential. Before completing and announcing plans for any program, each department should submit its plans to the church board for approval. The departments also report to the church board on the progress and results of their outreach programs. The church board may suggest to the departments how their programs can contribute to the preparation, conduct, and follow-up of a public evangelistic campaign.
“3. Encouraging and helping the Personal Ministries Department of the church to enlist all church members and children in some form of personal outreach (missionary) service. Training classes should be conducted in various lines of outreach ministry.
"4. Cooperating with the Interest coordinator of the church to ensure that every reported interest in the message, aroused through whatever source, is personally and promptly followed up by an assigned layperson.
"5. Encouraging each department to report at least quarterly to the church board and to the church membership at business meetings and/or in Sabbath day meetings.
"6. The details of church business should be considered by the board, and the treasurer should report the state of the church’s finances on a regular basis. The church roll should be studied, and inquiry should be made into the spiritual standing of all the members, and provision made for visiting any sick, discouraged, or backslidden member. The other officers should report concerning the work for which they are responsible." (Church Manual, pp.91, 92)
Here we have inherent accountability. If every department is expected to report on its activities, plans, and results it becomes immediately obvious if a department is not participating/performing. The church board is likewise to be mindful of the church membership and arrange assistance for those who are struggling.
Who is on the Church Board
The Church Manual provides a specific list of officers who must be present on a church board. (See the Church Manual, pp.90, 91 for this list.) Local churches are allowed to customize their church board membership by including more individuals or positions than the Manual specifies, but not by subtracting officers from the provided list.
“In many cases two or more of these offices are carried by one individual. Additional members of the board may be elected by the church if desired. The minister appointed by the local field to serve the church as its pastor is always a member of the church board.
“Officers—The chairman of the church board is the minister appointed to serve the church as pastor. If the pastor prefers not to act in this capacity or is unable to be present, he may arrange for the church elder to preside as chairman on a pro tem basis. The church clerk serves as secretary of the board and is responsible for preserving the minutes of the meetings.” (Church Manual, p.91)
How to Hold a Church Board Meeting
“Meetings—Because the work of the church board is vital to the life, health, and growth of the church, it needs to meet at least once each month. In larger churches more frequent meetings may be needed. It is well to fix the monthly meeting time for the same week and the same day each month. (Example: The first Monday of each month.)
“The church board meeting is announced at the regular Sabbath worship service. Every effort should be made to have all board members present at each meeting.
“Each church should determine at one of its regularly called business meetings the number of church board members who must be present at a church board meeting to constitute a quorum. Votes by proxy or letter shall not be accepted.” (Church Manual, p. 91)
Again we see inherent accountability in the specification of a quorum. If a reasonable quorum cannot be achieved it is clear that the leadership of the church is not committed to the work to which it was elected, and the church should take appropriate action if a pattern is evident in this regard.
Business Meetings
“Church business meetings duly called by the pastor, or the church board in consultation with the pastor, may be held monthly or quarterly according to the needs of the church. Members in regular standing on the roll of the church conducting the business meeting may attend and vote. A quorum shall be decided by the church in a business meeting or by the church board. Votes by proxy or letter shall not be accepted. …A duly called business meeting of the church is a meeting that has been called at the regular Sabbath worship service, together with proper announcements as to the time and place of the meeting. At such meetings, at which the pastor will preside (or will arrange for the local elder to preside), full information should be given to the congregation regarding the work of the church. At the close of the year, reports should be rendered covering the activities of the church for the entire year, and, based on those reports, the church should approve a full plan of action for the next year. When possible, reports and the next year’s plan of action should be presented in writing. (See Notes, #9, p. 99.)” (Church Manual, p. 89)
From the Notes—“Reports may comprise the following activities:
“a. A report from the clerk, showing the present membership of the church and the number of members received and those transferred to other churches. Note also should be made, giving the number but not necessarily the names, of those who may have had to be removed from fellowship during the year, as well as those who have died. A brief statement of the decisions of the church board in its meetings would naturally be of interest to all members of the church.
“b. A report from the Personal Ministries leader, giving a statement of outreach (missionary) activities, including Community Services activities, together with any plans for future work. This should be followed by a report from the Personal Ministries secretary.
“c. A report from the treasurer, showing the amount of tithe received and sent to the conference/mission/field treasurer; also a full statement of mission offerings received and forwarded; and a statement showing local church funds received and disbursed.
“d. A report from the deacons and deaconesses, concerning visits to the members, their activities in behalf of the poor, and any other features that come under their supervision.
“e. A report from the secretary of the young people’s society, outlining the activities in outreach (missionary) and other lines by the youth of the church.
“f. A report from the Sabbath School secretary, giving the membership and other matters pertaining to the Sabbath School.
“g. A report from the treasurer as to the financial status of the church school, with details as to its needs in equipment and other matters.
“h. A report from the principal or teacher of the church school, covering such matters as enrollment, the educational progress of the school, baptisms among the schoolchildren, and the results of the children’s efforts in denominational endeavors.
“i. A report from the Home and School Association leader, covering the activities and needs of that organization.
“j. A report from the Communication secretary, covering press, radio, television, and other related activities involving church and community.” (Church Manual, pp. 99, 100)
When conducted according to these principles a business meeting becomes a prayer, praise, and testimony meeting. It should generate excitement for the work of the church as the membership is informed about the successes and challenges the various efforts are encountering. Business meetings would also become fertile ground for recruitment as members seek to be a part of the efforts described by the leadership.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 55
The following is the Group’s written response to Pastor DeSilva’s proposal which was formally presented at the meeting on April 16, 2009 between Elder Ramirez, Brother G, Elder C, Brother X, Pastor DeSilva, Elder J, and Elder D.
“Response to Pastor DeSilva’s Proposal
“It should be clear that this is and always has been an issue of proper adherence to the standard accepted operating policies of the Seventh-day Adventist World Church. This is not and never has been a campaign of personal interest, issue, or power.
“Our goal is to reestablish at the Takoma Park Church a system of governance which is wholly in accordance with the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual both on paper and in practice.
“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as showed in a flow chart.’
“A. Joining the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board does not reinstate the Church Board with the complete authority stipulated in the Church Manual. The Terms of Reference and placement of the two boards in the Organizational Flow Charts which were prepared by Pastor DeSilva after the acceptance of the 'Paul Borden Report' and distributed to the Church Ministries and Support and Accountability Boards clearly indicate that neither board nor a combination of both boards into one would have the same authority as mandated by the Church Manual for the local Church Board. Refer to Church Manual pp. 90-91.
“B. To suggest that the Support and Accountability Board be added to the Church Ministries Board to constitute the Church Board is an admission that the Takoma Park Church is operating without a properly constituted Church Board and, therefore, is not in harmony with the Church Manual.
“‘This proposal is subject to the following conditions:
Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess (sp.) structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual.’
“C. We disagree. The charts issued by Pastor DeSilva clearly indicate that the present Takoma Park Church structure is 'outside' the boundaries of the Church Manual. We also point out that not one of several charts has ever been approved by the Church in Business Meeting.
“D. The executive power which Pastor DeSilva has wielded in specific instances such as 'vision casting,' issuing organizational charts without congregational approval, manipulating committees to achieve predetermined outcomes, and placing his position between the Ministries Board and the Church Business Meeting is in contradiction to the Church Manual and general Seventh-day Adventist governance principles. All committees, including the Finance Committee, should report directly to the Church Board and/or the Church Business Meeting, not to the Pastor. See Church Manual, pp.25-26.
“E. The actions taken to implement the 'Paul Borden Report' and subsequent policy changes such as the 'Code of Ethics' are not in harmony with the Church Manual.
‘This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the
Takoma Park Church in business session.’
“F. In order to resolve this situation, an agreement for resolution must do the following:
“1. Acknowledge that a local church is not at liberty to establish its own system of organization and that any change in the membership, responsibilities or function of the Church Board is solely the responsibility of the world church.
“2. Affirm a literal interpretation of the Church Manual as the ultimate authority in matters of church governance.
“3. Rescind the action to adopt the Paul Borden Report.
“4. Adopt an action plan for evangelism in the Takoma Park Church.
“5. Reinstate the Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual, pp. 90 and 91, thereby eliminating the Accountability Board and Church Ministries Board.
“6. Acknowledge that all departments and ministries are accountable to the Church Board, not to the staff or any other person or entity.
“7. If an evaluation group is desired, its title should not use the term 'accountability.' It should be a subcommittee of the Church Board, serve in a purely advisory capacity, and be accountable to the Church Board.
“8. A Church Ministries body is most desirable. However, it should be a subcommittee of the Church Board, report directly to the Church Board, and be referred to as Church Ministries Council or Committee.
“9. Rescind the vote to adopt the 'Code of Ethics' which was widely interpreted as a loyalty oath and an effort to discourage legitimate, healthy discussion.
“10. Include a plan for the remediation of all related governance problems.
“11. Administrative observers from the Potomac Conference, Columbia Union Conference, North American Division, and General Conference are to certify that the new actions are in harmony with the Church Manual.
“12. Because of the present tensions now prevailing in the Takoma Park Church which have destroyed confidence and credibility, a neutral mutually-agreed-upon church official shall be appointed for observation and/or intervention purposes, to ensure that future actions are in harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual.”
This meeting was supposed to last one hour but ran into nearly three. In the course of the discussion the subject of appearing before the conference executive committee was brought up and one of the Group’s representatives observed that that had been the Group’s goal all along. Pastor DeSilva’s response to this observation was, "Then why am I wasting my time in this meeting? I came here tonight because I thought this was going to be the end of this situation. If you want to go to the executive committee let's go and they'll tell you you're wrong and we'll be done with this." Elder Ramirez tentatively agreed that it was time to take this matter before the conference executive committee. The conclusion of the meeting was that he would follow up in an email with specifics about meeting with the executive committee.
“Response to Pastor DeSilva’s Proposal
“It should be clear that this is and always has been an issue of proper adherence to the standard accepted operating policies of the Seventh-day Adventist World Church. This is not and never has been a campaign of personal interest, issue, or power.
“Our goal is to reestablish at the Takoma Park Church a system of governance which is wholly in accordance with the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual both on paper and in practice.
“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as showed in a flow chart.’
“A. Joining the Support and Accountability Board and the Church Ministries Board does not reinstate the Church Board with the complete authority stipulated in the Church Manual. The Terms of Reference and placement of the two boards in the Organizational Flow Charts which were prepared by Pastor DeSilva after the acceptance of the 'Paul Borden Report' and distributed to the Church Ministries and Support and Accountability Boards clearly indicate that neither board nor a combination of both boards into one would have the same authority as mandated by the Church Manual for the local Church Board. Refer to Church Manual pp. 90-91.
“B. To suggest that the Support and Accountability Board be added to the Church Ministries Board to constitute the Church Board is an admission that the Takoma Park Church is operating without a properly constituted Church Board and, therefore, is not in harmony with the Church Manual.
“‘This proposal is subject to the following conditions:
Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess (sp.) structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual.’
“C. We disagree. The charts issued by Pastor DeSilva clearly indicate that the present Takoma Park Church structure is 'outside' the boundaries of the Church Manual. We also point out that not one of several charts has ever been approved by the Church in Business Meeting.
“D. The executive power which Pastor DeSilva has wielded in specific instances such as 'vision casting,' issuing organizational charts without congregational approval, manipulating committees to achieve predetermined outcomes, and placing his position between the Ministries Board and the Church Business Meeting is in contradiction to the Church Manual and general Seventh-day Adventist governance principles. All committees, including the Finance Committee, should report directly to the Church Board and/or the Church Business Meeting, not to the Pastor. See Church Manual, pp.25-26.
“E. The actions taken to implement the 'Paul Borden Report' and subsequent policy changes such as the 'Code of Ethics' are not in harmony with the Church Manual.
‘This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the
Takoma Park Church in business session.’
“F. In order to resolve this situation, an agreement for resolution must do the following:
“1. Acknowledge that a local church is not at liberty to establish its own system of organization and that any change in the membership, responsibilities or function of the Church Board is solely the responsibility of the world church.
“2. Affirm a literal interpretation of the Church Manual as the ultimate authority in matters of church governance.
“3. Rescind the action to adopt the Paul Borden Report.
“4. Adopt an action plan for evangelism in the Takoma Park Church.
“5. Reinstate the Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual, pp. 90 and 91, thereby eliminating the Accountability Board and Church Ministries Board.
“6. Acknowledge that all departments and ministries are accountable to the Church Board, not to the staff or any other person or entity.
“7. If an evaluation group is desired, its title should not use the term 'accountability.' It should be a subcommittee of the Church Board, serve in a purely advisory capacity, and be accountable to the Church Board.
“8. A Church Ministries body is most desirable. However, it should be a subcommittee of the Church Board, report directly to the Church Board, and be referred to as Church Ministries Council or Committee.
“9. Rescind the vote to adopt the 'Code of Ethics' which was widely interpreted as a loyalty oath and an effort to discourage legitimate, healthy discussion.
“10. Include a plan for the remediation of all related governance problems.
“11. Administrative observers from the Potomac Conference, Columbia Union Conference, North American Division, and General Conference are to certify that the new actions are in harmony with the Church Manual.
“12. Because of the present tensions now prevailing in the Takoma Park Church which have destroyed confidence and credibility, a neutral mutually-agreed-upon church official shall be appointed for observation and/or intervention purposes, to ensure that future actions are in harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual.”
This meeting was supposed to last one hour but ran into nearly three. In the course of the discussion the subject of appearing before the conference executive committee was brought up and one of the Group’s representatives observed that that had been the Group’s goal all along. Pastor DeSilva’s response to this observation was, "Then why am I wasting my time in this meeting? I came here tonight because I thought this was going to be the end of this situation. If you want to go to the executive committee let's go and they'll tell you you're wrong and we'll be done with this." Elder Ramirez tentatively agreed that it was time to take this matter before the conference executive committee. The conclusion of the meeting was that he would follow up in an email with specifics about meeting with the executive committee.
Next: Minutes, Version 1
Religious
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 54
Elder Ramirez continued the email dialogue on March 10, 2009.
“Dear [Brother G],
“I have carefully reviewed your response and feel that we are ready to take the next step. I will contact pastor DeSilva to set up the meeting as soon as possible. However, I still need from you the names of the two individuals who will be joining you for this meeting. I will ask the same of pastor DeSilva so that we can have consistency in this process. Please remember that the agenda for this meeting is to respond to pastor DeSilva’s proposal. You have stated that you have objections to his proposal, and so these objections must be clearly stated in this meeting.
“Finally, as to the spelling issue, I have simply copied what was sent to me by [Elder B] on December 12… I have tried to keep this as original as possible so that there would be consistency in our process.. Thank you for your interest in seeing this issue resolved. I look forward to receiving the requested information. Have a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
In the months since the Group’s spokesgroup had initially been formed circumstances had changed for some of its members, who found that they could not continue in the role. So the Group made some changes in the membership of the spokesgroup in preparation for the next meeting with the conference. Brother G continued to be part of the spokesgroup. Brothers H and R were replaced by Brother X and Elder C. Sister L became an alternate. The names of the reconstituted spokesgroup were sent to the conference on March 17.
April 16 was set as the date for the next meeting. In confirmation of this and the other meeting arrangements Elder Ramirez sent the following message on April 8, 2009.
“Dear [Brother G] and pastor DeSilva,
“It appears that we are set to have our next meeting on Thursday, April 16, at 6 pm. We will meet at the Buccaneer House. The purpose of the meeting will be to give specific details of the group’s objection to pastor DeSilva’s proposal, presented during our last meeting in February. During that meeting, pastor DeSilva made the following proposal:
“Pastor DeSilva submits the following proposal for discussion and as a possible solution to the disagreement between current church leadership and a group of members of the Takoma Park church, on the present governess structure:
“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.’
“This proposal is subject to the following conditions:
"1. Proposal does not in any way suggest that the present governess structure has been outside the church manual boundaries.
“2. This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.
“[Brother G], please understand that this meeting is for the sole purpose of presenting your objections to this proposal. I would encourage you to have an outline, clearly indicating your objections. You and the two other representatives will have 20 minutes to present your case. At the end of the 20 minutes, pastor DeSilva and his two members of the church leadership will have 20 minutes to respond to your objections. After their turn, you will have an additional 10 minutes to add any closing remarks. Pastor DeSilva/members of the church leadership will have the final 10 minutes.
“In closing, please remember that the purpose of this process as outlined in Matthew 18 is to ‘gain a brother.’ While we may disagree on some issues, God’s church cannot be divided. I pray that the Holy Spirit will prepare our hearts as we come together seeking harmony. Thank you for working with me on this issue. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. ;I wish you all a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
Next: The Objections
Religious
“Dear [Brother G],
“I have carefully reviewed your response and feel that we are ready to take the next step. I will contact pastor DeSilva to set up the meeting as soon as possible. However, I still need from you the names of the two individuals who will be joining you for this meeting. I will ask the same of pastor DeSilva so that we can have consistency in this process. Please remember that the agenda for this meeting is to respond to pastor DeSilva’s proposal. You have stated that you have objections to his proposal, and so these objections must be clearly stated in this meeting.
“Finally, as to the spelling issue, I have simply copied what was sent to me by [Elder B] on December 12… I have tried to keep this as original as possible so that there would be consistency in our process.. Thank you for your interest in seeing this issue resolved. I look forward to receiving the requested information. Have a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
In the months since the Group’s spokesgroup had initially been formed circumstances had changed for some of its members, who found that they could not continue in the role. So the Group made some changes in the membership of the spokesgroup in preparation for the next meeting with the conference. Brother G continued to be part of the spokesgroup. Brothers H and R were replaced by Brother X and Elder C. Sister L became an alternate. The names of the reconstituted spokesgroup were sent to the conference on March 17.
April 16 was set as the date for the next meeting. In confirmation of this and the other meeting arrangements Elder Ramirez sent the following message on April 8, 2009.
“Dear [Brother G] and pastor DeSilva,
“It appears that we are set to have our next meeting on Thursday, April 16, at 6 pm. We will meet at the Buccaneer House. The purpose of the meeting will be to give specific details of the group’s objection to pastor DeSilva’s proposal, presented during our last meeting in February. During that meeting, pastor DeSilva made the following proposal:
“Pastor DeSilva submits the following proposal for discussion and as a possible solution to the disagreement between current church leadership and a group of members of the Takoma Park church, on the present governess structure:
“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as drawn in a flow chart.’
“This proposal is subject to the following conditions:
"1. Proposal does not in any way suggest that the present governess structure has been outside the church manual boundaries.
“2. This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.
“[Brother G], please understand that this meeting is for the sole purpose of presenting your objections to this proposal. I would encourage you to have an outline, clearly indicating your objections. You and the two other representatives will have 20 minutes to present your case. At the end of the 20 minutes, pastor DeSilva and his two members of the church leadership will have 20 minutes to respond to your objections. After their turn, you will have an additional 10 minutes to add any closing remarks. Pastor DeSilva/members of the church leadership will have the final 10 minutes.
“In closing, please remember that the purpose of this process as outlined in Matthew 18 is to ‘gain a brother.’ While we may disagree on some issues, God’s church cannot be divided. I pray that the Holy Spirit will prepare our hearts as we come together seeking harmony. Thank you for working with me on this issue. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. ;I wish you all a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
Next: The Objections
Religious
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Sins of the Conference, Pt. 4
Elder Ramirez required that the Group provide advance written documentation as a prerequisite for proceeding with the next meeting. The Group promised to provide the desired document at the time of the next meeting, but Elder Ramirez continued to insist on having the document in advance. “All that I am asking is for you to submit to me a written outline of your objections to Pastor DeSilva’s proposal, so that we can continue with this process.”(1) Elder Ramirez provided no explanation of why he had to receive the document in advance rather than at the time of the meeting.
J) Elder Ramirez wronged us by adding burdensome and unnecessary conditions for proceeding with a process to which we have a right.
Elder Ramirez’s decision to require documentation in advance of the meeting demonstrated a clear double standard between what he expected of us and what he expected of himself. When the Group was in discussions with him regarding the initial “process meeting” we asked repeatedly for a more detailed description of the intended agenda. “Is there any particular of procedure that you wish to arrange which absolutely necessitates an in-person conversation?” “We are baffled by your continued insistence that there is yet more process to discuss, especially since you have yet to provide a specific list of what still needs to be resolved…the only thing which remains is for you to provide us with a list of specific aspects of process that you wish to discuss.”(2) These requests were ignored.
When Elder Ramirez first requested a description of our objections to serve as agenda for the next meeting we provided him with the following statement, “Regarding an agenda for the next meeting, we intend to address Pastor DeSilva's proposal point by point, explaining what we find objectionable and why and what we believe to be necessary for the implementation of an eventual solution.”(3) Despite this statement being far more detailed than those he provided to us Elder Ramirez was not satisfied with it, as stated above.
K) Elder Ramirez wronged us by requiring of us a different standard than he and the Potomac Conference were willing to meet.
(1) Email to Brother G dated Feb. 26, 2009, 11:48am
(2) Emails to Elder Ramirez dated Aug. 19, 2008, 1:04pm and Aug. 26, 2008, 10:31pm
(3) Email to Elder Ramirez dated Feb. 22, 2009, 6:53pm
J) Elder Ramirez wronged us by adding burdensome and unnecessary conditions for proceeding with a process to which we have a right.
Elder Ramirez’s decision to require documentation in advance of the meeting demonstrated a clear double standard between what he expected of us and what he expected of himself. When the Group was in discussions with him regarding the initial “process meeting” we asked repeatedly for a more detailed description of the intended agenda. “Is there any particular of procedure that you wish to arrange which absolutely necessitates an in-person conversation?” “We are baffled by your continued insistence that there is yet more process to discuss, especially since you have yet to provide a specific list of what still needs to be resolved…the only thing which remains is for you to provide us with a list of specific aspects of process that you wish to discuss.”(2) These requests were ignored.
When Elder Ramirez first requested a description of our objections to serve as agenda for the next meeting we provided him with the following statement, “Regarding an agenda for the next meeting, we intend to address Pastor DeSilva's proposal point by point, explaining what we find objectionable and why and what we believe to be necessary for the implementation of an eventual solution.”(3) Despite this statement being far more detailed than those he provided to us Elder Ramirez was not satisfied with it, as stated above.
K) Elder Ramirez wronged us by requiring of us a different standard than he and the Potomac Conference were willing to meet.
(1) Email to Brother G dated Feb. 26, 2009, 11:48am
(2) Emails to Elder Ramirez dated Aug. 19, 2008, 1:04pm and Aug. 26, 2008, 10:31pm
(3) Email to Elder Ramirez dated Feb. 22, 2009, 6:53pm
Change
Change is a neutral word. It is not inherently good or bad. Whether change is good or bad depends on the situation, and in order to make such a determination there are several questions that must be answered. Does the situation require a change? If so, what sort of change is needed? What is the best method and timeframe for implementing an appropriate, needed change?
If changes are made when they aren't needed, or if changes are needed but the wrong sort of change is made, the change is a bad one. Even the right kind of change when change is truly needed can turn out to be a bad thing if not implemented well. When the context is a religious one, bad changes can have eternal consequences.
In a situation where a pastor or other church official makes a change that people object to there is a temptation to stereotype the matter as visionaries versus those with a vested interest in the status quo. As with most blanket statements, this represents a failure in the level of analysis. We won't make any blanket statements of our own and claim that this can never be true, but it is not the case with Takoma Park's situation.
The Group's efforts aren't about opposing all change or defending personal interests in the status quo. We don't even dispute that change is needed at Takoma Park. What we are saying is that what happened was the wrong kind of change for the situation. Instead of fixing Takoma Park's problems this change is making them worse. This particular change needs to be reversed to make way for the right kind of change.
If changes are made when they aren't needed, or if changes are needed but the wrong sort of change is made, the change is a bad one. Even the right kind of change when change is truly needed can turn out to be a bad thing if not implemented well. When the context is a religious one, bad changes can have eternal consequences.
In a situation where a pastor or other church official makes a change that people object to there is a temptation to stereotype the matter as visionaries versus those with a vested interest in the status quo. As with most blanket statements, this represents a failure in the level of analysis. We won't make any blanket statements of our own and claim that this can never be true, but it is not the case with Takoma Park's situation.
The Group's efforts aren't about opposing all change or defending personal interests in the status quo. We don't even dispute that change is needed at Takoma Park. What we are saying is that what happened was the wrong kind of change for the situation. Instead of fixing Takoma Park's problems this change is making them worse. This particular change needs to be reversed to make way for the right kind of change.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 53
The correspondence between the Group and the Conference continued on February 26, 2009.
“Dear [Brother G],
“I have carefully read the response sent by [Sister L] through you. However, while I understand that there may be some confusion as to the existence and interpretations of the two parts, I feel that it is important that we continue to address the issue that was submitted for discussion during our last meeting:
“‘The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual.’
“In my view, it is a very simple matter. Pastor DeSilva made a proposal intended to respond to the issue. If you have some objections or concerns to this proposal, you have the right to present them. All that I am asking is for you to submit to me a written outline of your objections to Pastor DeSilvas’s proposal, so that we can continue with this process. I believe this is not only important in any process, but also needed in order to maintain focus on the main issue. I pray that you will reconsider your position and allow this process to continue.
“I wish you a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
The Group responded on March 6, 2009. In this response the Group elaborated on its interpretation of the issue statement, which still did not seem to be clear to the conference.
“Dear Jorge,
“The previous message was not from any single individual. It was composed by group consensus as are all of our communications. We have reviewed your response carefully as a group. Our consensus at this time is that we are not impeding this process.
“Our issue is:
“‘The present governance structure of theTakoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.’
“Please note the corrected spelling. As you notice the issue is the governance structure of the Takoma Park Church, not only the absence of a church board. The interpretation that is being given to this is becoming an issue.
“We stated that our concern about the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Church is ‘notably reflected in the absence of a church board.’ However there are other governance matters related to the absence of a church board, including: 1) events leading up to this, 2) the interpretation by the church staff, 3)related actions that have been taken by the church, 4) the way the group, who have expressed their concerns to the pastor and the church, have been portrayed, and 5) Conference handling of this matter. Pastor DeSilva's proposal does not resolve the matter of the absence of a church board, nor does it address any of these related matters. There can be no solution to this whole situation if no regard is given to these related governance matters.
“Both the absence of a Church Board and the related governance matters should be given attention. We have provided a written statement outlining what we wish to talk about at the next meeting and have promised to provide additional documentation at the time of the meeting. Please accept this as our agenda and set up a meeting with the additional participants so that this process can continue.
“We, also, request that Pastor DeSilva not recommend action on his proposal at a church business meeting, or any other church forum. This would circumvent the process that is underway.
“Sincerely,
“[Brother G]”
Next: Details
Religious
“Dear [Brother G],
“I have carefully read the response sent by [Sister L] through you. However, while I understand that there may be some confusion as to the existence and interpretations of the two parts, I feel that it is important that we continue to address the issue that was submitted for discussion during our last meeting:
“‘The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual.’
“In my view, it is a very simple matter. Pastor DeSilva made a proposal intended to respond to the issue. If you have some objections or concerns to this proposal, you have the right to present them. All that I am asking is for you to submit to me a written outline of your objections to Pastor DeSilvas’s proposal, so that we can continue with this process. I believe this is not only important in any process, but also needed in order to maintain focus on the main issue. I pray that you will reconsider your position and allow this process to continue.
“I wish you a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
The Group responded on March 6, 2009. In this response the Group elaborated on its interpretation of the issue statement, which still did not seem to be clear to the conference.
“Dear Jorge,
“The previous message was not from any single individual. It was composed by group consensus as are all of our communications. We have reviewed your response carefully as a group. Our consensus at this time is that we are not impeding this process.
“Our issue is:
“‘The present governance structure of theTakoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the Church Manual. This is notably reflected in the absence of a Church Board as stipulated in the Church Manual.’
“Please note the corrected spelling. As you notice the issue is the governance structure of the Takoma Park Church, not only the absence of a church board. The interpretation that is being given to this is becoming an issue.
“We stated that our concern about the present governance structure of the Takoma Park Church is ‘notably reflected in the absence of a church board.’ However there are other governance matters related to the absence of a church board, including: 1) events leading up to this, 2) the interpretation by the church staff, 3)related actions that have been taken by the church, 4) the way the group, who have expressed their concerns to the pastor and the church, have been portrayed, and 5) Conference handling of this matter. Pastor DeSilva's proposal does not resolve the matter of the absence of a church board, nor does it address any of these related matters. There can be no solution to this whole situation if no regard is given to these related governance matters.
“Both the absence of a Church Board and the related governance matters should be given attention. We have provided a written statement outlining what we wish to talk about at the next meeting and have promised to provide additional documentation at the time of the meeting. Please accept this as our agenda and set up a meeting with the additional participants so that this process can continue.
“We, also, request that Pastor DeSilva not recommend action on his proposal at a church business meeting, or any other church forum. This would circumvent the process that is underway.
“Sincerely,
“[Brother G]”
Next: Details
Religious
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Sins of the Conference, Pt. 3
The purpose of the initial meeting between Elder Ramirez and Brother G was described by Elder Ramirez himself, “We talked about the need to have a meeting to address all the issues that are before us…however, before we do that…I need to have a meeting with one representative of your group to discuss process.”(1) From this we clearly understood that the described intent of the meeting separated matters of “issue” from matters of “process” and was to be exclusively about the matters of “process.” However, when the meeting actually took place it consisted almost entirely of Elder Ramirez asking “issue” questions. The only aspect of that meeting which even remotely resembled a discussion of “process” was when Elder Ramirez stated that he would next have a similar conversation with Pastor DeSilva and then have a phone call with our representative.
F) Elder Ramirez wronged us by misrepresenting the intended nature of that meeting.
Elders Miller and Ramirez accused us of failing to follow Matthew 18 in expressing our concerns. They persisted in this accusation despite being provided with a chart which included a partial list of the many private and semi-private conversations we had with Pastor DeSilva about our concern, per Matthew 18 guidelines. They further insisted that we must go through the Matthew 18 process again before the conference would even consider granting us our right to appear before the conference Executive Committee.
G) Elders Miller and Ramirez have wronged us by making accusations in spite of evidence to the contrary.
H) Elders Miller and Ramirez have wronged us by placing conditions on what the Church Manual stipulates as the unconditional right of every member to appear before the conference Executive Committee.
In accordance with the request made by Elder Ramirez in his letter of October 30, a statement was provided to him describing our concerns prior to the one on one meeting with Pastor DeSilva. In the email correspondence following the meeting our representative, Brother G, provided a synopsis of the meeting. Brother G observed that Pastor DeSilva made no reply to the observations he had made in the meeting. Elder Ramirez wrote back, “No where in your synopsis do you mention the issue at hand…Perhaps this is the reason why pastor DeSilva did not response to your other observations.”(2) This is our issue. It is ours to define what does or does not fall within it, and everything stated does fall within the provided statement when interpreted properly. For example, Brother G’s comments regarding the misinterpretation of Elder Bediako’s guidance speaks to the issue of whether or not Takoma Park is in harmony with the Church Manual because Elder Bediako is one of the foremost experts on the content and proper interpretation of the Church Manual. Brother G had pointed out that Elder Bediako had clearly told Pastor DeSilva that the current state of things at Takoma Park was not in harmony with the Manual. How could such testimony not pertain to the issue at hand?
To put it another way, suppose you were giving a Bible study on the book of Romans and the Apostle Paul were to walk into the room and tell you that your interpretation of what he had written was wrong. Would you ask him to correct you or contend that you had two thousand years of scholarly work to support your interpretation and he was wrong? The point here is that the author of what is written always knows better than anyone else what they meant in writing what they wrote. Elder Ramirez had no right to try to dictate to the Group the meaning of the Group’s own statement.
I) Elder Ramirez wronged us by attempting to dictate to us the nature and extent of what we are concerned about.
(1) Email to Sister L dated Aug. 18, 2008, 9:57am
(2) Email to Brother G dated Feb. 15, 2009, 10:49pm
F) Elder Ramirez wronged us by misrepresenting the intended nature of that meeting.
Elders Miller and Ramirez accused us of failing to follow Matthew 18 in expressing our concerns. They persisted in this accusation despite being provided with a chart which included a partial list of the many private and semi-private conversations we had with Pastor DeSilva about our concern, per Matthew 18 guidelines. They further insisted that we must go through the Matthew 18 process again before the conference would even consider granting us our right to appear before the conference Executive Committee.
G) Elders Miller and Ramirez have wronged us by making accusations in spite of evidence to the contrary.
H) Elders Miller and Ramirez have wronged us by placing conditions on what the Church Manual stipulates as the unconditional right of every member to appear before the conference Executive Committee.
In accordance with the request made by Elder Ramirez in his letter of October 30, a statement was provided to him describing our concerns prior to the one on one meeting with Pastor DeSilva. In the email correspondence following the meeting our representative, Brother G, provided a synopsis of the meeting. Brother G observed that Pastor DeSilva made no reply to the observations he had made in the meeting. Elder Ramirez wrote back, “No where in your synopsis do you mention the issue at hand…Perhaps this is the reason why pastor DeSilva did not response to your other observations.”(2) This is our issue. It is ours to define what does or does not fall within it, and everything stated does fall within the provided statement when interpreted properly. For example, Brother G’s comments regarding the misinterpretation of Elder Bediako’s guidance speaks to the issue of whether or not Takoma Park is in harmony with the Church Manual because Elder Bediako is one of the foremost experts on the content and proper interpretation of the Church Manual. Brother G had pointed out that Elder Bediako had clearly told Pastor DeSilva that the current state of things at Takoma Park was not in harmony with the Manual. How could such testimony not pertain to the issue at hand?
To put it another way, suppose you were giving a Bible study on the book of Romans and the Apostle Paul were to walk into the room and tell you that your interpretation of what he had written was wrong. Would you ask him to correct you or contend that you had two thousand years of scholarly work to support your interpretation and he was wrong? The point here is that the author of what is written always knows better than anyone else what they meant in writing what they wrote. Elder Ramirez had no right to try to dictate to the Group the meaning of the Group’s own statement.
I) Elder Ramirez wronged us by attempting to dictate to us the nature and extent of what we are concerned about.
(1) Email to Sister L dated Aug. 18, 2008, 9:57am
(2) Email to Brother G dated Feb. 15, 2009, 10:49pm
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 52
Elder Ramirez responded to Brother G’s request to proceed with the next stipulated meeting on February 15, 2009.
“Dear [Brother G],
“I have reviewed your response to pastor DeSilva’s proposal and I am submitting the following comments for your consideration:
“1. No where in your synopsis do you mention the issue at hand that I introduced at the beginning of the meeting. This was the only item on the agenda:
“‘The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual.’
“Perhaps this is the reason why pastor DeSilva did not response to your other observations.
“2. Your request to meet again with a larger group is appropriate. Please select two additional representatives from your group and send their names to me. Also, I will need in writing from you, the objections that you and the group are raising in preparation for the next meeting. These objections will serve as the agenda.
“As soon as I get the above information, I will work with pastor DeSilva in scheduling the meeting date.
“Thank you for your interest in seeing this issue resolved. I wish you a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
The Group considered this message and felt that it reflected a misinterpretation of the issue statement which the Group had provided to the conference. Per standard Group procedure, a responding message was drafted, circulated among the Group membership for comment, amended, recirculated, and finally forwarded to the designated communicator in whose name it was written. In this instance Sister L had been the Group member tasked with coordinating the response preparation, and it was she who forwarded the completed message to Brother G. Upon receiving the message Brother G forwarded it to Elder Ramirez without bothering to remove the forwarding information from the body of the message, thereby leaving a “trail” of Sister L’s involvement in the preparation. (We mention all of this because in his response to this message Elder Ramirez referred to the message as “sent by [Sister L] through you.”) This message was sent on February 22, 2009.
“Dear Jorge,
“All systems of governance exist in two parts; 1) what is written down, and 2) how the leaders of that system implement what is written down. Both parts inform the observer as to the total nature of the system. Given the extremely limited nature of the written documentation in this situation the way in which it has been implemented becomes even more important to the understanding of the system. Everything said in the previous meeting spoke to one or the other of these two points. The charts that were provided clearly demonstrate that the present Takoma Park Church system of governance is not in compliance with the Church Manual on paper. The remainder of what was said addressed the way in which our pastoral staff has implemented the structure, and as such was absolutely relevant to the agenda.
“We are concerned by your decision to make continuation of the Matt. 18 process contingent upon receiving detailed, advance, written documentation from us. The verse itself places no such burden on either party. Please allow us to proceed with the scheduling of the next meeting without further delay.
“Regarding an agenda for the next meeting, we intend to address Pastor DeSilva's proposal point by point, explaining what we find objectionable and why and what we believe to be necessary for the implementation of an eventual solution. We prefer not to be more specific than that at this time because we wish to have the freedom to interpret our own written documents as we intend. The experience of the last meeting has shown that the written statement we provided was interpreted far more narrowly than we intended. We wish to be able to bring up all matters we believe to be relevant to the subject at hand, without restriction. We observe, for the record, that this agenda is far more specific and detailed than what was provided in the initial preparatory meeting, for which—despite repeated requests for greater specificity—you would only state that it would be about 'process and procedure.' We will be happy to provide a written document at the time of the meeting to serve as a guideline for the discussion.
“The specific identities of our additional attendees will vary depending on availability on the determined date. Please select a date which works for you and Pastor DeSilva. Once we have that information we will be able to determine our representatives.
“Sincerely, [Brother G]
“P.S. It has occurred to us that Takoma Park is due for a business meeting in the next few weeks. It has also occurred to us that Pastor DeSilva might choose to recommend action on his proposal in that forum. We would like to be clear that any such action will not in any way resolve our concerns, since to our minds the proposal does not satisfy them.”
Next: Having an Agenda
Religious
“Dear [Brother G],
“I have reviewed your response to pastor DeSilva’s proposal and I am submitting the following comments for your consideration:
“1. No where in your synopsis do you mention the issue at hand that I introduced at the beginning of the meeting. This was the only item on the agenda:
“‘The present governess structure of the Takoma Park SDA church is not in harmony with the church manual. This is notibly reflected in the absence of a church board as stipulated in the church manual.’
“Perhaps this is the reason why pastor DeSilva did not response to your other observations.
“2. Your request to meet again with a larger group is appropriate. Please select two additional representatives from your group and send their names to me. Also, I will need in writing from you, the objections that you and the group are raising in preparation for the next meeting. These objections will serve as the agenda.
“As soon as I get the above information, I will work with pastor DeSilva in scheduling the meeting date.
“Thank you for your interest in seeing this issue resolved. I wish you a blessed day.
“Jorge A. Ramírez”
The Group considered this message and felt that it reflected a misinterpretation of the issue statement which the Group had provided to the conference. Per standard Group procedure, a responding message was drafted, circulated among the Group membership for comment, amended, recirculated, and finally forwarded to the designated communicator in whose name it was written. In this instance Sister L had been the Group member tasked with coordinating the response preparation, and it was she who forwarded the completed message to Brother G. Upon receiving the message Brother G forwarded it to Elder Ramirez without bothering to remove the forwarding information from the body of the message, thereby leaving a “trail” of Sister L’s involvement in the preparation. (We mention all of this because in his response to this message Elder Ramirez referred to the message as “sent by [Sister L] through you.”) This message was sent on February 22, 2009.
“Dear Jorge,
“All systems of governance exist in two parts; 1) what is written down, and 2) how the leaders of that system implement what is written down. Both parts inform the observer as to the total nature of the system. Given the extremely limited nature of the written documentation in this situation the way in which it has been implemented becomes even more important to the understanding of the system. Everything said in the previous meeting spoke to one or the other of these two points. The charts that were provided clearly demonstrate that the present Takoma Park Church system of governance is not in compliance with the Church Manual on paper. The remainder of what was said addressed the way in which our pastoral staff has implemented the structure, and as such was absolutely relevant to the agenda.
“We are concerned by your decision to make continuation of the Matt. 18 process contingent upon receiving detailed, advance, written documentation from us. The verse itself places no such burden on either party. Please allow us to proceed with the scheduling of the next meeting without further delay.
“Regarding an agenda for the next meeting, we intend to address Pastor DeSilva's proposal point by point, explaining what we find objectionable and why and what we believe to be necessary for the implementation of an eventual solution. We prefer not to be more specific than that at this time because we wish to have the freedom to interpret our own written documents as we intend. The experience of the last meeting has shown that the written statement we provided was interpreted far more narrowly than we intended. We wish to be able to bring up all matters we believe to be relevant to the subject at hand, without restriction. We observe, for the record, that this agenda is far more specific and detailed than what was provided in the initial preparatory meeting, for which—despite repeated requests for greater specificity—you would only state that it would be about 'process and procedure.' We will be happy to provide a written document at the time of the meeting to serve as a guideline for the discussion.
“The specific identities of our additional attendees will vary depending on availability on the determined date. Please select a date which works for you and Pastor DeSilva. Once we have that information we will be able to determine our representatives.
“Sincerely, [Brother G]
“P.S. It has occurred to us that Takoma Park is due for a business meeting in the next few weeks. It has also occurred to us that Pastor DeSilva might choose to recommend action on his proposal in that forum. We would like to be clear that any such action will not in any way resolve our concerns, since to our minds the proposal does not satisfy them.”
Next: Having an Agenda
Religious
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 51
The proposal from Pastor DeSilva was sent through Elder Ramirez on February 9, 2009, at 5:40 pm.
“Dear [Brother G],
“Below is the proposal submitted to you and the group by pastor Alan DeSilva during our last meeting. Please review it prayerfully and submit your response to him in writing, with copy to me. I pray this is the beginning of a new day in the life of the Takoma Park church.
“Sincerely,
“Jorge A. Ramírez
“Pastor DeSilva submits the following proposal for discussion and as a possible solution to the disagreement between current church leadership and a group of members of the Takoma Park church, on the present governess structure:
“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as showed in a flow chart.’
“This pr oposal is subject to the following conditions:
“1. Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual.
“2. This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.”
On February 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm Brother G sent the requested response to Pastor DeSilva. He began with the meeting synopsis. Next he acknowledged having received Pastor DeSilva’s proposal and stated that the Group had some objections to it. Finally, he requested that the meeting Elder Ramirez had stipulated as the next step in the process—the one with 2-3 people from each side—be set up so that we could explain our concerns with the proposal.
Next: Too Narrow
Religious
“Dear [Brother G],
“Below is the proposal submitted to you and the group by pastor Alan DeSilva during our last meeting. Please review it prayerfully and submit your response to him in writing, with copy to me. I pray this is the beginning of a new day in the life of the Takoma Park church.
“Sincerely,
“Jorge A. Ramírez
“Pastor DeSilva submits the following proposal for discussion and as a possible solution to the disagreement between current church leadership and a group of members of the Takoma Park church, on the present governess structure:
“‘To add the support and accountability board as part of the church ministries board, as showed in a flow chart.’
“This pr oposal is subject to the following conditions:
“1. Proposal does not in any way suggest that the current governess structure has been outside the boundaries of the church manual.
“2. This proposal is subject to discussion and final approval from the Takoma Park church in business session.”
On February 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm Brother G sent the requested response to Pastor DeSilva. He began with the meeting synopsis. Next he acknowledged having received Pastor DeSilva’s proposal and stated that the Group had some objections to it. Finally, he requested that the meeting Elder Ramirez had stipulated as the next step in the process—the one with 2-3 people from each side—be set up so that we could explain our concerns with the proposal.
Next: Too Narrow
Religious
Thursday, January 7, 2010
In His Own Eyes
The statement below showed up in the comments recently and expresses a common misconception about the Church Manual that we keep running into, so we have decided to set the record straight.
“Thank you for sharing the documents, as I have wanted to see them for some time in regard to the structure of the proposed leadership team vs. one the church manual recommends. They seem to align quite well and I see no great variance that would not allow a church to function within the guidelines of the manual.
“As the church manual allows local churches to adjust slightly by need of culture, size or other variables, the local church does have some latitude in governing themselves. It is wise to adhere as closely to the manual as possible, as there is "safety" in doing so. However, sometimes it is necessary to streamline things so they accomplish more in a local church. No doubt this is what Pastor DeSilva and others have in mind as they prayerfully seek to move Takoma Park forward.”
There are actually two misconceptions about the Church Manual in this statement. The first is that the Manual constitutes only recommendations and guidelines. The second is that the Manual permits local churches to deviate from its specifications. Let’s look at what the Church Manual itself says on these subjects.
“The content of this Church Manual, as it is presented in chapters and sections within chapters, is divided into two types of material. The main content of each chapter is of worldwide value and applicable to every church. Recognizing the need for some variations, additional material which is explanatory in nature appears as Notes at the end of some chapters and is given as guidance” (Church Manual, p.xxi).
If the entire Manual was merely guidance there would be no need to specify that the Notes were merely guidance, as such a statement would be redundant. In other words, some of it is guidance and some of it is mandatory. The two types of information are clearly separated, with the sections that are merely guidance being definitively labeled as “Notes.” The sections which pertain to governance and the church board are part of the content which is mandatory.
“…local conditions in different parts of the world sometimes call for special actions. Accordingly, the 1948 Autumn Council …voted:
“‘That each division, including the North American Division of the world field, prepare a ‘Supplement’ to the new Church Manual not in any way modifying it but containing such additional matter as is applicable to the conditions and circumstances prevailing in the division; the manuscripts for these Supplements to be submitted to the General Conference Committee for endorsement before being printed.’—Autumn Council Actions, 1948, p.19” (Church Manual, p.xxi, emphasis supplied).
The Manual does provide for adaptation to local conditions. However, that provision is not an all-access pass for the local church to do whatever it wants to. There are three conditions to this provision which the proponents of the “all-access” theory ignore. First, this provision is granted only to the divisions, not to the local church, the conference, or even the union. Second, this adaptation cannot in any way modify the Manual’s content, only add to it. Third, these adaptations must be approved by the General Conference Committee.
The Church Manual does provide the following latitude to the local church in arranging its own governance:
“Committees of the Board—The church board should permit no other business to interfere with planning for evangelism. Should other business be too time-consuming, the board may appoint committees to care for specific areas of church business, such as finance or church building projects. Such committees will then make recommendations to the church board” (Church Manual, p.92).
The one and only thing the local church is permitted to do by way of customizing its governance is to create subcommittees of the church board. That is not what happened at Takoma Park. Our situation is that the proper church board has been splintered. Neither of the two new “boards” fits the definition of a proper church board. Even if the two were put together there would still be holes. It is as if someone took a bicycle, disassembled it into its component parts, separated the parts into three piles, pointed to one of the piles, and said, “See, it’s a bicycle!” There might indeed be a bicycle seat or chain or gear in the pile, but that doesn’t make the pile a bicycle. It is only when all the parts are gathered together and assembled into working order that you may truly say that you have a bicycle (or a church board).
If a local church decides to ignore the mandatory nature of the Church Manual’s statements on governance and go its own way it is taking on the attitude of the Israelites in Judges 17:1-6, “And there was a man of mount Ephraim, whose name was Micah. ...and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah. And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
“Thank you for sharing the documents, as I have wanted to see them for some time in regard to the structure of the proposed leadership team vs. one the church manual recommends. They seem to align quite well and I see no great variance that would not allow a church to function within the guidelines of the manual.
“As the church manual allows local churches to adjust slightly by need of culture, size or other variables, the local church does have some latitude in governing themselves. It is wise to adhere as closely to the manual as possible, as there is "safety" in doing so. However, sometimes it is necessary to streamline things so they accomplish more in a local church. No doubt this is what Pastor DeSilva and others have in mind as they prayerfully seek to move Takoma Park forward.”
There are actually two misconceptions about the Church Manual in this statement. The first is that the Manual constitutes only recommendations and guidelines. The second is that the Manual permits local churches to deviate from its specifications. Let’s look at what the Church Manual itself says on these subjects.
“The content of this Church Manual, as it is presented in chapters and sections within chapters, is divided into two types of material. The main content of each chapter is of worldwide value and applicable to every church. Recognizing the need for some variations, additional material which is explanatory in nature appears as Notes at the end of some chapters and is given as guidance” (Church Manual, p.xxi).
If the entire Manual was merely guidance there would be no need to specify that the Notes were merely guidance, as such a statement would be redundant. In other words, some of it is guidance and some of it is mandatory. The two types of information are clearly separated, with the sections that are merely guidance being definitively labeled as “Notes.” The sections which pertain to governance and the church board are part of the content which is mandatory.
“…local conditions in different parts of the world sometimes call for special actions. Accordingly, the 1948 Autumn Council …voted:
“‘That each division, including the North American Division of the world field, prepare a ‘Supplement’ to the new Church Manual not in any way modifying it but containing such additional matter as is applicable to the conditions and circumstances prevailing in the division; the manuscripts for these Supplements to be submitted to the General Conference Committee for endorsement before being printed.’—Autumn Council Actions, 1948, p.19” (Church Manual, p.xxi, emphasis supplied).
The Manual does provide for adaptation to local conditions. However, that provision is not an all-access pass for the local church to do whatever it wants to. There are three conditions to this provision which the proponents of the “all-access” theory ignore. First, this provision is granted only to the divisions, not to the local church, the conference, or even the union. Second, this adaptation cannot in any way modify the Manual’s content, only add to it. Third, these adaptations must be approved by the General Conference Committee.
The Church Manual does provide the following latitude to the local church in arranging its own governance:
“Committees of the Board—The church board should permit no other business to interfere with planning for evangelism. Should other business be too time-consuming, the board may appoint committees to care for specific areas of church business, such as finance or church building projects. Such committees will then make recommendations to the church board” (Church Manual, p.92).
The one and only thing the local church is permitted to do by way of customizing its governance is to create subcommittees of the church board. That is not what happened at Takoma Park. Our situation is that the proper church board has been splintered. Neither of the two new “boards” fits the definition of a proper church board. Even if the two were put together there would still be holes. It is as if someone took a bicycle, disassembled it into its component parts, separated the parts into three piles, pointed to one of the piles, and said, “See, it’s a bicycle!” There might indeed be a bicycle seat or chain or gear in the pile, but that doesn’t make the pile a bicycle. It is only when all the parts are gathered together and assembled into working order that you may truly say that you have a bicycle (or a church board).
If a local church decides to ignore the mandatory nature of the Church Manual’s statements on governance and go its own way it is taking on the attitude of the Israelites in Judges 17:1-6, “And there was a man of mount Ephraim, whose name was Micah. ...and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah. And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
Monday, January 4, 2010
The Documentation
These are the charts that Brother G presented in his meeting with Pastor DeSilva and Elder Ramirez which document the differences between a proper church board as spelled out in the Church Manual and the substitute boards instituted at Takoma Park. The first chart compares board duties, and the second board membership. The data for the substitute boards is drawn directly from job descriptions and charts prepared by Pastor DeSilva. The data for a proper church board comes from the Church Manual, pp.90 & 91.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 50
The “one-on-one” meeting which Elder Ramirez had called for in his letter of October 30, 2008 took place on Febuary 5, 2009 with Elder Ramirez, Pastor DeSilva, and Brother G in attendance. Following the meeting Brother G put together a synopsis of the discussion, which was included in later email traffic. For the sake of telling the story in sequence we will include that synopsis here.
“At about 6:30 pm, and just before the Takoma Academy Board meeting, Elder Jorge A Ramirez, Alan DeSilva and [Brother G] met together.
“Elder Ramirez began the meeting with prayer and devotional/introduction in which he specified how the process would function, lasting about 15 minutes. [Brother G] would have the first opportunity to speak for 15 minutes without interruption. Then Alan would have his turn for rebuttal.
“[Brother G] began with some background material relating to [the member who was recently the subject of disciplinary action] and the Paul Borden report. Next he presented documentation showing present structure is not in harmony with the Church Manual. No interest was shown in documentation. Next his remarks centered on the inappropriateness of holding church business meetings during Sabbath hours. He cited the objection of many to having such a meeting relating to finances on the Sabbath. Alan responded by saying more people vote at that time than at any other time. [Brother G] then drew attention to Matthew Bediako's specific written notations to Alan of what must be done to remain in harmony with the Church Manual. He also pointed out Alan's disregard of that advice and his blatant untruths that Elder Bediako was in favor of the new church governance structure. There was no response from Alan to these observations.
“During Alan's rebuttal he began to draw boxes and explain that he would make a change. When Ramirez asked [Brother G], if this would work, [Brother G] answered that he would not comment until he had spoken with the group.
“At that point the meeting concluded with the understanding that Alan was to send his change to Ramirez who in turn, would send it to [Brother G].”
The documentation Brother G referred to having presented was a pair of charts comparing the membership and duties of a church board as defined by the Church Manual with the membership and duties of the two boards functioning at Takoma Park. This documentation will be included in a separate post.
Next: The Proposal
Religious
“At about 6:30 pm, and just before the Takoma Academy Board meeting, Elder Jorge A Ramirez, Alan DeSilva and [Brother G] met together.
“Elder Ramirez began the meeting with prayer and devotional/introduction in which he specified how the process would function, lasting about 15 minutes. [Brother G] would have the first opportunity to speak for 15 minutes without interruption. Then Alan would have his turn for rebuttal.
“[Brother G] began with some background material relating to [the member who was recently the subject of disciplinary action] and the Paul Borden report. Next he presented documentation showing present structure is not in harmony with the Church Manual. No interest was shown in documentation. Next his remarks centered on the inappropriateness of holding church business meetings during Sabbath hours. He cited the objection of many to having such a meeting relating to finances on the Sabbath. Alan responded by saying more people vote at that time than at any other time. [Brother G] then drew attention to Matthew Bediako's specific written notations to Alan of what must be done to remain in harmony with the Church Manual. He also pointed out Alan's disregard of that advice and his blatant untruths that Elder Bediako was in favor of the new church governance structure. There was no response from Alan to these observations.
“During Alan's rebuttal he began to draw boxes and explain that he would make a change. When Ramirez asked [Brother G], if this would work, [Brother G] answered that he would not comment until he had spoken with the group.
“At that point the meeting concluded with the understanding that Alan was to send his change to Ramirez who in turn, would send it to [Brother G].”
The documentation Brother G referred to having presented was a pair of charts comparing the membership and duties of a church board as defined by the Church Manual with the membership and duties of the two boards functioning at Takoma Park. This documentation will be included in a separate post.
Next: The Proposal
Religious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)