Hold ’em? Fold ’em? Walk away? Or run?
When I recently logged on to the Adventist Today
website, I read the following:
"Adventist Today received a letter from the General Conference . . . asking that Adventist Today not 'stock, sell, promote, or advertise' three books at its booth during the week of the Atlanta General Conference session. . . . After careful deliberation, the Executive Committee of the Adventist Foundation Board decided that it would accede and not display these three books at its booth during the GC session."
It's never easy to know how the "seemingly powerless" should respond
when the "seemingly powerful" issue a gag order or an ultimatum. The papal bulls of
Martin Luther's day produced similar consternation and perplexity. As Kenny
Rogers so aptly sings: "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold
'em, know when to walk away and know when to run."
Solomon writes something similar but uses different words: There's a time for
everything. There's a time to kowtow. There's a time to avoid today's battle
because tomorrow may provide a more propitious environment for engagement.
There's also a time to say, "Here we stand. We can do no other. So help us
God."
It's interesting that "The
Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and
Its Employees" (voted by the GC Executive Committee) says:
"We are responsible to our fellow church members. We accept accountability for sound leadership decisions and appropriate stewardship."
We couldn't ask for a more apple-pie-and-motherhood sort of statement. It sounds
wonderful. The only problem is that the statement is the equivalent of an
"unfunded mandate." A sort of glib "guarantee" with no details
concerning what or how the guarantee will be delivered.
No mechanism has been put into place by which church members can pursue the
statement's promised accountability. Good though the words are, there's no
ombudsman, there's no independent accountability commission, there's no
complaints-and-accusations investigation board, there's no appeals court.
Church members have long known that if enough members get angry enough, and if
enough negative ripples filter through to enough outspoken laypeople, it's
possible not to re-elect some leader at a local conference session. Not pretty,
but possible. But the reality is, such a wave of dissatisfaction at the higher
levels of the church has rarely—if ever—come from "church members."
It happens only when it comes from the church hierarchy itself. There
simply is no mechanism that gives effective voice to individual members
for accountability at GC level.
A January 5, 2010, Adventist News Network report shares the following insights
from Jan
Paulsen, world president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church:
"Empowering people, Paulsen said, is one of the greatest lessons he has learned during his years at world church headquarters. ‘People may be your most complicated—and, at times, troubling—assets to handle, but they are your most important,' he said, adding that it's members, not administrators, who are ultimately the church's ‘owners.'"
It's a sad day when the books the member "owners" write in an effort to bring about a higher level of accountability within their church are banned by administrators who, according to Dr. Paulsen, aren't really the church's "owners."
One of the major weaknesses of boards and committees—both inside the church and
in the general public—is that their decisions are only as good as the
information provided to the group's members. In our current church structure,
(a) the agenda for boards and committees is set by the leaders at that level of
church organization, (b) the boards and committees are chaired by the leaders
who set the agendas, (c) the documentation is supplied, filtered and spun by
the same leaders and (d) the board and committee members have been made to feel
that it's disloyal and unethical to go on any independent fact-finding missions
that might lead to questions concerning the information officially provided.
In such a context, it's not hard to see how bad decisions can be made by truly
sincere people—although just how bad some of the decisions are will never be
known by even the board and committee members themselves, let alone by the
church membership at large. That kind of detail is kept out of sight and under
wraps as much as possible. The type of person who would ask hard questions and
hold leaders' feet to the fire isn't sought for membership in such groups.
Loyalty and supportiveness are the virtues that are in demand—not razor-sharp
analytical skills and tenacity in demanding accountability.
Granted that the church has only statements of good intention but no
established mechanism for holding high-level leaders accountable to church
members, individual members or groups of members may take it upon themselves to
ask questions, demand answers and seek to bring about the promised
accountability through mechanisms of their own making. Since Mr. Gutenberg's
famous invention, the printed page has provided one of the most promising tools
for this purpose. But pursuit of accountability is a lonely, frustrating and
hazardous exercise.
Despite nice-sounding paper statements about our church leaders' theoretical
commitment to being held accountable, accountability to members is a foreign
concept in practice. When the calls to leaders for facts and
explanations and meetings fall on deaf ears over and over and over again, some
members feel that more public and more pointed actions are in order. Persistent
refusal by church leaders to engage in true dialogue, and the dismissiveness
with which members are too often treated, suggest we're facing the "kingly
powers" that Ellen White so decried.
One of the banned books—Truth
Decay: A Call for Accountability and Transparency in the Adventist
Church—is a simple chronicle of the frustration experienced by a super-loyal
Adventist in trying to get information to confirm that the millions
of dollars he had given to the church were indeed going to the places and
projects (and in the manner) that he'd designated. He discovered that such
information was considered to be none of his business—despite the fact that he
was the donor!
How any church leader could read Dr. Koppel's chronicle and not have his or her
face flush with embarrassment and righteous indignation about what this man
was subjected to is truly amazing. One would think that a church leader who is
truly committed to accountability would deeply regret that such a book ever had
to be written.
Even more, one would think that such a leader would see the importance of
having leaders and laypeople alike being hit full force with the urgency of
ensuring that such lapses never, never, never happen again. What more
powerful educational tool is there than a compelling, well-documented case
study?
In the Bible, story after story is told of God's followers who get it right at
times and wrong at times—sometimes badly wrong. Those are the case studies we
hold up in church every week to help us learn important life lessons. Granted
the methods used by biblical writers to get essential truths across, one might
expect that such a classic case study as Dr. Koppel's experience would actually
have the foreword written by some high church leader. But, no, the book and
any reference to it has been banned at the Adventist Today display at
the General Conference Session—even though
Dr. Koppel is painstakingly careful to avoid revealing the identity of those
with whom he interacted or at least tried to interact.
At the very least, the other two books are also examples of church leaders allowing
the "appearance of evil." My understanding of the writer's goal in each case is
to seek to ensure that leaders, boards and committees lift their game and
ensure that the focus is where it should be: on treating people appropriately
(the Golden Rule),
on following principle and on ensuring a fair process in which justice is not
only done but justice is seen to be done. If these books help achieve that
goal, they will prove a great blessing to the church. But if they're banned,
how will such needed lessons be learned and such a blessing come about?
The questions Adventist Today personnel need to ask include these: Are
the books accurate—at least as far as is humanly possible in situations where
one or more parties has a vested interest in keeping the facts buried? Are the
books written to bring about positive change in the church by calling for the
very accountability to which the church's leaders have already committed
themselves in the church's duly voted paper statements? Or are the books
written with malicious intent and an eagerness to tear down the Adventist
Church? Will the church be harmed
if the information contained in the books gets out? Will it be benefited and
inspired to act more appropriately if the information receives wider
circulation?
What would Jesus do? In His range of recorded responses, which mode would He
employ in responding to the attempts to muzzle the members who've felt
compelled to write? The cleansing-of-the-temple mode, in which His anger boiled
over because of what the powerful were doing to the powerless? The
denunciation-of-the-scribes-and-Pharisees mode, where inconsistency and
pretense were skewered? The
ready-forgiveness-granted-to-those-who-were-ignorantly-crucifying-Him mode? The
understanding-of-human-frailty mode, demonstrated when the woman was caught in
adultery? Or some other mode?
Only when the foregoing questions and others like them have been wrestled with
and prayed about and anguished over—and I'm not saying this hasn't already
happened—can a truly valid decision be made about whether Adventist Today
should hold 'em, fold 'em, walk away or run.
 | James Coffin | Jim Coffin has been senior pastor of the Markham Woods Church in Longwood, Florida, since 1994. Jim is a former assistant editor at the Adventist Review and a former senior editor at Signs Publishing Company in Australia. Jim has written scores of articles for Seventh-day Adventist publications and three books—One Thing I Know—and Other Stuff I Strongly Suspect (Review and Herald Publishing Association), A Different Church for a Different World (Signs Publishing Company) and Conversations With My Church (Signs Publishing Company). He’s currently putting the finishing touches on a fourth book—The Fine Print. |
User login
Search
Connect
Translate Page
Subscribe
Comments
Re: Hold ’em? Fold ’em? Walk away? Or run?
AnitaPacificNW
Somehow this banning of the books has a taint of arrogance to it - as if "we the people" somehow do not have enough intelligence to read and make decisions for ourselves. The leadership would have been much wiser just to ignore this, let the chips fall - they are falling anyway, as many of us have read some of these books already. This is just part of a larger problem of the leadership being out of touch with those of us who "own" the church. I now focus on our local church and mostly ignore the higher up leadership - I find that I do not feel "safe" with them. Sad. True.
Re: Hold ’em? Fold ’em? Walk away? Or run?
Very well written, and very well stated.
Recently, while trying to apply the accountability processes you've written about, I was terminated. My goal has always been to empower people and glorify God - not necessarily in that order. But I learned, this is not really what my employer valued.
There is a time to fold em - for me, that time has come.
________________
Gary S. Walter
http://bit.ly/gwalter
Re: Hold ’em? Fold ’em? Walk away? Or run?
If Adventist Today has a booth at the G.C., surely they will be able to hand out copies of the mag containing ads for these books? Or, take subscriptions? Are they expected to keep them under the counter like Playboy or such magazines?
Some clever individual should be able to determine a method by which these books will be available. Having read all three, it is very understandable why they have been banned, although it is contrary to Paulsen's statement. Perhaps those who visit the booth would be willing to give their name as having vistited, and they could later be informed of the books that were banned. Like "Banned in Boston" there is nothing guaranteed to sell copies that knowing they were banned.
Re: Hold ’em? Fold ’em? Walk away? Or run?
I agree. The books must certainly have been written with good intentions, but they come across as "whistle blowers" and not always in a helpful mood. I know Dr. Koppel personally, and while I understand his frustration with the donated land [which was actually donated by his father, not himself, as I read it], as one who is trained in drafting gifts of real property and their deeds, I can easily tell that the condition [requiring specific use of the donated property] was never included as a part and parcel of the title. Therefore, the error by the subseqent conference officers was understandable -- because they had never been a party to the original transfer. The whole thing was unfortunate but understandable, in light of errors on the part of both the donor and the donee.
I think the current conference policies regarding property transfers have corrected this problem.
I'm also in favor of making these books available for sale, perhaps by flyers which can be available at the GC Session and ordered by each person at a later date.
Re: Hold ’em? Fold ’em? Walk away? Or run?
Note: This comment was sent to Adventist Today by e-mail. ~ Moderator
As author of TRUTH DECAY, I have a few comments regarding the March 10th 2010 response "tuningin" has made to Elder Jim Coffin's piece, Hold 'Em? Fold 'Em? Walk Away? Or Run?
Some 11,000 copies of TRUTH DECAY have gone out, and 300 readers have responded in writing to me--church members, pastors, missionaries, and administrators from almost every level of church organization and institution. The answers have been 98% positive and affirming.
Perhaps the fact that I spent several years pursuing absolute accuracy in the facts and details of TRUTH DECAY has something to do with the quality of that response--including inviting those directly involved in my problems to review the manuscript--up to and including the treasurer of the General Conference. Most replied with canned disclaimers clearly inspired by legal counsel--though others took the time to respond in some depth.
Now, the books known as The Terrible Trio--so named because of their terrible need to be written at all--are indeed of the "whistleblower" variety--even as most of the Bible prophets are of an admonitory nature. Whistle-blowing calls people back from danger and error, points out corruption, fraud, and incompetence, and promotes accountability by pointing the reader to better ways.
In the tens-of-thousands of Sabbath School classes I have attended in my 91 years of life, and through years of Christian education and a multitude of sermons from the pulpit, I have been taught and re-taught that if I observe wrong doing and say nothing, I am an accomplice to that infamy.
In a recent interview published in the Adventist World, "INTEGRITY = OPENNESS + TRUST," General Conference President Jan Paulsen tells us, "[We] should hold leaders accountable." I totally agree. However, some years back, after the publication of TRUTH DECAY, I spoke with Elder Charles Watson, former General Conference VP, who said that he was not aware of any provision for members holding leaders accountable. So apparently this concern about holding church leaders accountable is a fairly recent discovery, for some.
The "Terrible Trio" books do indeed attempt to hold church leaders accountable to a membership that expects better. Statements made publicly (recorded in the Adventist Review) at the 2005 General Conference Session by four delegates bear repeating: "Our people have lost confidence in the leadership," they said, and cited acceptance of institutionalized corruption, failure to rectify these errors, discrepancies in financial matters, an atmosphere of corruption, incompetent leaders, lack of sincerity, dishonesty, and deceit are contributory to this loss of confidence.
These people are whistleblowers in the true sense of the word, as surely as the authors of "The Terrible Trio."
Now, allow me to correct several assumptions apparently drawn by "tuningin." He says that the "land that was donated by his [Albert's] father, not himself."
True, my father did donate about 165 acres to the New Jersey Conference, for which the conference received about $8 million--the book clearly states as much. But in the last year or two of Pop's life, I had full power of attorney to conduct my father's business. I was also the executor of his estate. So clearly it was my responsibility (and the General Conference treasurer himself admits that I had the right and responsibility) to inquire regarding matters related to Pop's estate.
But in addition, my wife and I contributed a five-acre section of land that the church eventually sold for about $170,000 (because the local conference refused us the courtesy of informing us regarding the sale price, the figure I give here is interpolated from what members and/or board members of the church have told us unofficially).
My wife and I also contributed additional acres, for which the church received more than a million dollars. Our whole family was invested very personally, from start to finish, in the trauma of TRUTH DECAY.
My critic also states, that "as one who is trained in drafting gifts of real property and their deeds, I can easily tell the condition requiring specific use of the donated property was understandable."
This misses the point-it is not even addressed in my book. I know of no problem with the specific use of Pop's "donated property." Other trustors may have experienced such difficulties, but it did not present itself in the saga of TRUTH DECAY.
I was personally present when Conference administrators asked Pop what he would like the funds from the sale of the contributed property to benefit. His answer to the church leaders was, "You should know better than I what your needs are." I might have given a different answer, but as owner of the property, Pop had the final word, and we all honored that word.
Clearly, "tuningin" has read material into my book that simply is not there. There never was a problem about "the specific use of the donated property."
He then writes, "Therefore the error of the subsequent conference officers was unfortunate but understandable in light of errors on the part of both the donor and the donee."
Really! Recent full-page ads published by the Trust Services Department urge church members to put their confidence in the Trust Services Department and thereafter rest assured that everything will be done as it should be.
Yet nothing of the sort happens in TRUTH DECAY, and I can fully understand what Elder Tom Mostert, former president of the Pacific Union Conference, means when he says on Page 19, "I have read your book with sadness....I'm glad you didn't stay silent...one of the issues we face in the Trust work is that of incompetent people for the complexity of work they must do."
This type of problem was forcibly impressed on me when I attended a meeting in an attempt to "settle" some problems. Both the local conference Trust officer (who as a former hospital administrator could no doubt boast an MBA degree) and the Union conference Trust officer, who was also an attorney, were present. I purposely sat next to the local conference Trust officer so that I could speak directly to him. I said, "I know about you, but I have never met you before." Then I asked him if he recollected having ever met me, and he assured me that he did not. Then I said, "I have nothing against you. Do you have anything against me?" He said he did not.
Then I told him that over the previous couple of years I had written him four or five letters at intervals of about three months. I pointed out that I had not yet received even one answer to that series of communications. So I had consulted with the Union conference Trust officer, who was also an attorney, and had asked him to help me get an answer from the local conference Trust officer. My efforts brought no results.
I then told him that I did not consider that level of silence to be in line with standard ethical practice, nor to be appropriate for a Christian in business. I was speechless when he finally replied, "We do what our conference president tells us to."
And if that wasn't enough, the Union conference Trust officer/attorney backed him: "That's right. We do what our conference president tells us to do."
Now, I knew that this local conference Trust officer had been the CFO of a Seventh-day Adventist hospital where I previously had privileges in Dental & Oral Surgery. He apparently lost that job and then accepted a call to manage a small Adventist Book Center in a local conference. To these responsibilities, then, were added those of Trust Services officer. So I had concluded that I was dealing with an individual who had a good grasp of finance and business practice.
But when I was told, "We do what our president tells us to do," I could not help musing that most conference presidents have been educated primarily in Gospel ministry. What level of competence could I expect from them in areas of financial complexity related to Trust Services work?
"Tuningin" then says, "Therefore the error of the subsequent conference officers was unfortunate."
Well, agreed. But are these administrators clueless? The previous conference president who had negotiated these contributions of real estate was (and is) still living. He was but a phone call away. I would have been glad to suggest that the current officer simply call his predecessor for guidance and enlightenment. In addressing my problems, the General Conference treasurer told me frankly, "I have not been sure how to best find a positive resolution to this matter." He was frankly stumped by the intransigence I had experienced.
"Tuningin" also writes, "I'm also in favor of making these books available for sale, perhaps by flyers which can be available at the G.C. Session and ordered by each person at a later date."
Apparently he misses the tight restrictions imposed by the General Conference, that Adventist Today "not stock, sell, promote, or advertise three books during the week of the Atlanta General Conference session." The three books are TRUTH DECAY, WHO WATCHES? WHO CARES," and FATAL ACCOUNTS.
Yet, TRUTH DECAY has been recommended as a "Must Read" by the top General Conference attorney in his continuing-education lectures to the approximately 400 Trust Service Officers from the United States and Canada.
This prohibition seems to be incompatible with the principles the General Conference President established when he recently wrote, "I can't overstate the importance of openness and transparency....allowing a board (people) to know all the relevant information."
Now, after North American and Canadian Trust Service Officers have been benefited by the case study of TRUTH DECAY, how sad that it should be withheld from the delegates of the World Field. This message needs to permeate the church with its admonitory, "whistle-blowing" arpeggios. The book is neither mean-spirited nor vindictive--it simply tells a sad, sad story that touches hearts and lives and has led many to determine to do better work in the stewardship of money entrusted to the Lord through His church.
Albert C. Koppel. DDS