LETTER
August 15, 2007
Robert Kyte
Office of General Counsel
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600
Dear Mr. Kyte,
Thank you for your letter of August 2. I note the following:
1. It’s encouraging to know that someone at the church’s world headquarters has actually read, in their entirety, the letters I’ve written. I had wondered.
2. It has taken a mere ten months and eight letters from either Leonie or me to get someone at the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s world headquarters to finally state: “I understand you being upset with Lincoln over writing to several of your fellow workers.” At least the church’s chief attorney, if not its spiritual leaders, recognizes that one has a right to be upset when a church employee openly states that he’s undertaking a campaign to make another employee’s life “miserable,” and when that employee not only defames the other employee and his wife (before yet other employees, through both letters and oral discourse) but declares in writing that the sons of the defamed employee are guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.” It’s encouraging that at least someone is willing to admit that such actions might be understandably disconcerting to the defamed.
3. It’s a mischaracterization to say that I’m “satisfied with Lincoln’s supervisors getting this stopped” as I had requested. On the basis of everything communicated to me to date, especially since receiving Pastor Thomsen’s letter of May 23, 2007, I can conclude only that the church’s administrators have simply told Lincoln not to mess things up for them by carrying on his vicious battle within the venue of the church. But they’ve brought no moral perspective whatsoever concerning his actions.
They’ve just said to him, in essence: “Not in our yard. But we vigorously defend your right to behave that way in someone else’s yard. And should you choose to do so, we assure you that we won’t intervene or hold you accountable. It would be inappropriate for us to do so.” (If you think my inferences are off-base, I invite you to reread, carefully, the words of Pastor Thomsen’s letters. What other inference is there to draw?) As if that isn’t bad enough, I’ve been blamed for creating the problem (around the GC/NAD complex, at least), and my veracity has been called into question. So, no, I’m not satisfied in any way, shape or form. I think the performance of Lincoln’s supervisors has been nothing short of appalling.
4. Your argument that one can’t “unring a bell” is interesting—because such unringing would appear to be the primary goal of your letter of August 2. You didn’t like the allegations I made against you, and you wanted to give an alternative perspective that would, at least in part, unring the bell. Of course, you’re correct that there’s definitely a sense in which a bell can’t be unrung. Once words are spoken and actions are taken, some things can never be undone. That’s why defamation is so serious. But it’s equally true that other things can be substantially mitigated. And that’s precisely what you seemed to attempt in your letter. And that’s precisely what I asked for in my letter of October 5, 2006, and in all subsequent letters. If such unringing doesn’t come from Lincoln—which indeed would require a miracle—it should come from those to whom he’s accountable. That’s not asking too much once Lincoln deliberately chose to take this matter into the workplace.
5. Like Pastor Thomsen, you seek shelter behind the morally bankrupt argument that the problem is adequately resolved because I’ve been able to put forward my side of the story to at least some of those to whom Lincoln has defamed me. Yet you, like Pastor Thomsen, ignore my repeated assertion that I don’t know who has received Lincoln’s letters or listened to his oral denunciations. I do know for a fact that the number of letters sent out is greater than either you or Pastor Thomsen has acknowledged. But, unfortunately, Lincoln hasn’t had the courtesy to inform us concerning those to whom he has defamed us (whether in writing or through conversation). And our letters lamenting that fact have elicited no additional information. But more to the point, even if I did know of every person to whom defamatory comments have been made directly or acquired through gossip, the onus isn’t on me to resolve the matter. The moral/ethical responsibility is on the perpetrator to right the wrong. Because this has happened in the workplace, a secondary obligation rests on those to whom the perpetrator is accountable.
6. Here are some questions—and I would like answers: Was Lincoln told not to use the church as the venue for his battle against my family and me because his behavior was inappropriate or because his behavior merely had the potential to be disruptive and embarrassing to the church?
7. If your colleagues deem that Lincoln’s behavior was appropriate, then why not just say so? Why not give Leonie and me a little moral/psychological perspective and tell us that we’re absurdly oversensitive and unreasonable, and that we should find it quite acceptable to have Lincoln declare––in my workplace and to their potential future employers––that our sons are guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency”?
8. If, however, you and/or your colleagues deem Lincoln’s behavior to have been inappropriate, then stop and think about it from the perspective of those defamed. Is it adequate for administrators just to say: “Don’t do that again—at least not in our yard; of course, what you do elsewhere is totally up to you”? Or is it reasonable to expect that some step will be taken to say that such actions are inappropriate––to “undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already”––and to ensure that some type of moral perspective will be given?
9. You feel that my label of “gossip” mischaracterizes your discussion about my wife and me, which was carried on with your colleague and my parishioner and his wife. I’m not so readily convinced. But let’s assume, for purposes of argument, that you were even more altruistic and solicitous of our wellbeing (and Lincoln’s) than you suggest in your letter. Let’s suppose that, as the enormity of this human tragedy dawned upon you, tears flowed several times during the “less than 5 minutes” that you discussed the topic.
Let’s suppose that during the following days and weeks you continued to anguish over how you might in some way help the various parties find resolution. That still doesn’t change the fact that you were aware of quite a few details of this tragic situation before you received any letter from me. And you’d gained that knowledge directly from Lincoln or through some third party—or both. But either you didn’t pass on that information to Pastor Thomsen, or you did so and he chose to ignore it, thus twice asserting that those around the GC/NAD complex would be unaware of the matter were it not for my letters––as if that, even if true, somehow rendered the whole issue moot.
10. Here are a few direct questions for which I request direct answers: Did you tell Pastor Thomsen about your independently acquired knowledge of this matter during whatever discussions you had with him after receipt of my initial letter? More important, though, when Pastor Thomsen declared (concerning people at the General Conference complex) in his letter of March 30, 2007, that “their only knowledge of the things you write is what you have provided in your letters,” did you inform/remind him that, no, there are indeed people at the GC/NAD complex who had information originating from Lincoln, quite independent of my letters?
Did you speak up when Pastor Thomsen made his assertion a second time despite my clear statement to the contrary? Did you ever speak of your independent knowledge to any of the other five church leaders to whom I’ve sent my letters—especially in light of the fact that you had some insights concerning the “psychological abuse” (to use your own words) that Leonie may have gone through, and the anguish she may feel on an ongoing basis? Did you share any of this knowledge?
11. It’s a mischaracterization to say that I “now suggest that somehow Church administration is responsible for failing to do certain things” when my earlier “indications were that the underlying problems are family problems that date back twenty years.” I haven’t, as you imply, changed my approach midstream. Certainly, this issue started as a family matter. I’ve made that very plain and have never denied it. But Lincoln chose to take his anger and animosity public, into the workplace, and has tried to destroy my career by defaming me before my fellow workers.
In my first letter (October 5, 2007), I gave the facts of what happened. When I’d received no reply after a lapse of six or seven weeks, I became convinced that the administrators weren’t going to assist me, and the easiest excuse for them to latch onto would be to call it “a family matter.” Though not a valid argument, it would be their best defense for non-action. So, in my second letter, dated November 30, 2006––which reached Pastor Thomsen before he had sent his initial reply to me––I stated clearly:
“The fact that Lincoln and I represent the same family unquestionably adds to the magnitude of this tragedy. And it also can skew the perceptions of onlookers. But our family relationship shouldn’t be allowed to cloud the real issue. The real issue is that a General Conference/North American Division employee has undertaken a deliberate campaign to defame another church 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 don’t know how I could have made that any clearer. Lincoln has both defamed me and harassed me in the workplace. And the fact that I happen to be married to his sister changes neither of these facts. From a moral perspective, however, the family tie makes his behavior all the more reprehensible.
12. In my letter to you, I didn’t name my church member who had told me of your conversation concerning my wife and me. However, you chose to identify him by name in your letter—but you refrained from naming your professional colleague at the GC/NAD complex who was also part of that conversation (whether the discussion was gossip or motivated by deep concern or somewhere in the middle). I don’t know your rationale for naming some but not others. I can say that in my dealings with the church hierarchy over the years, I’ve encountered with sickening regularity that those on the inside are carefully protected while those on the outside are sacrificed as the need arises. If this is another example of that, I find it despicable.
13. If your unequal treatment in revealing the names was mere oversight or happenstance, then I invite you to put the name of your professional colleague in your reply to this letter and copy your reply to all the recipients of this letter. If you’re unwilling to do so, I’m left to assume that the “outing” of my church members’ names was done as revenge.
14. In my letter of July 26, 2007, I explained the context in which my church member made me aware of his conversation with you and your colleague. When Pastor Thomsen alleged that no one at the GC/NAD complex would even know about this matter were it not for me, I decided the time had come to concretely show his statement to be false. So I phoned my church member to double-check that I had my facts right. His preference was for me to omit any names, but to simply state that I knew for certain that even one of the six recipients of my letters was aware of a considerable amount of the detail, quite independent of me.
In the course of the conversation, I used a low-powered verb—such as “they told you,” or “they shared with you”—to describe the conversation that involved you and your colleague. My parishioner paused for a moment and said, “I believe the word that actually describes what took place is ‘regaled.’” Now, it may well be that his assessment was based more on the input of your colleague than on anything you said. You yourself noted that your colleague was the one who said that “it was unfortunate that a daughter would not attend her own father’s funeral.” My guess is that his words were spoken with substantially more emotion and disdain than your portrayal suggests. But whatever was said, however it was said, and by whomever it was said, my member’s perception was that the input from the GC/NAD contingent in the conversation merited the word “regaled.” The word “gossip” comes from me, not from him.
15. I must make a comment here about my church member. I’ve known him for nearly sixteen years and have interacted with him extensively. He’s an attorney, as you noted. He’s extremely tight-lipped. He’s the most meticulous about confidentiality of any person with whom I’ve ever interacted. And he weighs his words carefully before speaking. He specifically asked me to try to avoid using your name because he said you’re a friend of his, he thinks highly of you, and he enjoys interacting with you on the occasions when your paths cross. So I honored his request initially.
But when for the second time Pastor Thomsen said that no one around the GC/NAD would even know about the matter were it not for my letters—even after my crystal-clear statement to the contrary—I decided the time had come to share your name. After all, the conversation did take place, you did have independent knowledge, and either you weren’t sharing that knowledge or Pastor Thomsen was ignoring it. For the record, let me state that I took the step of finally sharing your name without prior consultation with my parishioner. Unless you’ve contacted him, he’s still unaware of my action, although I plan to let him know what has transpired.
16. You note that Lincoln feels “aggrieved” and “hurt” by our actions and words just as we feel “aggrieved” and “hurt” by his. But to put the two on the same plane is a breath-taking stretch. Read Lincoln’s letters again. Factor in his intentions, which he stated clearly and directly to family members and to his parents’ pastor (which could easily be confirmed if anyone at the church’s headquarters truly cared about the facts).
Keep in mind: I’m not the one who emphatically declared my intention to make the life of another employee “miserable.” I haven’t declared another employee to be unfit for his job (nor have I asked for any punitive measures against him). I haven’t maligned his wife and sent out letters to an undisclosed number of fellow employees declaring his children to be guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.” I haven’t refused to read letters sent in an attempt to resolve the matter. I haven’t returned––marked “Unwanted”––the letters from the ones I defamed. All I’ve done is ask that the church’s spiritual leaders provide moral perspective in the case of one who has done such things, that they provide a working environment for me that’s guaranteed to be free from such harassment, and that they help ensure that, to the degree possible, what has been done be undone.
17. Just which of our words and actions have “aggrieved” and “hurt” Lincoln? Are you talking about the facts that I’ve shared with his employers and, as an act of courtesy, shared with him, as well? Is he aggrieved and hurt because we’ve tenaciously demanded accountability? Or are you talking about allegations he has shared with you, of which I have no knowledge and, therefore, to which I can’t respond? I’ve asked those at the church’s headquarters to address a very concrete series of actions that are easily documented, for which an intention was clearly stated and that transpired in the workplace––actions that, on their very face, are inappropriate by any standard. So, if the words and actions to which you refer are based on behind-the-scenes, off-the-record comments from Lincoln that I can’t address, you’re 100 percent out of line to raise them.
18. I couldn’t agree more that the possibility of reconciliation between Lincoln and Leonie and me became remote the moment he went after Leonie, our sons and me in such a vicious manner before an audience of my fellow workers. In trying to destroy my career as a pastor, he either didn’t think about the impact his campaign’s success would have on his sister, or he proceeded with full knowledge of its potential. Either way, reconciliation became less likely still when he refused to deal with us as we sought to sort out the problem directly with him.
But when the shepherds of the flock, to whom we turned for moral and administrative input (granted that all of this transpired in the workplace), in essence have defended the kind of behavior in which Lincoln has engaged, the chances of reconciliation have been reduced even further. Without question, the damage Lincoln has done has been magnified by the church leaders’ total refusal to require accountability and their willingness not only to protect him but to question my veracity and seek to throw blame back on me. His attempts to defame me seem to be working quite well.
19. I thank you for the positive things you said about me and my ministry as both an editor and a pastor. That’s the type of person I strive to be. That’s the kind of impact I seek to make.
20. I can make equally positive comments about you. Over the years I’ve interacted considerably with a number of people whose lives you impacted while you were at Pacific Press. I have yet to meet a person who has spoken ill of you. And my attorney church member has spoken highly of you, as well. Such a track record doesn’t come by chance.
I wish you every success as you seek to live out the ideals of your departmental mission statement and as you continue to seek to maintain your personal track record of integrity.
Sincerely,
James Coffin
[Address provided]
Copies to:
Halvard B. Thomsen, Chair, Liberty Editorial Board
Eugene Hsu, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Jan Paulsen, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Don Schneider, Consulting Editor, Liberty
John Graz, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Mike Cauley, President, Florida Conference
Lincoln E. Steed
Copyright © 2008 James Coffin
