#20 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Apr. 13, 2007

“Silence in the face of evil is complicity in what is wrong.” —Jan Paulsen, president of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, to a small group of leaders, as reported by the Adventist News Network, spring 2008.

“What Lincoln did is deplorable. But, Pastor Thomsen, what you and your spiritual-leader colleagues are refusing to do makes his actions pale by comparison. His were rash acts based on years of pent-up (though unwarranted) animosity; yours are deliberate acts of moral indifference.” —Letter from James Coffin, dated April 13, 2007.


LETTER

April 13, 2007


Pastor Halvard B. Thomsen, Chair
Liberty Editorial Board
Seventh-day Adventist Church Headquarters
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring , MD 20904-6600

RE: NAD/GC refusal to act re defamatory letters circulated by Lincoln Steed

Dear Pastor Thomsen,

I’m in receipt of your letter of March 30, 2007, responding to my letters of January 18 and March 14. I must say that your reply was devastating. Though brief, it spoke volumes. As has been aptly stated: The opposite of love isn’t hate; it’s indifference. The greatest manifestation of evil in the parable of the Good Samaritan wasn’t the desperate act of the robbers; it was the calculated unwillingness of the priest and Levite to come to the aid of the victim. And it’s still happening.

In the Roman Catholic Church it has come out in recent years that over a long period a significant number of priests have been guilty of child molestation—a sin and a crime that’s evil beyond words. Terrible though the actions of these perverted priests may be, the greater sin rests with the Catholic hierarchy—because when the victims reported what had been done, the leaders of the church tried to discredit their testimony, tried to distract from the real issue by introducing straw-man arguments, tried to hush the victims, tried to sweep the matter under the carpet, tried to blame the victims for the perpetrators’ actions and then tried to make the victims feel guilty for refusing to drop the matter. Horrendous though it is for a child to be molested, the greater damage comes when those in the church hierarchy—who should be about the business of protecting, understanding, defending and healing—refuse to aid, console and show outrage when the facts are presented to them.

In my case, a church employee under your supervision—Lincoln Steed—has engaged in a deliberate campaign of defamation against another church employee—me; his campaign has included both written and oral allegations; . . . his messages have been directed to my superiors, to my colleagues, to my subordinates and to church employees who scarcely know me; he has maligned me both to church employees he knows and to church employees who are total strangers to him; he has defamed not only me but my wife and children as well; he has denounced my children in words so strong that we would usually reserve such terms for universally recognized perpetrators of extreme evil; he has declared me to be unfit for pastoral ministry; he has all but destroyed my wife, both by his denunciations of her and his denunciations of her husband and sons; and he engaged in his campaign of defamation without any prior discussion with my children, my wife or me to alert us to his concerns and to seek resolution.

When, during/after Lincoln’s campaign of defamation, both my wife and I repeatedly tried to communicate with him in an effort to bring about some understanding, he returned our letters unopened—even sending a certified letter to assure us that he would not read anything we had to say. It was only after his adamant refusal to engage in dialogue that I wrote to six people at the General Conference/North American Division, stating: “I’m merely asking that, in a spirit of Christian brotherhood, you use your influence and relationship to Lincoln to bring a halt to what’s going on. I’m asking that you seek to help him understand the impropriety of what he’s doing and urge him to cease such actions, to not re-engage in them and to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already” (italics not in the original).

Yet despite having been informed of all of the foregoing, you’ve chosen to pervert justice rather than take the inconvenient and unpleasant steps that are incumbent upon you as church leaders and employee overseers. You’ve chosen to invoke the Catholic model of problem solving, seeking to avoid involvement by declaring this to be a “private” matter. I’m sorry, but when information is deliberately disseminated publicly, it’s no longer private—unless, that is, you subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty school of word definition described in Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Because I’ve refused to accept your distorted definition of the word “private,” and because I’ve refused to drop the matter, you once again employ the Catholic model and seek to blame me for the problem, stating: “To my knowledge, none of the people who work in the General Conference complex has received any letter from Lincoln on this matter. Thus, their only knowledge of the things you write is what you have provided in your letters.”

I’m stunned by your statement.

First, are you saying it would have made a difference if “people who work in the General Conference complex” had received a copy of Lincoln’s defamatory letters? Are you saying that even you recognize that it would have been inappropriate for Lincoln to defame me in writing to people who work at the church headquarters—but that it’s of no consequence for him to defame me to my subordinates, my colleagues and my president in the Florida Conference where I’m employed? Is there a qualitative difference between people who work at different levels of the church?

Is something automatically considered to be reality if it takes place at the GC/NAD office or happens to a GC/NAD staffer—but is fiction if it happens elsewhere to people lower on the totem pole? Had Lincoln sent you one of his diatribes, would that have opened the door for you to take some kind of action that you can’t legitimately take merely on the basis of my having provided you with a copy of Lincoln’s defamatory letters, which were sent to people who work at lower levels in the church structure? And if that’s not what you’re saying, then what are you saying?

Second, I wrote to you as chair of the Liberty board and to five others at the GC/NAD because I assumed that most of you probably weren’t aware of Lincoln’s campaign of defamation against my family and me. I wrote specifically to inform you. I wrote in the hope that you would use your position as overseers and advisers to help resolve the problem. I certainly didn’t write in the hope that you would spread the story throughout the GC/NAD complex. So it doesn’t surprise me that you might not have heard anything from another source. Again, would the issue somehow look different if a GC/NAD staffer had brought it to your attention, whereas the fact that it comes from a mere pastor in faraway Florida makes it of no consequence? The facts are what the facts are, irrespective of how the information gets to you.

Third, I don’t know if anyone at the GC/NAD headquarters received a letter from Lincoln or not (because Lincoln didn’t extend the courtesy of indicating who were receiving copies of his defamatory letters). However, I do know with absolute certainty that at least some people in your complex heard oral renditions of Lincoln’s denunciations of me—because they’ve told me about it. I also know that one of the six recipients of my letters (along with another GC/NAD colleague) discussed the matter of Lincoln’s accusations against me with a member from my congregation while all three were attending a meeting elsewhere.

In fact, it was my member’s mention of that discussion that once and for all sealed my decision to write to you at the GC/NAD to request your assistance. When I realized that my own church members were hearing rumors directly from GC/NAD personnel, I decided I needed to take action. So to say (as you did of the people who work at the General Conference complex) that “their only knowledge of the things you write is what you have provided in your letters” is patently false, even among the six GC/NAD recipients of my correspondence.

You state in your letter: “We are sorry that there is discord and tension in your family. However, we do not intend to become involved in the private matters of the Steed family—there is no reason for us to do so. The issues you raise in your correspondence simply must be handled in a private manner.”

Again, I’m stunned. Again, as the Catholics have done so insidiously and so incessantly in their attempts to shelter miscreant priests, you employ straw-man arguments.

I’ve made it crystal clear that I’m not requesting that you as church administrators become involved in private family matters. If you feel the need to delve into that realm, then I’m more than willing for you to do so because I have nothing to hide. But I’ve clearly said: “I’m not asking you to heal the wounds within the Steed family.” And with equal clarity I’ve noted: “The real issue is that a General Conference/North American Division employee has undertaken a deliberate campaign to defame another employee and his family before an audience of other church employees. And I’m appealing to you, as Christian leaders, to take the steps necessary to ensure that the defamer clearly understands that such behavior is unacceptable (now or ever), and to impress upon him that, to the degree possible, what has been done must be undone.”

I’ve further stated: “In neither of my letters did I ask you to unravel the convolutions of Lincoln’s animosity toward me. But an onlooker can make some judgments without knowing every twist and turn of a conflict. Some actions are inappropriate categorically. You don’t have to know the prior history. Some actions are wrong even if in the events leading up to them the person was completely in the right. So one doesn’t always have to start at Point A to pass some judgments.”

I must say that I’m not only extremely disappointed by your response to my appeals for help, I’m baffled. What’s so complicated about what I’ve asked for? I’ve clearly stated: “I’m not asking you to take punitive measures against Lincoln. I’m merely asking you, as a group of church leaders who oversee Lincoln’s work, and as Christian brothers, to use your influence to encourage Lincoln to take the steps that alone could help to undo the impact of his unfortunate actions, which are both illegal and unethical.”

Further, because of your unwillingness to address the issue, I’ve asked you: “To whom should a church employee turn for help when another employee has undertaken a deliberate campaign to defame and discredit him and his family and place his career in jeopardy?” Clearly, there has to be some arbitrating entity—the Bible calls for such. Matthew 18 recognizes that some issues simply won’t get settled without third-party involvement. Logic and corporate protocol suggests that, in the case of defamation of an employee by an employee before an audience of employees, the direct supervisors/advisers of the defamer would be a reasonable place to start the process of redress. But, as I’ve clearly stated, “If there is some other venue in which this matter should be addressed, then tell me what that venue is.”

Pastor Thomsen, I’m asking for you and your fellow administrators to accept the moral responsibility that’s an integral part of your leadership role. I’m asking you to call wrong by its true name. I’m asking you to put aside concerns of corporate image and self-interest and convenience and come to the aid of a faraway employee who has been defamed to other employees by an employee who is directly under your supervision. I’m asking you to stop trying to sidestep the issue. I’m asking you to bring honor rather than dishonor to the office you occupy. What Lincoln did in engaging in his campaign of defamation was wrong. Categorically. So say so. Or at the very least engage in true dialogue instead of insulting dismissals of everything I’ve written to you.

Jesus didn’t often exhibit anger. But one thing that really got to Him was when the powerful turned their backs on, or took advantage of, the powerless. In such situations His righteous wrath spilled over. I can’t help but wonder what His reaction would be were He here today observing your adamant refusal to even recognize, let alone truly address, a very real problem that very clearly falls within your realm of responsibility, whether viewed from a secular/managerial perspective or a biblical/spiritual perspective.

This issue will not automatically go away. I will not be silenced. If this were just about me, I might back off. But no one—I repeat, no one—can publicly defame my wife and children the way Lincoln has done and expect me to leave even one stone unturned until the record has been set straight. What Lincoln did is deplorable. But, Pastor Thomsen, what you and your spiritual-leader colleagues are refusing to do makes his actions pale by comparison. His were rash acts based on years of pent-up (though unwarranted) animosity; yours are deliberate acts of moral indifference.

I have no interest in conflict. Throughout my life I’ve sought to be a peacemaker. But when the powerless are being ridden over rough-shod and treated with callous indifference by those in power, I will stand up as their defender.

Sincerely,


James Coffin
[Address provided]

Copies to
Eugene Hsu, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Jan Paulsen, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Don Schneider, Consulting Editor, Liberty
John Graz, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Robert Kyte, Office of General Counsel
Mike Cauley, President, Florida Conference
Lincoln E. Steed

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin