More to Come

First, some background. Five years ago a high-profile employee at the Seventh-day Day Adventist Church's headquarters went on a church-workplace rampage of written and oral defamation, character assassination, abuse and harassment against me as minister, my wife and our children. When he refused to take corrective steps after I contacted him personally, I sent a simple request to his advisors/supervisors that included (a) that they give him spiritual counsel concerning the impropriety of such behavior and (b) that they clear my name.

(Church policy promises that when a minister's fitness for ministry is called into question, his case will be examined and his name will either be cleared or he will be disciplined in a manner appropriate to his "crime." I asked for the facts to be examined and my name cleared. I asked more than once. To date, no one has even acknowledged that I asked.)

From late 2006 well into 2008, I repeatedly wrote to six church leaders (all the correspondence has been posted on this blog) repeatedly making my request and arguing my point--to no avail. The church leaders refused to acknowledge: (a) that anything improper had been done by their colleague; (b) that what happens in the church workplace is, by definition, a church-workplace matter; (c) that the church's paper statements declare such behavior inappropriate; (d) that the response we requested is, in fact, what is called for by church policy; and (e) that we repeatedly requested a face-to-face meeting in which the church leaders could look us in the eye and explain to us why they were ignoring their own policies, guidelines and official statements. Not one word has been forthcoming about any of the foregoing--which makes letter writing rather bizarre: We write about subject X; they respond with comments about subject Y!

In mid 2009 several departments at the NAD collaborated on a packet of abuse-prevention materials to be used by pastors for Abuse Prevention Awareness Sabbath, which is held annually on the last Sabbath of August. The departmental material, which is excellent and tells it like it is concerning abuse and its devastating and far-reaching results, rubbed salt into our wounds--because it called for the very response we'd consistently called for and that the NAD and GC leaders had stubbornly refused to give.

So I wrote again--to the General Counsel for the General Conference (Karnik Doukmetzian, who'd taken over as General Counsel from Robert Kyte, the most recent spokesman), explaining the tensions created by such good advice emanating from the NAD departments--but which neither the NAD nor GC administrators were willing to follow. Mr. Doukmetzian assured us that, after careful review, he could say that the matter had been handled "appropriately." (He must have a highly specialized definition of the term "appropriately"!) I wrote numerous times, receiving brief, brush-off, evasive replies that ignored all the questions and issues I actually raised. More frequently, though, I received no reply at all.

My wife also wrote, to the then-president of the General Conference himself (Pastor Jan Paulsen). After several faxed letters from her, he at least responded--with a spiritually abusive letter (abusive according the NAD departmental definitions of what constitutes abuse) that again ignored every question and issue she'd raised. He just patronizingly preached at her instead. He certainly didn't call the perpetrator to task or in any way seek to clear our names, as called for by policy. Nor did he hold his fellow administrators accountable for having so failed the church and its employees.

There's a limit to human tolerance for abuse and dissmissiveness. Most people can be treated as a non-entity for only so long before something has to give. So at the earliest window of opportunity, I applied for early retirement from church employment, which will kick in within the next few days. However, still wanting my name cleared and that of my family--even though it will be post-retirement--I've written yet again.

Within the next couple of months, I'll be posting all the letters that have been sent since we renewed correspondence in 2009. Check back.

Readers Respond--2

Below are emails received in response to our “Justice Denied” blog. The emails have been edited for clarity and brevity. They’ve also been edited to mask the identity of all writers, as there might be negative repercussions for some, especially current church employees, if their names were attached. Thanks to all who have cared enough to take time to write. 

AFTER HAVING PUT your story and blog on the back burner for some time (I read it when it first appeared), I've just read some of the replies of your readers, and all I can say is, “Wow! How sad." 

However, I’d like to share another angle of the same phenomenon: that of non-SDAs (even agnostics and atheists) who find, in the course of events, that they do business with Seventh-day Adventists—and detest the tactics used by Adventists.

I am an SDA, though I work for a firm which is not SDA. Nor does it have any religious affiliations or connections. (In fact, many of my firm's members are agnostics and even atheists.) We “contract” with a local SDA institution. And my colleagues know I myself am an SDA and proud of that tradition. 

After years of a tranquil and mutually cordial and beneficial relationship, things have changed. It is the strong opinion of my partners (non-SDAs from my firm who are involved in the negotiations) that the leaders of the SDA institution are not proceeding in good faith, nor do they seem to have any scruples, nor do they adhere to the basics of ethical behavior one might reasonably expect from anyone in the public sphere, let alone from an entity that calls itself “Christian.” In fact, my partners label the tactics of the leaders of this SDA institution as deceptive, devoid of basic integrity, and profoundly dishonest. In essence, their word is worthless. An assurance or promise is without meaning. 

So my colleagues come to me with deep questions: Why is “your church” so profoundly duplicitous and dishonest? Does one's voluntary alignment with Christ allow and encourage this? Is it acceptable for all ethics to be tossed if the beneficiary is seen to be “the mission of Christ”? 

I am really struggling to know how to answer them. Does the noble “end” (extending the mission of Christ to the world) justify the “means”—in this case abject disregard for basic ethical honesty? 

This is proving a very difficult “pill” to swallow.—Layperson

Readers Respond

Below are emails received in response to our “Justice Denied” blog. The emails have been edited for clarity and brevity. They’ve also been edited to mask the identity of all writers, as there might be negative repercussions for some, especially current church employees, if their names were attached. Thanks to all who have cared enough to take time to write.


YOUR CONCERN that the legal approach is used instead of Jesus’ approach is of particular concern to me.—Current church employee


WE HAD NO idea. Been sitting here for an hour reading your tome in disbelief. Halfway through I had to pop a Pepcid to calm the heartburn it initiated.—Layperson


SAD, BUT well done.—Former church employee


YOUR STORY is an important, emotional, logical, honesty-begging, life-risking, family-unsettling issue. Welcome to the ranks of those who, as Popeye used to say, "just can'ts stands it no more!"—Former church employee


MY THOUGHTS and prayers are with you, and if I can help you in any way, let me know.

1. Most (though not all) of the men in our church are weak and cowardly, apparently believing that this reflects Christ in their life.

2. The higher up in the system people are, the more out of touch with reality they seem to be.

3. Most (though not all, of course) of those who were born into the church have no connection with Jesus. Their behavior is better on the surface than the average person (no drugs, alcohol or bad language), but that's about it. It seems that the only way second-generation SDAs find Jesus is when a traumatic incident happens in their life (i.e. divorce, cancer, child out of harmony with their values etc.)—or when they leave the fold, walk with the world for awhile, then come back.—Layperson


IT IS NOT often that I use the word "empathize." However, with what my wife and I have experienced, we really do empathize with you and your wife about how you have been treated.

This is a modus operandi used on a regular basis by church leaders. There just is no way that refusal to answer, obfuscation, obscurantism etc. are kind, Christian or biblical.

I have a book titled The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. The authors are David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen. After I read your blog, I perused the book. (I wouldn’t be surprised if you have read it.) It seems that many of the observations made in the book accurately describe both your experience and ours.

A couple of years ago the Sabbath School lesson was about problems of leadership (I do not recall the actual title). I was watching Doug Batchelor teach the lesson on TV. At one point he asked the audience, “How many of you have had problems with church leaders?” At that moment the camera panned the audience. Even though it was only for a brief second or two, my guess is that about 80 percent of the audience raised their hands.

I believe that Who Watches? Who Cares?” Misadventures in Stewardship (about 375 pages), which came off the press in May 2008, is having and will have an impact. I think your manuscript will no doubt be effectively distributed on the internet. Without question you will have many responses from individuals who will tell you of their own similar experience.

I can’t help but believe, judging from the experience of others, that you aren’t in for an easy time, and that is so sad.—Layperson


I HAVE READ your blog through once, but plan to go back and read it again. Such things seem to be happening in our church more and more. I am appalled at what both Lincoln and the brethren have perpetrated against you, and I salute you for your courageous stand. I can only hope and pray that it all turns out OK in the end for you.—Current church employee


THANKS FOR sharing your tragic experience. My wife and I have both read through some of the material, and we sadly conclude that there is a pattern here that parallels our experience. Suffice it to say that we, like you, believe much needs to be done to correct a very flawed process. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.—Former church employee


I READ YOUR entire list of communications with church leadership. Because I have experienced similar "institutional" behavior myself, I can affirm the unwillingness in general of leaders—from conference presidents on up the ladder—to respond honestly and directly to issues. I use the term "up the ladder" because they are mostly "ladder climbers" (i.e. politicians, not spiritual leaders).

Fortunately, I am fireproof. I am a professional not employed by the church. It regularly grieves me that this low level of "professionalism" is a substitute for Christianity.

I pray daily that God will take down those who have proven their unreliability before God and raise up more members who will think clearly and trust God completely for their sole guidance. I also pray for the delegates to church sessions to have the clarity to overrule the aggrandizement of power these "leaders" assume for themselves.

I have put you and your family in our prayers that the "peace of God" can rule in all your hearts.—Layperson


I FINISHED reading your site Wednesday at 2:30 a.m. I am sorry that you are having to deal with a situation that could have been so easily dealt with. Shame on the administrators of our church for the way they have treated you. You and Leonie are in our prayers daily. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do to assist either of you.—Layperson


I’M REALLY sorry for the deep hurt you and Leonie and your boys have experienced. It has been a sad situation. Please be assured of our continuing respect and friendship.—Current church employee


I’VE JUST READ your “Justice Denied” blog. As predicted, I have a heavy heart. When Jesus spoke the following words, I can just see Him having this situation in mind:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:15-20; emphases supplied by the letter writer).

When the fruit is love, joy, peace . . . , it is the Holy Spirit at work. When the fruit is bitterness, rage, anger, brawling and slander, Paul counsels us to get rid of it (Ephesians 4).

You have been my pastor for over a decade, and I have been so blessed because of your ministry. We have not always agreed, yet you have always been gracious, longsuffering and kind, as well as supportive and instructive. Like no other pastor I have ever had, you have demonstrated a servant’s heart. I value your ministry very highly.

As I pray for each person involved in this ongoing story, I find myself wishing that, like the story of the woman brought before Jesus because of her great sin, the first stone had not been cast. But it was. I admire the fact that you are willing to risk your reputation to stand up for Leonie. She is a precious woman, and you honor her every time you speak of her. (That in itself is rare.) God has asked us to defend the weak (do justice), love mercy and walk humbly before Him.

Like Daniel, stand up for right, and fall down to your knees in your ongoing relationship with your God. His Spirit will give you strength.—Layperson


I APPLAUD your courage for speaking out! Be true to yourself and God will guide you in the right directions, as He already has.—Layperson


I HAD NO idea of what you've been going through. Our jobs are difficult enough without what you've had to face. Your blog is well-written, clear and sad. Keep your courage. You and your family are in my prayers. –Current church employee


I READ through the material on your blog site. I'm disappointed for you and your family about what has happened. First that the rift between you and Leonie and Lincoln has developed into what you describe in your blog; and then the lack of response to the problem from “the powers that be.” How frustrating on both counts.

I've tried to step back from the what-do-they-think-they're-doing-to-my-friend-? feeling that first hit as I was reading your blog, to try to put myself in the shoes of the GC guys. While I could understand this was a problem they didn't want to address because it had started as a family matter, I think you state the case well that it had developed into something bigger than that. And I really can't understand why they haven't simply sat down with Lincoln to tell him straight that his actions were inappropriate—to tell him to do what you ask. Your request to contact those he sent the letters to is reasonable.

I suspect that the GC guys have already decided that they're not going to respond any further (I checked your blog site again this morning and see no further correspondence). I can hear the sound of hand-washing from here.

If that's the case, I'm hoping that the least that will happen is that they will take the same attitude toward any sense of annoyance they've had from your tenaciously calling them to accountability. Your ministry is too important to be hampered by any on-going defense of your challenge or, worse, by the effort of trying to hang on to your position while under attack in whatever form.

Hang in there. I'm hoping and praying that you and Leonie and the boys can move beyond the hurts of this exchange, whatever happens from here.—Current church employee


YOUR DOCUMENT, "Justice Denied," was shared with me, and I have studied it over. Since it sounds so much like my own experience, I felt compelled to write to offer you my sympathies. Unless one has suffered in like manner, it is difficult to understand. It is hard to believe that the church to which we have committed our lives could treat its members (much less its employees) in such an insensitive way.

Since “the brethren” count on the protection of the "First Amendment," they seem to enjoy relative immunity. And with unlimited financial resources, they can eliminate their enemies at will. The one thing they fear is publicity.

From what I read in your document, I can sense you will be making some powerful enemies who will press to destroy you for the negative publicity. I want you to know that I admire you for your courage and for your attempts to protect your family, your name and your church. May God give you strength to weather the storm.—Former church employee


I DISCOVERED your blog last night; I had not heard anything about this horrible situation. I am so upset at how you, Leonie and the boys have been treated through all this. I cried as I read all the letters and felt the frustration of not being treated as you would expect from the church leadership. You all deserve better than this! Thank you for having the guts to share this with us.

I have added your family to my prayer journal. I take about two hours each morning to pray for and about situations in my own family, and for friends and others I hear about that need prayer. It is my spiritual gift, and I have really begun to take it seriously. It has been my lifeline.

Jim, I know God will continue to bless you, your family and your ministry. You have been a blessing to me and many others!—Layperson


I HAVE NOT yet finished reading your blog, but wanted to take a moment to let you know that my prayers, along with the prayers of many, are with you. I pray that some eyes are opened so that hearts can change and the attacks and judgmentalism cease.—Layperson


CONTINUE the fight.—Current church employee


I WANT YOU to know my concern. It's not biting criticism, but concern for your wellbeing.

I agree that his letters and name-calling are entirely uncalled for—though his opinion.

I agree it was totally unprofessional and ungodly for him to send them to other people—particularly to colleagues.

I agree that you have done what you could—by going directly to the person, then going to a few more, as the Bible counsels us to do in Matthew 18.

I agree that you have every right to defend your family.

But when I read the blog and the same material was stated over and over—while it clearly communicated your frustration, as understandable as it is—it began to sound desperate (which you must feel). But the repetition sounded petty.

I don't know how it will happen, and I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't use legal action (I remember Merikay). But perhaps now is the time for you to stand back and trust that God is going before you. As you know, He is all about bringing His glory out of our weakness, and bringing us to Himself. —Layperson


I HAVE SPENT a bit of time reading the sad history of your situation on your blog. Thank you for sharing it. I realize the anguish behind it by the “risk” involved in expressing yourself publicly in this way.

I am not sure how to respond other than to express my sympathy for your predicament and to share your frustration and deep disappointment that the system—like many systems—struggles to respond well to “difficult” situations.

If there is anything more practical I can do to assist, please do not hesitate to ask. I have prayed for you and your family as I have reviewed this material.—Current church employee


ACCOUNTABILITY is sadly lacking throughout the organization. However, one day we shall all have to give an account of our actions. May that day be very soon.—Layperson


MY HEART and prayers go out to you and your family for the pain you have suffered and are suffering because of the behavior of some in our beloved church.

My father was a minister, who often would “go to bat” for those he felt had been wronged. He would do what he could to set things right for them.

My memory all these years since still reverberates with the justice denied all those years ago, and it breaks my heart to read that it still goes on.

God must be sitting up there, with His head in His hands, and a tear coursing down His cheek, to see His loved children and faithful workers treated so cruelly.

Keep your relationship with Him close.—Layperson


HAVE YOU been able to get any action from the GC officials? I'm really sorry about how this has affected both your work and your family. It is hard to understand how fellow Christians can treat others so unkindly and unfairly.—Former church employee


I AM a retired layman and a one-time employee of the SDA Church. I found school teaching too stressful, so changed careers. I've never been sorry I did so, especially after reading about what you've been through.

I fear for any pastor or other church employee who has to come up against someone higher up in the church hierarchy. Right or wrong, the guy or gal lowest on the totem pole almost always loses, as the GC has seemingly unlimited resources (tithe money) to hire the best lawyers money can buy. When they are challenged, the “good old boys” network seems to kick in and they tend to "circle the wagons" (protect their own), no matter what the cost. I've often wondered where practical Christianity (the Golden Rule—Do unto others) seems to get lost in cases like this.—Former church employee


I'M SO SORRY to hear of your family's excruciating situation, which I identify with in so many ways. I left the church in the mid-1980s in the midst a very painful situation. What I want to say here is that the church is part of the world system, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. This is the way the world works.

There is value in your testimony, I think, in that it may help others to understand that they are dealing with the world system when they deal with the official church.

Those who have received your ministry know who you are. Those who entertain gossip will never know who you are. Their loss.

I have no more hope in the Adventist Church, though it used to be the center of my existence and worldview. I do have a hope that the world makes sense and that God is good, at some level, but I can't prove that.

But you don't have to have any kind of hope to persevere. You can persevere because you love your family and your congregation, because people matter, no matter how unjust the world system is.

God bless you all and help you persevere in the face of all this.—Layperson


WOW! There is not enough time or room in this e-mail for my response! I am so sorry for the pain and suffering your family is under. And I especially feel for Leonie. I will pray for your situation, for your family and for your parish.—Layperson


I WAS SHOCKED reading your blog. I had no idea that you had been living a nightmare.

Even though I have few illusions about the morals of organizations, be they religious or not, I find it both shocking and sad that your wife, in particular, but you also, should be treated this way. We truly don't have anything if we lose our integrity and our name. And to see the GC passively standing by to let one of its employees make it his semi-official mission project to destroy an entire family is unconscionable.

The minute a non-profit organization, such as a church, is formed, its mission bifurcates. First, there is the original purpose for which it was established: heal the wounded, spread the Good News, be a blessing to the world. But the act of organizing immediately adds another mission: that of preserving and promoting the organization itself. To accomplish the first, you hire field workers, doctors, preachers. For the second, you get yourself a "general conference" worth of administrators. And since the administrators control the purse strings, they control policy and organizational priorities. They have all the real power.

People who have power use it to enhance their agenda. And the agenda of administrators is organization. This directly impacts ideology, outreach programs and interpersonal relationships because, to an administrator, "good" is defined as that which enhances the reputation of the organization, improves its fundraising and covers up its blemishes and scandals. "Bad" is everything that exposes the organization to blame.

So when a church employee begins selling The Bible Story at far below the conference price to church colporters, the organization needs to "protect" itself. And when a prominent evangelist decides to "minister" to a hapless teenage girl at his designated parsonage, it's best not to repeat it, because it might come back to haunt the church. Besides, it was probably her fault in the first place. (Instead, let's focus on the sins of the Catholic clergy. Nothing wrong with red meat for the base.) And when a school teacher falls behind on his tithe because he has to take care of his elderly parent, he must, of course, be fired lest others be encouraged to do likewise.

I felt an immense relief when I was able to walk away from organizational employment. I know that there are many decent administrators around, but such abuses of power will go on unchecked as long as the church does not become a democratic organization. If the healers of the church achieved real power, if the laypeople were able to vote in a meaningful way, things might change. But as long as good and bad are defined in organizational terms, the church will keep on hurting as many people as it heals.

I wish you and Leonie an end to this nightmare. You could, of course, walk away from it all. And I'm sure you must have been sorely tempted. But then again, that's the purpose of the vendetta, isn't it?—Former church employee


ALTHOUGH MY words may never erase the pain, embarrassment, and frustration you’ve endured the past two years or so, I want to let you know that I praise God for you. I want to let you know that although I've never met you, your wife or your three sons, I love you all dearly.

Similar things have happened to me. (Yes, as you say, it continues to boggle the mind.) So I appreciate your fighting for your family and holding on to your call (because God has anointed you, not man).

I think of Joseph. I think of Daniel. I think of Jesus. God's purpose for your life is far-reaching. You're not done. You're just beginning, really. I'm praying for you as the Lord continues to lead you through the fellowship of His suffering, as He continues to reveal the depth of His heart to you.

I'm proud of you.—Former church employee


AS I READ your blog, several emotions quickly surfaced. I sense incredible agony of spirit as you were brushed aside by “the brethren” in Washington, and then felt compelled to publicly expose their indifference in your “Justice Denied” reports.

Leonie, I feel for you too in your pain, which is no doubt exacerbated by some unfortunate family history and the failure of church leaders to demonstrate very basic Christian help and compassion. Is the call of Jesus to look out for the “least of these” no longer heard in Silver Spring?

I too have shed tears over injustices and experienced the painful indifference of church administrators in sorrowful times. Very few will rally to stand by you during such experiences. The “higher” one’s office as a church administrator takes you, the more insensitive and immune you become to the concerns and interests of the local pastorate.

Yes, administrators are very glib with “God talk,” saying and writing in our church papers what they know pastors and members at the local church want to hear. But, with possibly a few exceptions, an administrative office somehow carries within its DNA the potential viruses of arrogance, indifference and insincerity—conditions that may not be readily discernable, until, as in your situation, the hypocrisy metastasizes. Then, the diseased and hypocritical behavior takes its deadly toll. A crisis of confidence ensues, lives and reputations are infected and often destroyed, and the virus keeps spreading, to the detriment of God’s Church.

A further tragedy about this condition is that while in administration one doesn’t realize that you’re infected with the virus. You only discover it when you’re no longer enmeshed in protectionism of the “system.” Term limits might help to foster better accountability and authenticity.

A wave of cynicism has crept over my soul for several years now as a result of administrative malpractice that I’ve learned and/or known about from several places here in this division and overseas. In every situation, the administrative attitude has essentially been the same—ranging from unresponsiveness and indifference, to arrogant infallibility. I’ve tried to restrain myself, seeking to give others the benefit of the doubt. But your story is too compelling to deny that my cynicism is justified, or that my analysis about an inherent serious fault-line in administrative practice is just a figment of my imagination. I know the system, and I am no longer fooled by it.

I am interested to know whether church leadership in Washington has responded more responsibly than reported in “Justice Denied.” I admire your courage. You’ve done the right thing. Please, both of you, and your boys, be assured of my deep respect, full support of all your efforts, and my prayers. May God continue to bless your ministry, Jim, and may the Florida Conference and your congregation stand by you at all times.—Retired church administrator


I CAME across your blog and noticed you asked for input. Since I knew nothing of this situation before and nothing other than what you have written, I will go with that. You have obviously been defamed in a most unprofessional way, and there is no doubt about that.

What your blog doesn't say is what the other party is experiencing as a result of his impulsiveness. I would hope that the childish behavior of your brother-in-law is putting him in an uncomfortable position with his colleagues.

The blog is vague and gives only a clue about why he currently turned on you. I assume it may be because your family didn't attend the father's funeral. That would be a painful hurt for the family (especially the mother), and no matter how alienated, the right thing for all would have been to attend. However, my husband did just the same when his mother and sister died. Even though it was a dysfunctional family, I have never understood that action.

You indicated a willingness to resolve the situation, yet you have refused mediation. I was very sympathetic to you up to that point. (Maybe you are really afraid of the conflict.) If I wanted this resolved, I certainly would spend the time and money to make the trip. I am sure if you don't it will be held against you in any future legal moves.

To the people in the pew, however, this seems to tell us that there is no Christian forgiveness at the higher levels of church administration. You should both be willing to forgive. What are the members to think if their pastor and administrators can't forgive? You may have the right on your side, but that doesn't mean you don't forgive. This is not a judgment, it is only an opinion based on the facts you have presented. I do not know you personally.

As for the administrators who wouldn't act for you, I would suspect that, like so many people in politics, they thought: If we ignore it, it will go away. They should have suggested mediation right at the beginning. However, they chose to ignore the situation, especially due to the high profile of the perpetrator.

It would seem that the NAD human resources should have been contacted or the Ministerial Association of NAD or the GC. Aren't they supposed to be on the side of pastors?

I do not believe they were acting out of any personal thing against you. They just didn't want to get the GC involved. Hard as it is, try to put yourself in their place.—Layperson


TWO WEEKS ago I was introduced to you through reading your blog, in which you shared your personal experience and the awful impact it is having on you and your wife. I knew immediately that I must respond. I must somehow let you know how deeply some of us feel for you and how we understand the dreadful sense of aloneness that must be yours.

I am profoundly grateful to authors who have shared of themselves and whose shared principles I have been able to apply to my own life. Two current books I can heartily recommend are Jacob Needleman’s Why Can’t We Be Good? and Martha Stout’s The Sociopath Next Door.

Needleman’s book is built on two scriptural principles found in Micah 6:8 and Romans 7:19. It encourages—while showing why the ideal of perfectionism demanded by so many of others (never of themselves!) is hopelessly unreal.

Stout exposes a syndrome I find chilling. Her opening sentence is: “Imagine—if you can—not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members.”

While reading her book I realized with horror the awful truth that there are certain professions that give marvelous cover for sociopathy. Among these are law, politics and ministry. I recalled her opening sentence while reading your blog and while reliving my own experience. Needleman gave me greater insight into a tangential syndrome: denial. Through his book I gained a greater insight into Peter’s denying any potential danger of denying his Lord.

I question the apathy of those within the organizational hierarchy toward you. I certainly experienced it and expressed the feeling of being like a styrofoam cup, discarded when no longer of use. In the light of Stout’s opening question, I wonder just when complacency regarding others’ suffering shades into complicity.

I think Jesus answered that question in the parable of the “Good Samaritan.”—Former church employee


SINCE WE have no way of knowing for sure the truth of what you’ve stated, we can only speculate and assume it is true. I, for one, believe it—based on past observation and a parallel experience of my own.

I am a layman. While I’ve never worked for the church, I’m a third-generation SDA. I won't tell my story, but suffice it to say, I have "heard the dragon roar," and it wasn't Rome!

I love the SDA message as affirmed by Ellen G. White and our pioneers. The only thing "going through to the end" is the message and those who embrace and teach it. Our election is bound to the message, not the church.

Christian regards. Keep the faith.—Layperson


[Your comments can be sent to me via email at justicedenied.jamescoffin@gmail.com. My time availability may limit how much I can engage in personal dialogue with any who comment. Comments sent to me will be posted at my discretion. All comments become the property of James Coffin and may be posted on this blog or used in other media forms, in full or in part.]

#1 of 54. A few up-front acknowledgements

“We value honesty, integrity, and courage as the foundation of all our actions.” —Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees.

[About this blog: In utilizing a basic blog template to present the following material, I recognize that I'm not using it in typical blog fashion. However, because the blog template provided a simple way to organize the material, I've chosen this format. The "chapters" run from #1 to #54, essentially in the sequence of how things transpired. Since the blog keeps only a certain number of posts in its "current" file, you may have to click onto "Older Posts" several times as you move through the material. Your comments can be sent to me via email at justicedenied.jamescoffin@gmail.com. My time availability may limit how much I can engage in personal dialogue with any who comment. Comments sent to me will be posted at my discretion. All comments become the property of James Coffin and may be posted on this blog or used in other media forms, in full or in part.]

INTRODUCTION

Unfortunately, the material contained on this site is neither positive nor pretty. It’s tragic. But my hope is that something positive—specifically, greater accountability—will result from my having shared this story. My hope is that Seventh-day Adventist administrators at all levels will increasingly recognize that concerns brought to them by employees or laypeople deserve serious consideration. Every church member deserves to be treated with respect and deserves reasonable answers when reasonable questions are asked. As the church's “Guidelines for Employer and Employee Relationships” (Annual Council 2003) states: "Employees should have access to a process of consultation and genuine discussion in matters affecting their labor . . . ." But as the following will make clear, that too often doesn't happen.

Those who take the time to actually read what’s written here will almost certainly go away with strong feelings—many of them negative, no doubt. Those negative feelings may be about the high-level Seventh-day Adventist Church headquarters leaders whose actions and inactions are described here. Or those feelings may be about my wife and me for releasing this information to the church public. Or the feelings may be about the high-profile Seventh-day Adventist Church headquarters employee whose inappropriate actions set in motion all that’s described here.

For far too many Seventh-day Adventist Church employees (and former employees), this story may evoke a chilling sense of déjà vu because the tale is all too similar to something they’ve personally experienced in their own work for the church—perhaps even more than once. But I would hope that few could encounter such a story without their sense of indignation boiling over.

For some members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the sharing of this material is (by definition) disloyal, selfish, evil and a long list of other equally negative descriptions. The belief of such people is that under no circumstances should any church member, let alone a pastor, publicly call into question the actions and inactions of our denomination’s top leaders. That should be left entirely in God’s hands for Him to deal with in His own time and in His own way.

The fact that Jesus cleansed the temple and denounced the scribes and Pharisees falls into an altogether different category, they’d say. He was, after all, the Son of God. The fact that much of the Bible comes in the form of correctives for both the leaders and the rank-and-file members of the spiritual family of that day means nothing, because those comments were delivered by prophets who received their instruction directly from God. The fact that so much of the material produced by Ellen G. White comes in the form of spare-no-punches testimonies directed toward individuals about their need for behavior change is likewise different, they’d argue. She was, after all, God’s appointed messenger to His Remnant Church.

And the fact that Adventist writers have written so many volumes taking other Christian denominations to task for their shortfalls is likewise viewed as being different. That’s necessary because the world needs to be warned about the terrible things being done by leaders in those other denominations—one denomination in particular. But when it comes to our own denomination, this group would argue, one must always look on the “whatsoever things are lovely” side. One must ignore or downplay the bad and highlight the good. They would suggest that no church member—and a pastor, of all people—is ever justified in publicly exposing the shortcomings of church leaders or in calling them to accountability. Leaders are “the Lord’s anointed.” God sets up powers. God removes them. Leaders are accountable to Him. And it’s our responsibility merely to be subject to them. End of argument.

At the other end of the spectrum, we find a group within and on the periphery of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who welcome any negative news. From their perspective, if something makes the church look bad, that’s a good thing (by definition). In fact, the more salacious, the better. The default setting of such people is to believe the worst. Seeing church leaders embarrassed is highly entertaining. In fact, for this group, the biggest problem with what’s presented here will probably be that it’s too gentle, too conciliatory, too balanced.

Between the two extremes just described is a group of thoughtful, caring, committed church members who love their church yet recognize that its members, its leaders and the institution itself have feet of clay. All fall short of God’s ideal. As humans we all behave in a manner guaranteeing that our “I’m sorry” mechanism should never become rusty.

People with this balanced view understand that bad things happen even in the church. Terrible things are done even in the name of God. And it happens even in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. They understand that leaders get it wrong. They understand that leaders—just as those who are led—at times have to be taken to task. They recognize that, at times, it’s necessary to face painful truths in order to set right certain wrongs and ensure that things become better overall. They know that not openly addressing issues can, in the long run, create greater hurt for an even wider range of people. So this group, while saddened by what they’ll read here, will neither unduly demonize nor turn a blind eye. They’ll call for accountability, which is essential if the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to appropriately present the true picture of God to the world.

Because of the sheer volume of the supporting documentation I’m providing here, and in recognition of the varied levels of reader interest, this tragic story is presented in two versions: (a) in a relatively few pages that summarize what has transpired; and (b) in a full form that includes the letters and emails themselves as exchanged between me—and, in one or two cases, my wife—and six leaders at the highest levels of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Obviously, to appropriately pass judgment, one needs to read the fully documented version as well as the summary version and all the introductory, background and explanatory detail. I mention the need to read both versions because some background detail is provided in the summary that doesn’t appear in any of the letters or emails and vice versa.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#2 of 54. Some personal history

“I don’t ask for accolades for the second-mile commitment I feel I’ve given. But I’d like to think that my family and I would at least be treated by church leaders with the basic respect called for by the Golden Rule—respect we’d want to see given to anyone and everyone. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened on far too many occasions in our experience of denominational employment. And we know we’re not alone.” —James Coffin, in the section “Some Personal History.”

My name is James (Jim) Coffin. I was born in the Midwestern United States during the first third of the Baby Boom. My parents were committed Seventh-day Adventists. Deeply committed. In fact, I’m a fourth-generation Adventist on both sides. We were strict vegetarians. We were meticulous in our Sabbath observance. We gave liberally of the meager means we had. It was taken for granted that all the children in our family would go to Adventist schools, even though our family income wasn’t really adequate for such an expenditure. But we all worked hard.

At the age of 12, I got my first regular summer and after-school job, working on a neighbor’s farm. I earned only 50 cents per hour, but it was enough—along with the much-better-paying construction jobs that came along later—to enable me to pay every penny of my Adventist education from the beginning of my sixth-grade year until I graduated from college. It required hard work, but I never for a moment considered not doing so. In fact, when during my senior year at Sunnydale Academy I was awarded, on the basis of grades and my ACT score, a full-tuition scholarship to the University of Missouri, I didn’t give it a second thought before declining.

Instead, I worked long days during the summer after high-school graduation selling Adventist books to earn my fees for Union College—never lamenting the fact that had I gone to the University of Missouri, it would have been tuition-free. Nor did I think about it during my year at Union College, when I worked 15 hours every week for the college—and then often worked an additional seven or eight hours on Sunday doing odd jobs around Lincoln for anyone who contacted the college in search of a student who wasn’t afraid of hard work and getting dirt under his fingernails. During those times, I never thought of the University of Missouri’s generous offer because that school couldn’t prepare me for what I wanted to do as my life work: I wanted to be a minister for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, God’s Remnant.

After a year as a student missionary in Mexico, I went to Newbold College, in England, where I discovered that the fees were low enough I could study for a year, plus travel throughout Britain and Europe, plus pay my airfare—provided I worked like a dog each summer and worked reasonably hard during the school year. Besides, Newbold had a great theology department, headed by a Norwegian named Jan Paulsen. Amazingly, I so enjoyed the essay-writing at Newbold (most American students hated it) that I decided I’d like not only to be a minister but to be an editor for the church. So I set my sights in that specific direction.

During my summer vacations, I worked for a land developer and builder who’d inherited a lot of money. He went out of his way to ensure that I always had a job when I needed it. My father also worked for him, and Dale thought very highly of both of us. “Jim,” he said to me one day, “I have a proposal to make to you. We need a good doctor in this town. And we don’t seem to be able to attract one. I know you’re a Seventh-day Adventist and seem to believe in going to Adventist schools. So here’s my offer: I’ll pay every penny it costs for you to go to your church’s medical school out in California so you can become a doctor—provided you’ll come back to Centralia to set up your practice. If you do well and can pay me back, good. But if the only pay I get is having provided our town with a good doctor, that will be reward enough.”

It was a stunning offer. I knew he meant it. And I knew he had the wherewithal to make it happen. But I didn’t even ask for time to think it over. “Thank you so much, Dale,” I said. “It’s an amazing offer, and I’m honored. But I feel called to the ministry. So I’ll have to decline.” He swore—literally—about my stupidity, then grudgingly commended me for my commitment to what I believed in. I believed I was called to be a minister. There was no question about it. And better offers weren’t going to turn me from that goal. If the apostle Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, I was definitely an Adventist of the Adventists.

At Newbold College, I met my wife-to-be, Leonie, who had an impeccable Adventist pedigree. Her paternal great-grandparents were converted to Adventism by the first Adventist missionaries who went from America to Australia back in 1885. Her great-grandparents personally knew Ellen G. White. They were the first Seventh-day Adventist missionaries to Samoa. Several members of the family have been pastors or other church employees. And her father for years served as a departmental director at the General Conference.

Of course, Leonie’s Adventist pedigree wasn’t what attracted me to her—I learned all about that later. She was a beautiful, delightful person whose presence brightened any location where she happened to be. She had a gentleness of spirit and a true concern for people, which I admired. That same spirit, however, also made her vulnerable to those who didn’t approach life with the same deep care and concern for others. Tragically, her experience as the daughter of a Seventh-day Adventist minister and as the wife of a Seventh-day Adventist minister put her in contact with too many people, especially church leaders, who too often lost sight of the Golden Rule. That fact has taken a terrible toll, as will be described in more detail later.

After I graduated from Newbold, Leonie and I were married in Maryland in the autumn of 1975. On February 1, 1976, I began working as a youth/assistant pastor in Australia’s North New South Wales Conference (having not gotten the travel bug totally out of my blood during my year as a student missionary and my three years at Newbold!). My denominational employment has included nine years as a youth pastor (both in Australia and in the United States), nine years as an editor (four of those on the staff of the Adventist Review and five as senior editor at Signs Publishing Company in Australia) and more than fourteen years as a senior pastor (all at one church, in a suburb of Orlando, Florida). In all, I’ve worked just more than ten years in Australia and more than twenty-two years in the United States. I’m a hard worker who has given prodigiously of time, energy and such money as we have—often to the detriment of my family.

Throughout both my pastoral and editorial ministry, I’ve sought to build bridges of understanding between our denomination’s traditionalists and progressives. Having come from an extremely conservative background, and having had conservative thinking drummed into me from the cradle, I understand well the concerns of those who feel we’re running off the rails in many of the changes—both in practice and theological emphasis—that our church has embraced or at least tolerated over the past few decades.

Having over the years moved into greater alignment with progressives, I likewise understand their rationale. So I’ve made it a mission to try to help the advocates of change understand the mindset that prefers preservation of the status quo. And I’ve sought to help status-quo advocates understand the thinking of those who advocate change. In the congregations where I’ve served and in larger regions of the church influenced by my writing of magazine articles and books, I feel that my insights, my emphases and my efforts have proved helpful. I feel that I’ve had a productive career.

I don’t share this information to boast. I tell it simply to point out that my life has been enmeshed with the Seventh-day Adventist Church totally and completely. I don’t ask for accolades for the second-mile commitment I feel I’ve given. But I’d like to think that my family and I would at least be treated by church leaders with the basic respect called for by the Golden Rule—respect we’d want to see given to anyone and everyone. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened on far too many occasions in our experience of denominational employment. And we know we’re not alone.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#3 of 54. Some general background

“Needless to say, my reputation is important to me. My ministry, like that of any pastor, is effective only to the degree that my reputation is positive. So when a high-profile church-headquarters employee openly declared his intention to make my life miserable and then set about to destroy or diminish my reputation as a minister, I didn’t take it lightly.” —James Coffin, from the section “Some General Background.”

Although it’s inevitable that not everyone whose path has crossed mine will speak highly of me, I believe I enjoy a widespread positive reputation and am viewed as a person of integrity who preaches and models a positive and grace-filled form of religion. I believe I also have a reputation for trying to ensure fairness and due process for all. Needless to say, my reputation is important to me. My ministry, like that of any pastor, is effective only to the degree that my reputation is positive. So when a high-profile church-headquarters employee openly declared his intention to make my life miserable and then set about to destroy or diminish my reputation as a minister, I didn’t take it lightly, as I’m sure most readers will understand.

The high-profile church-headquarters employee in question circulated copies of a letter he’d written (addressed to me) to a still-unknown number of my fellow ministers in the Florida Conference and possibly elsewhere (he didn’t indicate who were receiving copies—I simply discovered what was being done). In the copied letter he circulated, he said, speaking to me: “How you can even look at your congregation without shame, much less speak of the deep things of the Spirit[,] escapes me.” In his cover letter, he stated that I was guilty of behavior that’s “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.” And he sent out these negative missives without any prior discussion with me about his specific grievances. He also spread highly negative comments orally to an unknown number of his colleagues who work at the church’s headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland. And we don’t know what kind of comments may have been made during his travels for the church.

Unfortunately, he didn’t limit his character assault to me. He took on my entire family. In the letters he circulated to my ministerial colleagues, he declared my wife to be guilty of behavior for which “there is no offence equal.” And he described our sons as being guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.” So I wasn’t the only recipient of his denunciations. Needless to say, I wasn’t pleased to have my family so defamed.

Because of my preacher role, my wife and sons have had to put up with a lot over the years. And, to my discredit, I haven’t always been as sensitive to their perspective as I should have been. It’s extremely difficult to fulfill one’s ministerial role with excellence and fulfill family obligations with equal excellence, much as I've tried. The demands and expectations of conference and congregation don’t mesh easily with family needs. So too often my family got short shrift. Too often I expected my family just to tough it out even though they were being treated unfairly by the system. Because of the viciousness of the high-profile church-headquarters employee’s assaults, and because he included my wife and my sons in his denunciations, I decided I needed to respond. And responding has turned out to be quite an experience. I’ve discovered that church-headquarters leaders protect their own—at least when it’s to their advantage.

I’m releasing this information because I’m not going to stand by while my wife and sons are defamed as they’ve been—in the church workplace, by a high-profile church-headquarters employee, before an audience of other church employees. Having acknowledged that my prime motivation is defense of my family, however, I must add that if ministers take seriously their calling to ministry—as I do—they do a disservice to that calling when they simply sit back and passively let someone diminish or rob them of their influence. And when high-level church-headquarters leaders refuse to clear the name of a pastor who has thus had his fitness for ministry called into question by one of their high-profile church-headquarters colleagues, they’re not only abdicating their responsibility as leaders of the denominational flock, they too are helping to rob the pastor of his reputation, destroy employee morale and hurt the pastor and his family.

Since that’s exactly what six leaders at the highest levels of our church structure did when I reported to them what their high-profile church-headquarters colleague had done to my family and me—and since they've refused to take the necessary steps to clear my name—I maintain that they should be held accountable. Our church’s policies, guidelines and values statements clearly establish the ethical standards that should govern the behavior of church-headquarters employees and what steps should be taken when a pastor’s fitness for ministry is called into question. And, of course, there’s the Golden Rule.

Needless to say, I believe that the written and oral defamation perpetrated against my family and me before an audience of fellow church employees is reprehensible. However, I also know that the perpetrator has held a major grudge against me for more than twenty years. (The basis of his anger is, I believe, that church officials called me to a job that he apparently would have liked but didn’t get invited to. I did get invited to the job. And I said yes.) So his actions were in large part based on decades-long animosity (an animosity that’s totally unjustified, I can assure you). Clearly his long-held resentments clouded his perception and factored into his inappropriate workplace actions. So, perturbed as I am about what he did, I recognize that individuals act rashly at times. Especially those harboring grudges. Which is why it’s so vital for leaders/overseers to maintain cool heads and clear perception and act on principle rather than on emotion or mere political expediency.

The six high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I turned for help, by their numbers (remember, the biblical proverb says that “in a multitude of counselors” there is wisdom) and by virtue of their lack of emotional ties to the situation, should have been able to give balanced counsel. Instead, they’ve refused to provide moral perspective concerning the impropriety of their colleague’s behavior. In fact, they’ve chosen not only to aid, abet and (tacitly) defend their colleague’s obviously inappropriate actions, they’ve sought to throw the blame back on me and to call my veracity into question. They’ve adamantly and tenaciously refused to play the spiritual and administrative role incumbent upon them as church leaders.

The step I’m taking in releasing this information to a broader church public is based on the principles of Matthew 18. The church is the ultimate "court of appeal." This exercise isn’t designed to embarrass the high-profile church-headquarters employee who first acted inappropriately. Nor is it designed to embarrass other members of his family—though I recognize that fallout for him and (to varying degrees) others in his family is inevitable. After all, it was his inappropriate action that precipitated this chain of events.

That fact notwithstanding, my preference would always have been to keep these discussions within the tightest circles possible. I sought to do exactly that by attempting to deal with him privately. When he categorically refused—and told me by certified mail that he wouldn’t read anything I might send—I still sought to keep the matter as private as possible, requesting merely that a team of church-headquarters leaders to whom he was responsible provide moral perspective concerning what he’d done and call for employee accountability. Specifically, I asked them, because of their position and relationship to him, to help him understand the impropriety of his actions and to put pressure on him to (a) cease his campaign of written and oral defamation/denigration, to (b) not re-engage in it and to (c) undo, to the degree possible, what had been done already. It’s a rather basic Christian expectation.

The high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I’d turned for help clearly recognized that it wasn’t good for the church’s image to have their high-profile colleague engaging in such inappropriate activities in the workplace. While he hadn’t used church letterhead or envelopes when he circulated his defamatory letters, he did use the church’s printed envelopes when he returned to us—unopened and unread—the letters my wife and I sent to him in an attempt to discuss the matter and find some resolution. And in his cover letter to my fellow pastors, he did provide his workplace telephone number as his contact point. And he does have high name-recognition because of the nature of the role he plays in the headquarters office, so pastors receiving his letters would naturally link his name to his workplace role. And the prime point is that his allegations were spread in the workplace, before fellow employees, for the openly stated purpose of creating problems for me.

All of that notwithstanding, the high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom we turned for help, in essence, merely told their colleague to make sure that in any future pursuit of his grievances against my family and me, he must (a) not use the workplace as his venue, and he must (b) be extra careful to ensure that there's no hint of connection between his role in the church and whatever he chooses to do to us. The leaders have refused to say that what he'd already done was inappropriate in any way, or that he had any obligation to seek to correct what he'd done. More dramatic, however, they went out of their way to state that they had no right to control what their colleague might do to us in the future as long as he didn’t do it in the workplace. And they suggested that it was up to me to scurry around to those to whom I’d been defamed to try to salvage my own reputation. They then faulted me for having brought the matter to their attention in the first place, and they called my veracity into question.

Assuming that I’ve accurately reported the facts (and I maintain I have), it becomes clear that the actions of both the high-profile church-headquarters defamer and the high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom we turned for help are unquestionably at odds with the principles of basic Christianity and the teachings and policies of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. No pastor should have to put up with that kind of harassment and character assassination from a fellow employee. Nor should any pastor have to put up with that kind of dismissiveness from high-level church-headquarters leaders. And no pastor’s family should have to endure the stress of such treatment.

My guess is that most readers will agree. Who would argue that church employees shouldn’t be held accountable for what they say about and do to fellow employees in the workplace? No one, I would hope. And who would argue that church leaders shouldn’t call for accountability when a church employee harasses and defames a fellow employee before an audience of other employees? Again, no one, I would hope. Now let me add a little twist.

Do such workplace expectations and ethics still apply if the high-profile church-headquarters employee doing the harassing and defaming is a relative (by marriage) of the pastor being harassed and defamed? Or are those who are merely part of the same “denominational family” protected from such mistreatment in the workplace, while it’s open season on those who happen to literally be part of the same family? Can a church employee mistreat (in the workplace) with impunity a relative who’s also an employee, while those who are only figuratively “brothers and sisters” (in Christ) are called to live up to the clearly articulated ethical expectations of Seventh-day Adventist Church employees? Do any scriptural mandates say, Thou shalt not do such and such—unless it’s to a relative with whom you’re upset? Does the Golden Rule contain an exception clause for family members?

As the following pages will most unfortunately demonstrate, it seems to be the thesis of the six high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I turned for help that my high-profile church-headquarters-employee relative is excused from the ethical standards generally expected of employees simply because I, the recipient of his denunciations, happen to be married to his sister.

I recognize that it’s possible to get sidetracked, to get a skewed perception, because of the family relationship between me and the high-profile church-headquarters employee who openly declared his intention to cause problems for me and who then sought to diminish or destroy my pastoral credibility before an audience of fellow church employees. It’s easy to say, “Oh that’s just a family feud.” But it’s not. Family feuds carried on in the workplace are workplace violations. The way one employee should be allowed to treat another should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they’re related by marriage. The family relationship changes no workplace-behavior expectations whatsoever.

The family relationship doesn’t suddenly remove the ethical obligations that pertain to all other employees. I’ve repeatedly stated to the six high-level church-headquarters leaders involved in this matter that the fact that their colleague is related to me (by marriage) is 100 percent irrelevant except for one thing: It makes his actions against his sister (my wife), his sister’s husband (me) and his sister’s children (our sons) just that much more morally reprehensible. The high-level leaders aren’t easily convinced, as you’ll readily see. Their tenacity in clinging to an indefensible position is, sadly, a characteristic that I’ve encountered over and over in dealing with Seventh-day Adventist Church administrators.

In taking the steps I now take, I regret that my wife's family’s dirty linen must to some degree be hung out in public view, although I’ll try to limit such exposure as much as possible and focus on the real issue, which is calling for administrative accountability. Unfortunately, however, when a high-profile church-headquarters employee deliberately chose to take the steps he did before an audience of church employees, and when those high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I turned for help deliberately chose the course of action and inaction they did, a certain amount of additional public exposure became all but inevitable. Sadly, it all could have been avoided easily.

My release of this information isn’t for the purpose of holding my brother-in-law up to public ridicule. It’s to clear my name and that of my family. Of equal importance, it’s a call for accountability on the part of those high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I turned for help—men who play a major role in setting the spiritual and administrative tone for the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

Through very deliberate choices, they’ve decided to circle the wagons to protect their high-profile church-headquarters colleague who’s guilty of behavior that’s inappropriate whatever the moral/ethical/procedural norm by which it’s judged. They’ve not only done a grave disservice to my family and me, but they’ve also done a grave disservice to him. To the extended family. To my congregation. To the church as a whole. To themselves and their own image.

But I repeat, my reason for presenting this material to a broader audience isn’t to take my relative to task—though I fully understand that negative fallout for him is a natural and inevitable consequence of his deliberate choices. My reason for writing this is to take his supervisors to task for their refusal to meet their obligations to me, to my family, to him and to the church at large.

When after some twenty-two months and more than twenty letters or emails to the six leaders at the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s headquarters, in which I’ve sought the most minimal and the most elementary level of intervention to bring spiritual perspective and accountability and to clear my name (yet I’m still being rebuffed, accused or ignored), I’ll no longer simply stand by. I will pursue the matter—even though I recognize that few things could be more politically inexpedient for a local church pastor than publicly confronting the actions and inactions of leaders at such high levels of the Seventh-day Adventist Church hierarchy.

I also recognize that few things could be more foolhardy than to outline the inappropriate actions—and failures to act—on the part of these leaders, when the economy is so low, meaning that alternative employment would no doubt be hard to find, should my pastoral employment be terminated because of my having had the courage to speak up so candidly and so openly. But there is such a thing as principle. And let me state for the record: I’m not out of line to seek to protect my reputation as a minister and that of my family. And I’m not out of line in calling for leadership accountability when those high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I’ve turned for help refuse to fulfill their spiritual and administrative obligations. So if punitive measures are taken against me for having done so, the impropriety rests on those taking the measures, not on me for having called for a higher administrative standard within the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Gospel ministers have a dual role: They’re both pastor and “prophet.” At times they need to gently nurture and help those who are stumbling to once again find their footing. At other times they have to “speak forth,” to “cry aloud and spare not” because important principles are being lost sight of. That's biblical. Ministers are usually appreciated in their pastoral role; their prophetic role is far less loved. Especially when their calls for a higher standard are directed toward those in the upper echelons of the ecclesiastical structure. One of the reasons why so few ministers step into the “prophet” role is because “prophets” don’t survive well. And that’s not just a phenomenon of biblical times.

I note the following:

1. The release of this information will not be met with jubilation by the six high-level church-headquarters leaders whose actions and inactions are being highlighted. However, in essence, I’m simply following the advice they’ve given me. Pastor Halvard Thomsen and Attorney Robert Kyte both implied that the best I could hope for in seeking to clear my name was to personally defend myself to those to whom I’ve been maligned. And they made such statements despite my having repeatedly made it clear that I don’t know the identity of all the recipients of the defamatory declarations disseminated about my family and me, whether in writing or orally. By releasing this information via the internet, I’m seeking to ensure that as many as possible of those to whom my family and I have been denigrated will have opportunity to become conversant with the facts.

2. While my actions may well be portrayed as rebellion, insubordination, bad attitude, failure to follow proper protocol or any number of other negative, inaccurate and unfair descriptions designed to discredit me, I’m in reality simply calling for church-leadership accountability—which I’m invited to do. The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s duly voted paper statements declare that leaders agree to be held accountable for their actions: “We are responsible to our fellow church members. We accept accountability for sound leadership decisions and appropriate stewardship.” The church’s paper statements also note: “We are prepared to be held accountable by our supervisors and peers for professional conduct representing the moral and ethical values of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

3. Even among those who agree that my relative's actions were totally out of line, some may feel I’m making too big an issue of the matter. But deliberate attempts to destroy a pastor’s reputation can’t be ignored (as the church’s policies outline in detail). Certainly, if this were the first time my family and I had ever been recipients of inappropriate employee behavior and church-leader indifference, it’s unlikely that I'd take steps as dramatic as I’m taking here. That doesn’t mean such a response wouldn’t be fully justified. It would simply demonstrate that my default setting is to be longsuffering. But what my brother-in-law did was wrong. Plain and simple. And this isn’t the first time he has chosen to malign me in the workplace; it’s an ongoing phenomenon. More significantly, though, this is by no means the first time church administrators have treated my wife and me with such dismissiveness and such indifference.

In addition to my personal experiences, I’ve spent literally hundreds of hours over the span of my career helping other church employees fight similar administrative injustice. Moreover, I’ve listened to even more stories, although I may have arrived on the scene too late or may have been too far removed to be of any practical help. And that’s talking only about mistreatment of employees. Far too often laypeople encounter the same indifference, the same high-handedness, the same administrative arrogance, the same adamant refusal to communicate transparently. Albert Koppel’s book Truth Decay, which should be required reading for every church administrator and pastor, provides a classic example. (His book is available for the cost of postage alone. Simply write to him at akoppel@bellsouth.net to order. Then, after you receive the book, simply reimburse him for whatever the postage costs were.) Douglas Hackleman’s recent book Who Watches? Who Cares? Misadventures in Stewardship addresses different issues but describes a similar spirit. (For more information, you can read a review of Hackleman's book at http://spectrummagazine.org/reviews/book_reviews/2008/07/07/church_accountability_seven_cautionary_narratives.)

Endemic in the Seventh-day Adventist Church administrative hierarchy is a culture that far too often ignores commonsense, widely accepted administrative practices, the values and policies of the church, the writings of Ellen G. White and the plain teachings of Scripture. In short, the Golden Rule. And the problem will continue until enough people simply refuse to remain victim to such practices. The most significant aspect of this tragedy is that such administrative practices are so widespread and so much a part of the administrative culture that many administrators have no sense of just how far out of line they are.

4. The administrative attitudes, actions and inactions described here are especially galling because they’re so totally at odds with the excellent preaching, teaching and official-statement promotion of our church’s world president:

(a) The world-church president declares that pastors are highly important. But let one disagree with those in high places (for very solid, very rational and very well-articulated reasons) and the pastor is told in the third brief letter of response that no one in either the General Conference or North American Division administrations will even acknowledge his letter, should he ever write again on the matter.

(b) The world-church president declares that abuse of all kinds is a terrible thing. Thus he publicly commits the church’s energies and resources to combating it. But when the chief attorney at the church’s world headquarters hears that there may have been psychological abuse in a case with which he must deal, there’s no evidence that he has taken any objective steps to acknowledge and provide for that possibility. And despite the knowledge that there may have been psychological abuse, the chief spokesman for the six high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom we turned for help, stated: “Clearly, we have no right to control how he [our employee] deals with intra-family concerns.” So much for the commitment to combating abuse.

(c) The world-church president says that the youth of the church are vital. But when a high-profile church-headquarters employee has taken the unusual step of circulating letters to strangers declaring three young people to be guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency,” the president will do nothing to come to the aid of the youth, even though nearly a score of letters or emails concerning the issue have crossed his desk.

(d) The world-church president has had considerable to say about how we should treat former Adventists so they can be wooed back to the fold. But let a pastor with a former-Adventist wife (a unique and rather complicated situation, I might add) ask six high-level church-headquarters leaders for help with a straightforward workplace impropriety, and let the estranged-from-the-church wife also write to them about the matter, and how do they respond? On the one hand, their spokesman solicitously says, “I want you to know I am truly sorry for the hurt and frustration you have experienced in your relationship with the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its leaders. I am also sorry that my letters have added to that hurt and frustration.”

Then—despite the fact he knows he’s dealing with someone who has been so badly burned (primarily by church administrators) that she’s had her name dropped from church membership—he proceeds to declare in the very same letter that her husband’s statements “are open to interpretation as to their veracity” (although he adamantly refuses to investigate her husband’s assertions). Not healing words, I can assure you.

And despite the fact that the husband of the church-estranged woman has raised a raft of questions (none of which have been answered) concerning how this matter could be considered “private” and a “family matter” when it was carried out by a high-profile church-headquarters employee in the workplace before an audience of church employees, the official spokesman imperiously states (without explanation as to his rationale and still refusing to answer the many questions asked): “These are not matters in which the Church should be involved because the issues raised, whether you concur or not, are matters of a family controversy, and should be addressed within that context. . . . Clearly, we have no right to control how he [our employee] deals with intra-family concerns.”

Then, despite the fact that the official spokesman is dealing with someone estranged from the church, and despite the fact that prior to this letter, the husband of the church-estranged woman has received only two brief letters of response to his requests for help—with 17 and 12 lines of body text, respectively—the official spokesman states: “I would like to bring this matter to closure as I have concluded there is nothing more I can say to assuage your perspective on this matter. However, any further communication between us will not lead to different results. Consequently, I nor anyone else within the GC or NAD administrations will respond further to these communications.” It seems a strange way to win back the estranged, let alone foster loyalty from the church’s workforce.

Granted the foregoing points, it’s extremely difficult to refrain from labeling the world-church president’s excellent public pronouncements as anything but hypocrisy—a term Jesus employed frequently, justifiably and aptly in Matthew chapter 23.

5. A favorite and well-used ploy of church administrators when seeking to extricate themselves from the fallout of bad decisions is to imply that they know more than they’re free to share with others. Should that argument be employed in this case, be assured that the six high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom my appeals have been made know nothing of the sort.

Oh, they may well have heard an abundance of renditions from my brother-in-law about my alleged sins and omissions, and those of my wife and sons. And it’s even possible that they’ve talked to others—as there seems to be a willingness to do so in casual settings where those being talked about aren’t present to defend themselves. But in no case has any allegation or accusation been presented for me (a) to admit to, (b) to clarify or (c) to refute.

So any “insider” information that any of these leaders might allege to have is totally one-sided. As the biblical proverb so aptly states: “The first person to testify always seems right.” Due diligence, or should I say a truly spiritual/biblical approach, requires that decisions be made only after appropriate input has been sought from all parties in any dispute. That hasn’t happened.

Further, if my brother-in-law produces allegations or even documentation that at first glance seem to prove high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of his sister, me and/or his nephews, prudence would call for reserving judgment until the alleged proof is seen in context, because context may cause things to look altogether different. The fact is, the story of my wife's family is tragic. But my sons, my wife and I have absolutely nothing to hide—though we would have always preferred to deal with family issues within the family. Unfortunately, someone's inappropriate actions to a great degree robbed us of that option. We wish he had considered the ramifications before he took the rash steps he did. And we wish six high-level church-headquarters leaders had likewise considered where their actions and inactions would inevitably lead.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin