#7 of 54. Questions raised and answered

“We believe the spirit of true religious liberty is epitomized in the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” —Declaration of Principles, International Religious Liberty Association.

But is it really that big a deal? Yes. It’s always a big deal when someone sets about deliberately and maliciously to destroy the reputation and credibility of another. To my way of thinking, it’s a big deal when someone does it to you. And it’s a big deal when someone does it to me. It’s an even bigger deal, from my perspective, when someone does it to my wife and sons. As Ellen White so graphically says: “We think with horror of the cannibal who feasts on the still warm and trembling flesh of his victim; but are the results of even this practice more terrible than are the agony and ruin caused by misrepresenting motive, blackening reputation, dissecting character?”—Education. So, yes, it’s a big deal.

On the other hand, no, it didn’t have to be a big deal. What Lincoln Steed did was badly out of line from any moral perspective. It’s especially out of line for someone privileged to occupy a high-profile headquarters position in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But it was a big deal that could have been laid to rest quickly, sensitively and decisively.

It could have been handled in a way that was redemptive and beneficial for all parties concerned. It could have been handled in the manner called for both by scripture and the church’s duly codified policies and guidelines. It could have been handled in a manner that would have increased the likelihood of reconciliation within the Steed family, because the high-level church-headquarters leaders could have provided both moral perspective and the moral weight of the office they occupy. Sadly, it wasn’t handled that way.

Even if it is a big deal, and even if it clearly should have been handled differently, why can’t you just turn the other cheek? Because there’s a time to speak and there’s a time to be silent. Over the years, my family and I have suffered abuse at the hands of numerous church administrators. In most of those cases, I’ve turned the other cheek completely. However, by my doing so—and by hundreds of other employees doing the same—we’ve actually entrenched an administrative style that’s inimical to the ostensible values of our spiritual organization.

Further, for more than twenty years I’ve turned the other cheek when my high-profile church-headquarters-employee brother-in-law, Lincoln Steed, has chosen to denigrate me before fellow church employees. Instead of the problem disappearing because of my passivity, it has gained ground. And it has wreaked havoc within the Steed family. So unless it’s stopped, it will appear again—in a different venue, perhaps, and based on a different grievance, no doubt. Thus I want it stopped once and for all—for my sake, for my family’s sake, for the sake of my congregation, for the sake of the credibility of the church as a whole, and even for Lincoln’s sake.

Aren’t you being rather thin-skinned? Deciding when to stand up and be counted and when to remain silent is always a judgment call, based on a multitude of factors. Different people would no doubt place different value on each of those factors. For example, I stated several times in my letters that if I were the sole person being defamed by Lincoln and treated with indifference and disdain by six high-level church-headquarters leaders, I probably would grin and bear it much more readily. But when someone publicly takes on my wife and sons in such an exaggerated and blatantly unfair manner—before my professional colleagues—my sense of obligation as husband/father/protector kicks in big-time. And that’s a normal reaction that’s clearly understood by the bulk of the world’s inhabitants. Even the animal world rises to such occasions.

Obviously, the frequency and the degree to which one has been subjected to similar treatment in the past come into play. There’s the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. While the issue being fought through currently isn’t just one straw but, rather, is a whole load of straw, it’s not necessarily the largest load of straw with which we’ve had to deal. However, it is the one that has finally led us to exclaim emphatically: “Enough is enough! This has to stop! We’re no longer going to aid and abet this kind of treatment by our silence and our acquiescence.” The sad fact is, even a friendly, tail-wagging dog will eventually bite if it’s kicked long enough and hard enough.

Of course, we recognize that an array of proverbial Monday-morning quarterbacks will say we should have played the game differently. That’s their prerogative. But their game-playing advice might be more realistic if they tried to take the proverbial walk in our shoes before speaking. What’s a loyal church employee to do when you appeal to the top levels of the church hierarchy, only to be treated with disdain and dismissiveness?

By releasing all this information to the public, aren’t you doing the same thing to others that Lincoln Steed did to you and your family? No. Lincoln didn’t write to me and/or my family outlining his concerns, and then, when he didn’t get a satisfactory result in repeated direct discussions, take his complaints to appropriate “confidential” channels in his quest for accountability, as called for by the church’s paper statements.

He didn’t take his grievances to the workplace public only as a last resort in a quest for accountability. He took his allegations public simultaneously with writing his first letter to me about them. In fact, in his cover letters he sent out additional denunciations and allegations of which I didn’t even receive a copy. Further, although he maligned and denigrated my wife and three sons in writing before my professional colleagues, he never even sent my wife and sons a copy of what he was saying about them to others—let alone write a letter directly to them about his concerns, either before or after sharing those concerns to others.

By contrast, I’ve written more than twenty letters or emails (over a period of some twenty-two months) to the six high-level head-quarters leaders to whom I turned for help and by whom I’ve been consistently dismissed. I’ve asked them to explain themselves. I’ve asked them how they can feel they’ve followed church policy when their response has been the exact opposite of what church policies and guidelines call for.

While they’ve issued a few pontifical statements, they have yet to engage in any serious dialogue about how they can justify what they’re doing and not doing. I find a substantial difference between going public as your first step and going public after more than twenty letters and emails and some twenty-two months of informing, arguing and pleading. Further, I made it clear repeatedly that if my concerns continued to be brushed aside, I saw no alternative but to go public as the next natural step in the progression outlined in Matthew 18. So this step could easily have been forestalled.

Doesn’t it come over as self-serving to tenaciously fight such a high-stakes battle about your own interests and those of your family? If you’re going to fight, why not choose something of true significance? Let me ask: What value could be higher for a pastor, husband and father than to seek justice on behalf of his wife and children when they’ve been publicly defamed before his professional colleagues by a high-profile church-headquarters employee whose position gives him considerable credibility?

The real question should be: What kind of pastor, husband and father wouldn’t fight such a battle on behalf of those who are near and dear, when the allegations made against them are clearly so out of line? And what kind of administrators would place a pastor, husband and father in a position where he even had to fight such a battle?

Why do you think high-level church-quarters leaders have treated you as they have? Despite all my speculating and despite all the possible scenarios I can put forth, I’m still truly baffled as to why six high-level headquarters leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church would so tenaciously and so adamantly refuse to label Lincoln Steed’s workplace actions against my family and me for what they so obviously are—totally inappropriate? Why is it so hard for them to bring moral perspective concerning his behavior when I’ve never asked that any punitive measures be taken against him?

Why are high-level church-headquarters leaders so loath to clear my name when what I’ve asked for is simply an application of the Golden Rule and the clearly stated policies of the church? Why will they twist and turn and duck and weave—and, in the process, make themselves look both foolish and evil in the eyes of onlookers? Why can’t they simply admit that there’s indeed an elephant in the room—in the form of a truth that’s so self-evident that even the average “pagan” on the street, let alone the most novice Christian, clearly understands it? The mind truly boggles.

[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.]

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin