“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
