|
Letter to
Atlantic Union
Conference
January 27, 2014 |
 |
Carlyle Simmons
Executive Secretary |
| Message # 740 |
| Dear Pastor Simmons: |
| I have been praying that you would receive my last message and read it with your mind open to help my appeal move forward, Unfortunately, I did not hear from you and because my e-mails to the Union Conference have been blocked, I don’t even know if you got the last message. When I met with you at Ridgewood Church on January 18th, I asked you for a written recommendation regarding which charge should be considered at the appeal to Manhattan Church. It is logical to argue that which charge gets considered is a critical aspect of the appeal |
| |
| I feel The Lord with me because recently I was led to a text in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy which talks about the fair judgment of differences. In the words that Moses spoke to the children of Israel near the wilderness of Paran about 40 years after sending out the 12 spies which is recorded in Numbers 13. The words Moses spoke are recorded in Deuteronomy 1: 16 to 18. |
| |
|
“And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. (17) Ye shall not respect person in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s; and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. (18) And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do.”
Deuteronomy, 1: 16 - 18 ( KJV )
|
|
I have created a page on my website which adds a modern translation of this text and three places in the writings of Ellen White where she quotes this text.
http://www.diggingfortruth.org/article/3019/ Here are two of the SOP quotes. |
| Moses repeated to the congregation the words of the Lord, and announced the appointment of the seventy elders. The great leader's charge to these chosen men might well serve as a model of judicial integrity for the judges and legislators of modern times: "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's." Deuteronomy 1:16, 17. Patriarchs and Prophets, page 381.3 |
| The pen of inspiration comments that these words by Moses might well serve as a model of judicial integrity for modern times. In the text below from Acts of the Apostles, page 93, 94; she says that in his charge to these elders of Israel, Moses outlined some of the qualifications that fit a man to be a wise ruler in the church. |
In harmony with this plan, "Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves." Exodus 18:19-26. {AA 93.2}
Later, when choosing seventy elders to share with him the responsibilities of leadership, Moses was careful to select, as his helpers, men possessing dignity, sound judgment, and experience. In his charge to these elders at the time of their ordination, he outlined some of the qualifications that fit a man to be a wise ruler in the church. "Hear the causes between your brethren," said Moses, "and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's." Deuteronomy 1:16, 17. Acts of the Apostles, page 94.1 |
| You have held high office of Executive Secretary, in the Union Conference for many years and I am hoping that these texts are familiar to you. I am only quoting this to remind you of the standard for fairness and when the church manual says, the “member has the right to seek fairness” this is the fairness that God says the member is entitled to. |
| |
| But the question remains, does the right to seek fairness allow me to ask a church administrator at the Union Conference level to grant some degree of relief. That was the purpose of Message # 739, to persuade you that the answer is yes. I believe it allows me to seek fairness at the division level and even Ted Wilson himself. |
| |
| Please allow me to take another shot at it and to present new points. In the last message I argued that the changes made to the Church Manual allows us to answer the question of can I seek fairness from you? |
| |
|
There are several LINKEDin groups for Adventists and on-line Forums discussing the question of ‘fairness’ and one comment I saw comes from a teacher in Virginia who says, “Fair is getting what you need in order to be successful.” I do not need a decision from you that requires you to review evidence or testimony, I am asking you for a recommendation that will enable me to have a fair hearing at the appeal.
The Church Manual says, |
|
Right of Appeal for Reinstatement
“While it is the right of the church to administer discipline, this does not set aside the rights of members to seek fairness. If members believe that they have been treated unfairly by the local church, or not had the right to be heard fairly, and the church is unwilling to reconsider the case or if the officers refuse to consider their applications for reinstatement, the former members have a right to appeal in writing to the church for a hearing. The church should not neglect or refuse to grant such hearings. If it does, or if the former members still feel unfairly treated by the church after the appeal, they have the right to a final appeal for a hearing to the executive committee of the conference. If, after a full and impartial hearing, the conference committee is satisfied that an injustice has been inflicted by the church, the committee may recommend reinstatement to membership. But if membership is still refused by the church, then the conference committee may recommend membership in some other church. On the other hand, if it finds good grounds for sustaining the church in refusing to reinstate the former members, it will so record its decision.”
Church Manual, page 67
|
| I especially asked you to consider the first part that was added to this section by vote of the 59th GC Session in June 2010. The words in red show what has been added by the 59th GC Session. |
| |
| Please look at this again “While it is the right of the church to administer discipline, this does not set aside the rights of members to seek fairness. If members believe that they have been treated unfairly by the local church, or not had the right to be heard fairly . . .” When I spoke to you on January 18th, my question was about these words in the church manual. I asked you what does the right to seek fairness mean? |
| |
| I stated my opinion that members making Appeals for Reinstatement after June 2010 need to base their appeal on fairness, previously appeals could be based on fairness, but the church manual (17th edition) was not clear that ‘fairness’ was the basis for appeal. In fact, the 17th edition approved by the GC Session in 2005 did not even use the word “fairness” in this section. It will help us to answer the question of what does ‘the right to seek fairness’ mean by studying what was added to the Church Manual at the 59th GC Session. We can compare that with the text in the previous edition of the Church Manual that was approved by the 58th GC Session in 2005. The 17th edition has this section on page 200, says (words are in black) . . . |
| |
|
Right of Appeal for Reinstatement
“In the case where the church officers refuse to consider the application for reinstatement from a dismissed member, such an individual has a right to appeal to the church for a hearing. The church should not neglect or refuse to grant such a hearing. If it does, (or if the former members still feel unfairly treated by the church after the appeal, they) the individual has the right to (a final) appeal for a hearing to the executive committee of the conference in which the church is located. If, after a full and impartial hearing, the conference committee is satisfied that an injustice has been inflicted by the church, the committee may recommend the reinstatement of the dismissed member. But if membership is still refused by that church, then the conference committee may recommend the individual to membership in some other church. On the other hand, if it finds good grounds for sustaining the church in refusing to reinstate the former member, it will so record its decision.”
Church Manual, page 200 (17th edition)
|
| We already looked at the 55 words in red added to the beginning, before the words “In the case where the church officers refuse . . .” which was changed to just “if the officers refuse” in the 18th edition. The text above shows that another 18 words (they appear in hi-lighted red here but do not appear in the 17th edition)– was added by the 59th GC Session in 2010 to clarify the original text. The reason I have shown them is for you to confirm that “fairness” is now the basis for appeal to the church and to the Executive Committee. |
| |
| However, before 2010 this was not the case, the only hint regarding “fairness” in the 17th edition was the words “full and impartial hearing” and “an injustice has been inflicted by the church.” Since we always hope for a full and impartial hearing by the conference executive committee in every appeal of this nature we expected that to be the same. The words “an injustice has been inflicted by the church” is the question that the Executive Committee is asked to decide on, and this has not changed either. It is important to note that the “full and impartial hearing” is of the Executive Committee and they consider the question if “an injustice been inflicted by the church.” So the only hint of “fairness” in this text is in the context of the Conference Executive Committee and not the local church. There was nothing that said the local church needed to be fair. |
| |
|
We find 55 words added before and 18 words inserted into the text in the 17th edition. Before we consider what have these 73 new words changed? I’d like you to now look at changes to the Church Manual regarding the discipline hearing process.
The 59th GC Session also changed the section called . . . |
| |
|
Fundamental Rights of the Members
Members have a fundamental right to prior notification of the disciplinary meeting and the right to be heard in their own defense, introduce evidence, and produce witnesses. No church should vote to remove a member under circumstances that deprive the member of these rights. Written notice must be given at least two weeks before the meeting and include the reasons for the disciplinary hearing.
Church Manual, page 64
|
The changes made by the 59th GC Session are shown in red.
Now I am ready to present what these changes did. I submit to you that through these two texts that were changed at the 59th GC Session, the church manual improved the hearing process; improved the appeal process to give members who are unfairly removed from fellowship a better chance of success at the hearing and at the appeal. A better chance not only to reinstate his/her membership but also to return to same church if they want. By adding the words “fair” – “fairly” – “fairness” to four different places in the section for the “Right to Appeal for Reinstatement”(church manual, page 67), the church board is discouraged from unfair practices and calling it proper procedure, and by adding new rights and requiring a due process that gives the member a better chance to defend himself at the hearing, the burden is put on the church board to follow proper procedures.
|
| |
It should be obvious that the following wording added to the church manual (18th edition);
► “if members believe that they have been treated unfairly by the local church”
► “not had the right to be heard fairly [at the hearing]”
► “if the former members still feel unfairly treated by the church after the appeal”
. . . adds “fairness” to the local church phase of the appeal process which was not clear before; and therefore, “the rights of members to seek fairness” must include the local church phase of the appeal process as well as the Executive Committee phase. You can verify this by reading the transcript of the 59th GC Session pertaining to the discussion and vote on these changes to the church manual.
http://archives.adventistreview.org/article/3510/archives/issue-2010-1520/church-manual-discussion |
| |
| Since the local conference has missed this, I will repeat it so you don’t miss it. The 59th GC Session has added the concept or precept of “fairness” to four places in the appeal for reinstatement section. All four pertain to the local church, and the two places for fairness at the Executive Committee phase of the appeal process has been carried over from the 17th edition. It is very important to understand these additions, because how can church administrators insure fairness in the appeal to the local church, unless it is by some action of the conference recommending proper procedures and/or pointing out errors. In other words, by upholding the church manual in cases where violations have occurred that were unfair practices. |
| |
| If the disfellowshipped member does not want to return to the same church he will follow the process that you recommended and apply for membership in another church in accordance with the church manual, page 66. |
| |
|
If you can agree with this then it follows that the dismissed member is allowed to ask the local conference for help with the steps of his appeal to the local church that will allow him a reasonable chance for success to be reinstated at the same church in spite of unfair practices by the church board. He can overcome unfair practices by the church board by persuading the members of the congregation not to vote for removal of membership. One safeguard that prevents a church board from unfairly removing members is already written in the Church Manual, “The church board may recommend to a business meeting the removal of members, but under no circumstances does the board have the right to take final action.” page 64, and we can expose unfair practices by the church board by the way they conduct the disciplinary hearing process.
|
| |
| Dismissed members can reverse a decision to remove them from membership by exposing the unfair practices, and/or by defending themselves against the actual charge brought against them. If successful their membership can be reinstated by the congregation. |
| |
| It is important to understand that the same arguments and proof that expose these unfair practices by the church board can be made to the Executive Committee, if successful the member can get reinstatement of membership; but the conference can not force the church to accept the member back into the congregation. For this reason the 59th GC Session decided to add rights and require ‘due process’ to and define fair practices to the hearing and appeal to the church rather than changing the church manual to allow the conference to force the church to accept a member back into the congregation. |
| |
Especially, when the unfair practices include preventing the accused member from defending himself by manipulating the congregation into setting a time limit that the member has to speak, and then after his time has expired to introduce false accusations and false testimony and prevent the member from speaking with “your time has already expired.” Allowing the member to speak in his own defense and introduce evidence and the testimony of witnesses would bring fairness to the hearing, and be valid arguments when the member finally does get a chance to speak at the appeal.
|
| |
The conference should help by recommending to the congregation that the church manual be followed and explaining exactly what aspects of the original hearing were not in harmony with proper procedure and fair practices.
The “right to seek fairness” means the dismissed member has the right to come to the conference, and if the conference will not respond to seek fairness any level of the church. This is because for whatever reasons the church board has to treat a member unfairly, the local conference can have the same or even it’s own reason to treat the member unfairly. |
| |
| The church manual does not give authority to a local conference to remove a member; that can only be done by a vote of the congregation. However, the conference president has the right to attend the business meeting or to send someone to represent him at the meeting. It would displease God for a local conference to manipulate a local church to disfellowship a member that it does not like, and it would please God if the conference were at the meeting to insure fairness. But when the conference representative makes a mistake(s) the Union Conference should be able to get involved. The very presence of a conference employee at the hearing, who is not a member of the church, constitutes a mistake that should allow the Union level to get involved. |
| |
| The church manual gives the member the “right to seek fairness” and does not limit the members ability to seek fairness from only one level of the church. Seeking fairness means the member as the right to seek what is needed in order to have a fair chance be successful to return to fellowship in the congregation as long as the truth, the church manual ‘due process’ and proper procedures are not compromised in providing these things. This would be in harmony with the Scriptures and inspired writings quoted at the beginning of this message. |
| |
| This is a shortened version of Message # 739 and I hope this is easier to read and understand and just as compelling so that you will grant my request for a recommendation regarding which charge should be considered at the appeal. |
In God We Trust
Mario |
|
