Justice Denied

More to Come

2011-10-28T10:00:00.004-04:00

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

2009-09-06T09:12:00.008-04:00

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

2009-05-22T09:43:00.008-04:00

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

2008-08-13T08:01:00.010-04:00

“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

2008-08-13T07:55:00.008-04:00

“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.

#3 of 54. Some general background

2008-08-12T22:45:00.021-04:00

“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.

#4 of 54. Major players in this sad saga

2008-08-12T22:40:00.004-04:00

“[The ninth commandment] forbids every effort to injure our neighbor's reputation by misrepresentation or evil surmising, by slander or tale bearing. Even the intentional suppression of truth, by which injury may result to others, is a violation of the ninth commandment." —Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets.

The major players in this sad saga are:

James (Jim) Coffin, a Seventh-day Adventist pastor with more than 32 years of denominational employment as a youth pastor, an editor and a senior pastor

Leonie Coffin, Jim’s wife

Leonie and Jim’s three sons, currently aged 20, 26 and 30

Lincoln Steed, editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Liberty magazine

Jan Paulsen, president of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church and a consulting editor* for Liberty magazine

Don Schneider, president of the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and a consulting editor for Liberty magazine

John Graz, director of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department and a consulting editor for Liberty magazine

Halvard Thomsen, assistant to Don Schneider and chair of the Liberty magazine board

Eugene Hsu, a general vice-president of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church and a consulting editor for Liberty magazine

Robert Kyte, chief legal counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the headquarters of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church

* At the time this sad saga began, the term used on the masthead of Liberty magazine was “consulting editor.” It has subsequently changed to “contributing editor.” Whether the change was in any way related to the story you’re about to read, I don’t know. For the sake of consistency, the term “consulting editor” will be used throughout this presentation.

#5 of 54. Definitions and disclaimers

2008-08-12T22:34:00.008-04:00

“Certainly, if this were the first time my family and I had ever encountered this kind of church-leader behavior, it’s unlikely that I would 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.” —James Coffin, from the section “Some General Background.”

1. Repeatedly in my letters, I’ve used the terms “defame,” “defamation” and “defamatory.” The terms have both a general and a legal meaning. The general meaning, as the word suggests, is to speak about someone in a manner that diminishes that person’s credibility in the eyes of the hearer—or, if in written form, in the eyes of the reader. Clearly, Lincoln’s letters were designed to do just that—not to mention that he openly declared that intention.

The legal definition of defamation is far more elusive. Some rather amazing character assaults have been given a pass by juries, and some relatively innocuous comments have led to convictions. It seems that the legal definition is anything that a jury decides it is—as long as some appeals court doesn’t overturn the verdict. While both laypeople and lawyers make reasoned declarations about whether the legal definition of defamation has occurred or not, only the courts speak definitively in this sense.

In most categories of defamation, the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory message was “published” (i.e. disseminated orally or in print), as well as to prove that the message actually damaged the plaintiff’s reputation. There is, however, also a legal category of “defamation per se.” One internet site defines that category this way: “Libel or slander per se occurs when the message accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime, of having a loathsome disease, or of being professionally incompetent.”

Another site expands on that definition, noting that defamation per se “tends directly to injure [the plaintiff] in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits.”

2. In what’s posted here, I’ve made every effort to present the material in totally mistake-free form. However, we’re talking about a substantial amount of material! And it’s inevitable that some typographical or other errors will have slipped through. Even the movement of electronically stored data can cause slight mutation as it’s transferred from one form to another. Be assured, however, that any inaccuracy is unintentional.

The two alterations I’ve made intentionally are the dividing of some paragraphs in my letters and the bolding of some ordinals. As I viewed the material in electronic form, it struck me that there would be greater clarity and greater readability if some paragraphs were subdivided. I’ve done that without indicating where it has been done. No word content has been changed in the process, at least not intentionally. The second change I’ve made is to bold-face various ordinals, just to make them stand out a little more and make it easier for the reader to follow what’s being said. I apologize for any mistakes that have inadvertently gotten through.

3. You’ll note that I’ve included the names of those who’ve been recipients of all my letters, but have withheld the names of those who haven’t been. My rationale is this: I have no qualms about naming the high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I’ve addressed my concerns. They’ve had ample opportunity to have appropriately responded to my requests, answered my queries and defended themselves.

On the other hand we encounter those whose involvement in this saga is really incidental—they’re in most cases innocent, passive bystanders who in varying degrees have been drawn into the vortex of this discussion quite by accident. So I’ve sought to ensure that their names—and even the names of some places and entities—don’t appear here. I don’t want to have them receiving emails or phone calls of interrogation, castigation or congratulation. They deserve to be shielded as much as possible from the fallout of this unfortunate situation. I certainly recognize that in many cases their identities can be readily deduced by those close to the situation. But at least it’s an attempt to shield them as much as possible.

My rationale for shielding the name of the high-level church-headquarters attorney who with Robert Kyte “regaled” two of my church members with details and comments about Lincoln’s feelings toward my wife and me is altogether different. While I find his behavior deplorable (to the degree that I know what he said and how he said it), I’ve had no direct correspondence with him. I haven’t asked for any clarification or explanation from him—nor has he offered any. So I think it would be inappropriate for his name to be circulated, when I don’t know that he even knows that he’s a topic of discussion. As a matter of principle, I try to be totally fair in all my dealings with everyone, including those whose behavior I find unacceptable.

4. The letters presented here are in their full and unexpurgated form—with just three or four brief exceptions. In my letters to the six high-level church-headquarters leaders, I volunteered to answer any questions they might have and to be investigated as fully as they might wish to investigate me concerning both my family relationships and my workplace performance. The three or four statements I made to them that aren’t included here would have been both substantiated and elucidated during such an investigation.

However, I’ve chosen not to repeat those statements in this presentation—not because they can’t be substantiated, but because to make the statements would raise issues that would require explanation. And to appropriately explain them would necessitate delving comprehensively into personal family details. When I contacted the six high-level church-headquarters leaders requesting their help, I would have been more than willing to go into such detail to them. I don’t choose to do so in this forum at this time. Keep in mind, this material isn’t being presented here to take my brother-in-law to task; it’s being presented to take six high-level church-headquarters leaders to task for their refusal to provide moral perspective and to call for employee accountability.

#6 of 54. The sad saga in brief: a summary

2008-08-12T22:16:00.021-04:00

“Now don’t for a minute think that I’m against prayer. But there are appropriate prayers and there are inappropriate prayers. And, quite frankly, I’m a little hesitant about going to God to ask for “higher wisdom” and an indication of “God’s will” when so much “higher wisdom” and so much evidence concerning “God’s will” already exist––they just happen to point in a direction that certain people involved in this conversation don’t want to acknowledge.” —James Coffin, from a letter dated January 29, 2008.

What you’re about to read is a spiritual tragedy. It’s a chronicle of spiritual/emotional/psychological abuse. What makes it all the more tragic is that the wounds described here have been inflicted by—and, worse still, tenaciously defended by—those occupying positions of authority at the highest levels of a spiritual organization we Seventh-day Adventists refer to as “God’s Remnant Church.”

Abuse by authority figures always compounds the impact of the abuse. Abuse by authority figures who invoke the name of God makes the abuse dramatically worse. But the most tragic aspect of all is that what’s transpiring and has transpired is so totally unnecessary. The precipitating issue could have been laid to rest quickly, sensitively and completely, with none of the scarring I’m about to describe. The following story is a tragic example of what happens when those in high places forget both the servant-leader role to which they’ve been called and the need to follow the Golden Rule, both of which Jesus modeled so impressively.

In August of 2006, Lincoln Steed, editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Liberty magazine, circulated to an unknown number of pastors in the Florida Conference (and possibly elsewhere) copies of a letter he’d sent to me—and he’d sent it not to my home but to the church (situated in a suburb of Orlando, Florida) where I’ve been senior pastor for more than fourteen years. So my office staff opened it.

In his letter, Lincoln demonized my wife (Leonie), our three grown sons and me. When circulating the letter to others, he included additional defamatory content in a cover letter. Just how many such letters were circulated we still don’t know because Lincoln hasn’t had the courtesy to tell us (although he’s had some two years to have done so).

Lincoln declared in his cover letter that I’m guilty of behavior that’s “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.” The letters Lincoln sent to me and others were not on Liberty magazine letterhead (although he gave his workplace telephone number as the place where the recipients of his cover letters could contact him). But keep in mind that Lincoln is a high-profile church-headquarters employee who has high name recognition with ministers throughout North America because of his annual letters urging us to promote Liberty magazine. So his name automatically is associated with the role he plays, whether he has written in an official or unofficial capacity and whether his message is on Liberty magazine letterhead or not—especially when at least some of those to whom he’s writing have had no previous direct contact with him.

Lincoln stated in his letter to me, which was circulated to an unknown number of others: “How you can even look at your congregation without shame, much less speak of the deep things of the Spirit[,] escapes me.” He declared my wife to be guilty of behavior for which “there is no offence equal.” And he described our sons—remember, this was being circulated to my ministerial colleagues—as being guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.” That’s strong language by any standard. And keep in mind, Lincoln was providing these descriptions to church employees who were strangers or near strangers to him. And he did it at his own initiative—not in response to their questions and not in the context of some ongoing conversation—simply to convey how negatively he viewed his church-pastor brother-in-law, his sister and his nephews.

Sadly, Lincoln has harbored extreme animosity toward me (and, to a lesser degree, my wife) since at least the mid-1980s, when the leaders of the South Pacific Division invited me to be senior editor at the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Signs Publishing Company, in Australia—a job he apparently would have liked and, it seems, somehow felt entitled to, but to which I was called. In the intervening years, he has felt free to denigrate me to any church employee he pleases (mainly to those at the church’s publishing houses and at the church’s headquarters), alleging that I in some way betrayed him. (Keep in mind that this is the CliffsNotes version.)

Although on several occasions I’ve explained to Lincoln (in conversation and in writing) the details of what actually happened and why he has no basis for his animosity, he has consistently chosen to ignore what I say. So for more than twenty years I’ve turned the other cheek every time I hear yet again that I’ve been misrepresented. Instead of going after Lincoln, I’ve simply tried to set the record straight, always wondering just how many others were hearing his allegations and believing them but never having the chance to hear the facts from me.

The trigger that set Lincoln off in 2006 was the death of his and my wife’s father. I’ll borrow here some paragraphs used in my first letter to Lincoln’s high-level church-headquarters colleagues, four of whom were at that time listed on the masthead of Liberty magazine as his “consulting editors.” The fifth recipient of my requests is listed as chairman of the Liberty magazine editorial board. The sixth recipient of my appeal for help is the chief counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s world headquarters. I included him because I knew he already had personal knowledge of the matter—since he and a colleague from his office had spoken about the matter to a couple of my church members (“regaled” them is how one of the two members described the tone of the exchange). My letter of October 5, 2006, states:

“Major tensions have existed in Leonie’s family for years. A number of issues that her parents either failed or refused to address have produced a bitter harvest. It’s an objective though tragic fact that for more than two years before her father’s death, Leonie had no face-to-face interaction with her parents. It’s equally an objective though tragic fact that Leonie didn’t visit her father during his final illness, nor did she attend the family graveside service or the public memorial service. Nor did our three sons or I. But it’s a subjective value judgment to assume that her actions were simply because she’s ‘indulged and willful,’ as Lincoln labeled her in the letters he sent out.

“Leonie wanted a relationship with her parents more than just about anything else in the world. But her father related to her in a manner that so robbed her of value and personhood that she had to distance herself as a matter of survival. The stress caused by her father’s incessant dismissal of every concern she expressed has taken a terrible toll physically, emotionally and spiritually.

"The watershed came in January 2003. Despite the fact that Leonie had faced six years of unremitting stress (our oldest son was seriously injured in a near-fatal auto accident), health problems and a plethora of other burdens, her father, having become angry, systematically demeaned and belittled her for two hours, effectively ending their relationship. I’m fully convinced that he desperately wanted the relationship re-established. And so did Leonie. But he wanted forgiveness without confession and repentance.

“She made it clear that she could risk re-entering the relationship only if she had evidence that any future interaction would be on a different footing. Her father wouldn’t or couldn’t admit the need for change. He went to his grave without the sweet release of reconciliation. And he, Leonie, her mother, Lincoln and everyone else associated were the worse for it. The breakdown of relationships in the Steed family is truly tragic—from whatever perspective it’s viewed. But, as is always the case, there’s more than one side to the story. And Lincoln’s circulated letters present only one extremely partisan viewpoint.”

It’s tragic when families experience major dysfunction and dissension. It’s sadder still when the dysfunction and alienation rise to such levels that face-to-face interaction between child and parents becomes simply too painful for one or both parties. It’s the epitome of tragic when an already-devastated woman’s brother, a high-profile church-headquarters employee, without first discussing his grievances with those with whom he’s upset, uses the church workplace to seek to destroy or diminish the professional credibility of her pastor husband and to defame her as well as her sons.

Granted that (a) Lincoln had openly declared his intentions to create problems for me, granted that (b) he assured me in his letter that others “will hear this story” (emphasis in the original), granted that (c) I’d discovered that some of my Florida ministerial colleagues had received highly negative letters or emails from him, granted that (d) I’d received word that he was talking negatively about my wife and me to his church-headquarters colleagues, granted that (e) two church-headquarters attorneys had “regaled” (the word deliberately chosen by one of my members to describe the tone of the exchange) two of my congregants with details concerning Lincoln’s animosities, and granted (f) his decades-long track record of speaking ill of me to fellow church employees, I took his actions seriously.

Both Leonie and I wrote to Lincoln in an effort to resolve the problem. He responded by certified mail that he intended to read nothing we might write to him. We each wrote to him again, more than once, only to have any letters we sent to his home returned to us marked “Unwanted. Return to Sender.” And the letters we sent to his office at the church’s headquarters (which we marked “Personal”—even though it was a workplace issue that we were simply trying to resolve privately) he placed in Liberty magazine envelopes and returned them to us, unread and unopened.

Unfortunately, such matters have a way of raising their ugly head repeatedly if not fully laid to rest. We know that to be true, because in Lincoln’s case it had been going on in varying degrees for some twenty years. So we did two things: (1) We asked a lawyer to write a sensitively worded cease-and-desist letter to Lincoln. In it, the attorney advised Lincoln that it might be advantageous for him to seek legal counsel before proceeding with his vendetta. We definitely wanted Lincoln to have absolutely no question but that his workplace maligning of us had to stop. (2) I wrote to six church-headquarters leaders (identified earlier, and all associated with Lincoln in some way), asking them to bring spiritual perspective and to help Lincoln understand the impropriety of his actions.

In my first letter, dated October 5, 2006, I described the defamation that was being perpetrated in the workplace, stating:

“Unfortunately, I have no idea who and how many have received Lincoln’s testimony, either orally or in writing. But I do know the devastation that his campaign against us has caused Leonie. For her, his approach is déjà vu—it’s her father all over again. Her own brother—to whom she has poured out her heart concerning the convolutions of this tragic situation—so dismisses her that he’s taking specific steps to jeopardize her husband’s employment and thus her wellbeing. His letters declare to others that our sons are guilty of ‘a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.’ He declares to my conference president and my colleagues in ministry that I’m guilty of behavior that’s ‘insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.’ Yet he refuses to read any letters of explanation and clarification from us.”

I continued: “I’ve requested an attorney to send a sensitively worded cease-and-desist letter to Lincoln—not because I want to deal with him through the legal system but because I do indeed want him to cease and desist. I want him to be awakened to the fact that, the Golden Rule aside, there are civil laws against what he’s doing. But that doesn’t undo what he’s already done. Nor does it provide any guarantees. Which is why I’m coming to you.

“I’m not asking you to heal the wounds within the Steed family. Or even to pass judgment on degrees of guilt and innocence. 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.

“I just want to be able to get back to focusing on my pastoral ministry and my family. I want to be freed from having to spend time trying to salvage my reputation. I want my wife and sons to be certain that the intense pain to which they’ve been subjected isn’t going to be exacerbated by a new round of attacks.”

According to Pastor Halvard Thomsen, who initially became spokesman for the six high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I’d appealed for help, my letter arrived on October 10, 2006. Although he talked to Lincoln “shortly after receiving” my letter, “asking him not to involve the Church in these matters or by his writing to imply any connection of his personal family matters with those of Liberty magazine,” he didn’t communicate any of this information to me until December 4—after he’d received a second letter from me, dated November 30, 2006.

Clearly, the tenor of Lincoln’s letters were such that Pastor Thomsen didn’t want them in any way perceived to be official church correspondence. So he sought to safeguard the church’s interests quickly. Despite the deep concerns I’d clearly outlined in my letter of October 5, 2006, and despite having addressed the church’s interests quickly, Pastor Thomsen couldn’t find time to dictate a one-page letter to me reporting on what had been done until nearly two months had elapsed and a second letter had arrived from me.

When I wrote a third letter to Pastor Thomsen, on January 18, 2007, questioning the assumptions of his December 4 response to my first two letters, he didn’t respond to that letter until March 30, 2007—and, again, not until he’d received a second letter from me (dated March 14, 2007). I note these substantial delays in response—at least, that’s how I’d describe them—because the “Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees” promises that the “General Conference shall strive for communication that is timely, truthful, open, candid, and kind.”

Because Lincoln used the workplace to publicly defame my wife, my sons and me concerning issues that should have been addressed privately within the family, I’ve consistently maintained that his inappropriate behavior is a workplace issue to be addressed by those to whom he’s workplace-accountable. Private issues cease to be private when they’re intentionally taken public. Family issues cease to be merely family issues when they’re taken into the workplace for the openly stated purpose of creating problems for a fellow church employee.

The “Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees” (voted in 1999) states: “We will respect and uplift our fellow employees. We will refrain from intentionally placing another in a position of embarrassment, disrespect, or harassment. . . . We will honor the privacy . . . of others.” When an employee is clearly not adhering to that standard, it seems reasonable to expect his supervisors to provide moral perspective and to require employee accountability.

To my surprise and amazement, Pastor Thomsen and his high-level church-headquarters colleagues see it all quite differently. Even though Lincoln, a high-profile church-headquarters employee, deliberately set about both in writing and orally to defame me (another church employee, and my family) before yet other church employees, Pastor Thomsen stated in his initial response letter of December 4, 2006: “[B]e assured that our intent is not to intrude into such private matters. . . .”

In his letter of March 30, 2007, Pastor Thomsen stated: “[W]e 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 which you raise in your correspondence simply must be handled in a private manner.”

In his letter of May 23, 2007, Pastor Thomsen stated: “Clearly we have no right to control how he [Lincoln] deals with intra-family concerns.” From my perspective, when defamatory comments are disseminated in the workplace (both orally and in writing), that act in itself makes it a workplace issue. Pastor Thomsen strongly disagrees but refuses to explain his rationale—despite repeated letters from me asking for explanations concerning how it could not be considered such.

“You wish to make this an employment issue for the Church to deal with,” Pastor Thomsen stated in his letter of May 23, 2007. “We do not see this as an employment matter. I’m sorry this is troublesome to you.” Even if one were to assume that it’s not a workplace issue—a position I don’t subscribe to—that doesn’t suddenly remove Lincoln’s actions from the inappropriate-behavior column. Nor does it remove church-headquarters leaders from spiritual and administrative obligation. The “Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees” (voted in 1999) states: “We value ethical and moral conduct at all times and in all relationships” (emphasis mine).

In his third letter (May 23, 2007), Pastor Thomsen stated clearly and emphatically that no amount of appealing or no amount of additional input from my wife or me was going to change anything. In short, the church-headquarters leaders to whom I’d turned for help had irrevocably made up their minds that they were going to do nothing to help me—other than whatever incidental benefit came my way as a result of their seeking to protect their own interests, and the denomination’s interests, by ensuring that in any future actions against my family and me Lincoln would be more careful not to imply any linkage between his attacks and Liberty magazine. But there wasn’t the slightest indication that Lincoln had been given any moral perspective as to the impropriety of his workplace behavior. Nor was there any expectation for him to in any way seek to undo any of the damage that had already been done. Rather, it was implied that we were the ones out of line for even having asked for him to be reined in.

More disturbing still, Pastor Thomsen sought to cast aspersions on my integrity, directly contradicting statements I had made (and for which I had provided objective documentation) and declaring that my statements were “open to interpretation as to their veracity.”

The bottom line, Pastor Thomsen declared in his letter, was that “any further communication between us will not lead to different results.” In fact, he forewarned that, were I to write to them again, no one at the church’s headquarters would even respond. (“Consequently, I nor anyone else within the GC or NAD administrations will respond further to these communications.”) This hard-line stance wasn’t even portrayed as just the decision of one or more of the six high-level church-headquarters leaders involved. Rather, it was imperiously declared to be “the position of the Church.”

What followed has been some twenty-two months of argumentation and appeal on my part. For the most part, the high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I’ve appealed have remained silent, coming forth to speak only, it seems, when pressured so greatly that they simply couldn’t remain silent.

Over that period, several things have slowly morphed. In his first three letters, for example, Pastor Thomsen emphatically stated that the church-headquarters administration wouldn’t and shouldn’t become involved. “The issues which you raise in your correspondence simply must be handled in a private manner.” And this was despite the fact that I asked repeatedly if there was some other venue in which the matter should be addressed.

For nearly eight months the six leaders to whom I’d appealed, with Pastor Thomsen acting as their spokesman, refused to engage in any kind of discussion concerning my contentions, refused to respond to any of the arguments I put forward and refused to answer any of the questions I raised. Further, Pastor Thomsen declared that no one would respond were I to write again. But when I sent each of the six high-level church-headquarters leaders copies of a certified letter telling them I planned to take the matter to the church as a whole (as called for in Matthew 18), they suddenly decided that there was indeed a conflict-resolution provision in church policy that applied in my case. And they assured me that Lincoln had requested such, though he has yet to contact us with any appeal for reconciliation.

For a variety of reasons including the following, I declined their conflict-resolution offer.

1. First, the high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I’d turned had a spiritual obligation to provide moral perspective concerning what Lincoln had done to a fellow employee before an audience of other employees. They refused to play that spiritual role.

2. Second, the high-level church-headquarters leaders had an administrative/organizational responsibility to call for employee accountability. Either I was unfit to be a pastor as Lincoln declared, or he was wrong in his accusation. If the leaders to whom I’d turned weren’t able to pass summary judgment as to the impropriety of his actions (just on the face of things), then they needed to investigate. Either he or I or both needed to be held accountable. Should they feel the need to do so, I said, they were welcome to investigate me all they wanted, whether in terms of workplace performance or family relationships. I had nothing to hide. But they refused to play that administrative role.

3. Third, had I accepted their offer of conflict-resolution oversight, I would have been responsible for all my own costs in getting to Silver Spring, Maryland. They didn’t say, “Because our employee’s actions have precipitated the need for this, we’ll pay the costs or even assist in some way.” No, it was all to be borne by me, according to the policy. Why should I personally have to pay to try to have my name cleared in a church-employment setting where an employee under their direction had acted improperly?

4. Fourth, while those pushing me to utilize the conflict-resolution provision said that Lincoln had requested that we avail ourselves of such a procedure, he hasn’t communicated with us in any way since October 16, 2006. If he really had any change of heart and saw the need to retract anything he said or to acknowledge the impropriety of having taken his vendetta into the workplace, that would be one thing. But it appeared that his request for the conflict-resolution process was nothing more than a “my employer has a gun to my head” request. (And subsequent to my declining to participate, Robert Kyte stated more than once that he didn’t think Lincoln’s attitudes had changed.)

5. Fifth, since I’d repeatedly asked if this matter should be addressed in some other venue, and had been repeatedly told that it had to be dealt with privately, there was a definite smell of insincerity and hypocrisy when suddenly a must-use venue emerged the moment I threatened by certified letter to take the story to the church as a whole.

6. Sixth, the response of the high-level church-headquarters leaders during the first eight months of our interaction had so gutted the conflict-resolution process of its positive potential that it offered minimal positive hope. Despite what Pastor Thomsen or Robert Kyte might say, the leaders to whom I’d turned had already passed judgment. They’d said emphatically and repeatedly that it wasn’t a workplace matter—even though their employee had chosen to malign another employee in the workplace before yet other employees. So even if in a conflict-resolution process the verdict went my way, Lincoln knew that his employers wouldn’t hold him to his obligations, because they’d already ruled the matter outside their jurisdiction. Further, he knew—because he’s received a copy of every letter sent either direction—that I was being maligned by Pastor Thomsen. I was being treated as if I were out of line for having raised the issue in the first place, and I was told—despite the documentation I supplied, despite the witness I said could corroborate my contentions and despite my willingness to be investigated—that my statements were “open to interpretation as to their veracity.”

7. Seventh, the clincher was that if I participated in a personal conflict-resolution process, I would be tacitly admitting that this was purely a personal matter and not a workplace issue. While it may have started out primarily as a personal/family issue, when it was taken into the workplace, as Lincoln chose to do, it ceased to be just a personal/family matter. It became a workplace issue. And, quite amazingly, early this year, Attorney Kyte outlined a process that he said he hoped “would result in resolution of any outstanding issues related to any actions Lincoln took in communicating in your workplace” (emphasis mine). When the church’s chief attorney states that what’s done by a high-profile church-headquarters employee against a pastor was done in the pastor’s workplace, it sounds like even he recognizes that he’s dealing with a workplace issue—the position I’ve consistently maintained. (How does that old saying go? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s reasonable to assume that it is a duck!)

For the foregoing reasons and others enumerated in my letters, I declined the church-headquarters offer of a personal conflict-resolution process. And in the intervening months up to now, we’ve had a standoff. I consistently maintain that at a spiritual level and at an administrative level, the high-level church-headquarters leaders have an obligation to call for accountability. They just as adamantly deny such an obligation. The major stylistic difference between us is that I’ve put forth voluminous arguments as to why I take the position I have, and they respond with merely pontifical statements that I’m wrong in my thinking—or they respond with dead silence. They have yet to offer a reasoned rationale. And they’ve repeatedly sought to denigrate me.

After some twenty-two months of their interaction and refusal to interact, it has become clear that no one at the church’s headquarters is going to pursue justice on my behalf. The best they’re prepared to do is provide a venue in which Lincoln and I can thrash it out ourselves (which, of course, Leonie and I tried to do immediately after Lincoln’s initial assaults—and had tried to do for years before that). But they’re not prepared to admit that they have any type of spiritual or administrative responsibility to act when one of their high-profile church-headquarters colleagues does what Lincoln did in the workplace.

Nor will they pursue justice on Lincoln’s behalf—because, after all, if he’s right in the allegations he has made (specifically, that I’m guilty of behavior that’s “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry”) then action should have been taken against me. Not to mention that the church as a whole deserves to know that church employees will be held accountable for their behavior, especially their behavior in the workplace. When the leaders who are entrusted with providing such justice categorically refuse to play the role to which they’ve been called, I, as an employee who has appealed to them, see only two options:

Option One: I can try just to get on with life and ignore what has been done/not done by the church’s leaders at the highest levels. I can continue to work hard, trying to black out thoughts of the spiritual/emotional/psychological abuse to which my family and I are being subjected. I can continue to promote and support the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I can continue to encourage young men and women to enter denominational employment, despite what I know about the treatment that may well lie ahead for them.

I can try to adjust to the tragic reality that there may be nothing I can do when a high-profile headquarters employee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church circulates letters to my fellow pastors declaring my sons to be guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.”

I can try to turn a blind eye to the accusations circulated to my fellow ministers by a high-profile headquarters employee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church stating that my wife is guilty of behavior for which “there is no offence equal.”

I can try to act as if it’s normal and acceptable behavior for a high-profile headquarters employee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to circulate letters to my fellow ministers declaring me to be guilty of behavior that’s “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.”

And I can go along with my fingers crossed, hoping these matters won’t raise their ugly head again at some point in the future, perhaps in some new form or in some new venue. (Remember, Lincoln Steed—my brother-in-law, mind you—has persisted in denigrating me in the workplace for more than twenty years. So, barring the willingness of those to whom he’s answerable to bring some form of moral perspective, the chances of that behavior pattern not continuing in some manner and in some venue are slim indeed.)

Option Two: I can refuse to accept the high-level administrative brush-off and persist in my pursuit of justice, recognizing, of course, that a heavy and totally unfair price tag may well be attached.

For starters, refusing to accept the verdict of top-level leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church will anger them. Administrative anger leads to administrative retaliation—as has been evidenced to some degree already. The leaders will try to throw the blame back onto me, even though I’m just the victim/messenger. I mean, were it not for me, Pastor Thomsen claims (quite incorrectly and quite unjustifiably), no one at the church’s headquarters would even know about the matter—as if my reporting of the facts is somehow something I should be ashamed of.

Those high-level leaders I call to account will probably seek to diminish my credibility—as they already have—in a variety of ways. After all, they say, it’s “open to interpretation as to the veracity” of my statements. I’ll no doubt be labeled “disgruntled,” “dissident,” “disloyal,” “unbalanced,” “obsessive”—when all I asked was that the church’s policies be followed just as they’re written—which, incidentally, coincide with the clear calls of scripture regarding some of the most basic of spiritual responsibilities. But what has been done to date to discredit me is nothing compared to what’s likely to emerge, granted the fact that I’ve taken the story public.

One high-level church-quarters leader has already threatened me with the suggestion that, should I actually take this story public, it will only exacerbate the problem. I mean, do I really want the Seventh-day Adventist public to hear the details of what my family and I have been accused of—not to mention the additional accusations that may have been shared with the high-level church-headquarters leaders in the privacy of their offices? What would that do to our public image?

Such questions are a classic tactic used by abusers of all kinds: “Don’t you realize that _____________ [Mommy, Daddy, Aunt Sally, you, I, our family, the church, whoever—just fill in the blank] will get hurt if anyone finds out? We wouldn’t want that, now would we?” Abuse survives only because the abusers are so often able to keep their dirty little secrets behind closed doors. And spiritual/emotional/psychological abuse within the church is no different from abuse anywhere else. The Adventist Review quotes Jan Paulsen (from a presentation to an “Abuse and Violence Taskforce” convened in Silver Spring Maryland): “We need to develop a culture of kindness, care, consideration, [and] non-abuse. . . . [Abuse] is not just physical; mental abuse can be just as bad.” I wholeheartedly agree.

Of course, I’m in no way oblivious to the fact that my employment itself is unfairly placed in jeopardy by the actions I’m taking here. And that’s not something I take lightly, because I love being a pastor and I love my congregation. Thus I desperately hate the thought of my congregation or anyone in any congregation being injured because of a confrontation with high-level church-headquarters leaders that could so easily have been avoided had the clear teaching of scripture, the equally clear policies of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, commonly understood administrative obligation and mere commonsense been applied in a timely manner. In other words, even basic, civil, secular morality. Tragically, that hasn’t happened.

So the outcome of my refusal to bow to hierarchical pressure evokes a definitely ominous shadow—and I cherish no illusions to the contrary. The sad fact is that one had better count the cost carefully before taking on “city hall.” But there comes a point when not to do so is to compromise the very core of one’s moral being.

#7 of 54. Questions raised and answered

2008-08-12T22:06:00.009-04:00

“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

#8 of 54. The sad saga in full: a documentary

2008-08-12T22:00:00.005-04:00

“I find it highly offensive that the high-handedness and intransigence of leaders at our church’s headquarters have forced me to take so much time already—time that should have been dedicated to my family and my church family—writing to request, and consistently being denied, a minuscule level of assistance, when that assistance should have been granted readily.” —James Coffin, letter dated July 26, 2007.

The letters provided in the following full, unabridged and annotated version of this story contain a considerable amount of repetition—both within the letters themselves and between the shorter version of the story that you may have already read. What you’ll find below isn’t how I would choose to structure a story were I setting about to write one. Obviously, I had no idea at the beginning that this sad process would drag on and on and on and on as it has. I hoped to write one letter and have the matter appropriately laid to rest within a day or two of its receipt—which wasn’t an unreasonable expectation.

So what we have here isn’t a well-crafted story; it’s an archive. Quite a comprehensive archive, I might add. The constant repetition of certain facts in letter after letter would, one might think, drive home crucial points and perhaps bring about some change in the thinking of the six high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom the letters are addressed. But no amount of repetition, no amount of argumentation, no new facts and not even an individual invitation to distance themselves from what has been said and done seem to have made any impact.

I see only three possible explanations for the response of the high-level church-quarters leaders to whom these letters have been addressed:

Possible Explanation One. The high-level church-headquarters leaders know in their heart of hearts that what Lincoln Steed has done, and how they’ve responded, is truly out of line—but they aren’t going to admit it, having once taken and defended an alternative position. In short, it’s a self-image, stubbornness, power thing. If that’s the case, it’s a sad day for the church. It’s tragic if high-level leaders would allow such considerations to lead them further and further down a path they know to be morally vacuous, and that they know is causing spiritual/emotional/psychological damage to a pastor and his family. In effect, they’re bearing false witness by leaving on the record major allegations from a high-profile church-headquarters employee concerning a pastor’s fitness for ministry, not to mention what has been said about the pastor’s wife and sons.

How could they possibly not know that both Lincoln’s actions and their response are wrong? To quote one person conversant with the details: “It’s a no-brainer. It’s inane.” I agree. I call it total nonsense. But more than that, it’s a travesty. It’s an abdication of the most basic responsibility of moral/spiritual leaders. I would expect any Seventh-day Adventist 10-year-old to have a basic understanding of what should and shouldn’t be done in such a case—let alone a group of experienced clergymen whose professional training (often to the doctoral level) revolved around, and whose everyday jobs center on, the articulation and application of biblical teachings!

Possible Explanation Two. (This is a variant of Possible Explanation One.) The six high-level church-headquarters leaders know in their heart of hearts that what Lincoln Steed has done is truly out of line—so out of line, in fact, that the legal implications frightened them, and they’ve reacted (perhaps on legal counsel) as I describe in my article “The Adventist Church and Lawsuits,” in the May-June 2008 issue of Adventist Today:

“Having in essence declared the aggrieved to be the enemy, having circled the wagons and hunkered down for the battle, having refused to engage in dialogue except to discredit the aggrieved and to minimize the magnitude of what has happened, having denied that anything improper has been done, it’s nearly impossible to suddenly switch to the Jesus model. The power of that model rests in its first-impression impact and its disarming openness and vulnerability.”

In short, this possible explanation suggests that they prepared for legal battle and have been caught off guard by the fact that I’ve pushed the moral-obligation aspects instead. It’s a sad day if, when a crisis arises, the reflexive response of leaders at the highest levels of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to seek and follow legal counsel rather than biblical counsel.

Possible Explanation Three. The high-level church-headquarters leaders actually don’t feel in their heart of hearts that what Lincoln Steed has done, and how they’ve responded, is out of line. They may truly believe just what they’ve said. They may actually believe that as spiritual leaders and administrators they have no right to provide spiritual perspective concerning one employee’s denigration of another employee before an audience of yet other employees. They may believe they have no such obligation at any time. Or they may just believe that they have no such obligation if the perpetrator is related to the victim by marriage. Further, they may truly feel that they have indeed been responsive, as Mr. Kyte suggests in his email of January 4, 2008. They may believe that they’ve followed appropriate steps in this matter and that the many policies and guidelines I’ve cited simply don’t apply in this case.

If they do actually believe such things, however, it’s a truly sad day for the church. Because it’s hard to say which is worse: knowing what’s right and refusing to do it (whatever the motivations); or being leaders at the highest level of a spiritual organization and not having a practical understanding of some of the most basic principles of scripture—especially when those principles have been reiterated repeatedly by the church and its leaders themselves, not to mention that those principles have been clearly codified in the church’s policies, guidelines and statements of values.

Keep in mind, I’ve never asked for any punitive measures whatsoever. I simply asked that the leaders to who I turned for assistance simply help Lincoln understand the impropriety of what he was doing, and use the influence of their relationship to him to pressure him to cease such activities, to not re-engage in them, and to undo, to the degree possible, what had been done already.

Whatever the explanation for their response, the following letters and emails tell a truly tragic story.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#9 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Oct. 5, 2006

2008-08-12T21:44:00.003-04:00

“We will respect and uplift our fellow employees. We will refrain from intentionally placing another in a position of embarrassment, disrespect, or harassment.” —Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees.

LETTER

October 5, 2006

Halvard B. Thomsen, Chairman, Editorial Board, Liberty
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

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600

RE: Defamatory letters being circulated by Lincoln Steed

Gentlemen:

In Matthew 18 we’re told that when differences arise between believers, the parties should seek to settle those differences through direct dialogue. Should that not prove effective, we’re told to seek assistance from others in the church. I’m coming to you for just such assistance, much as I regret having to do so.

Recently my brother-in-law, Lincoln Steed—whose sister, Leonie, is my wife—circulated defamatory letters about me and my family to a number of pastors and the president in the Florida Conference, where I serve. I have no idea how widely the printed material has been circulated or how many people have been talked to in person. But I do know that reports have filtered back from several sources both in Florida and elsewhere. The letters’ content, tone and recipients suggest a deliberate intent to diminish or destroy my credibility as a pastor (see the enclosed copies of Lincoln’s letters). I’ve written to Lincoln to discuss the matter with him, and he has responded by certified letter to inform me that he won’t be reading what I send. He returns, unopened, all letters he receives from either Leonie or me. And typically they’re returned in Liberty magazine envelopes (see photocopies). He has refused to extend to us the courtesy of even reading our responses to his allegations, let alone discussing them.

Sadly, for more than twenty years Lincoln has harbored antagonistic feelings toward me. The animosity goes back to 1984/1985 when the South Pacific Division extended an invitation for me to serve as senior editor at Signs Publishing Company, where Lincoln worked at the time as an assistant editor. It seems to be Lincoln’s perception that (a) I sought the job and that (b) I then conspired with the church leaders in the South Pacific to do him professional harm. On both counts, the facts are quite the opposite. In person and by letter, I’ve thoroughly explained the sequence and context of all that transpired at that time. However, he dismisses my explanations and continues to hold a grudge, not hesitating to share with others his negative opinions of me. By virtue of her marriage to me, Leonie also has become a recipient of Lincoln’s negative feelings. And, as the enclosed letters demonstrate, that attitude now extends to our three sons.

Major tensions have existed in Leonie’s family for years. A number of issues that her parents either failed or refused to address have produced a bitter harvest. It’s an objective though tragic fact that for more than two years before her father’s death, Leonie had no face-to-face interaction with her parents. It’s equally an objective though tragic fact that Leonie didn’t visit her father during his final illness, nor did she attend the family graveside service or the public memorial service. Nor did our three sons or I. But it’s a subjective value judgment to assume that her actions were simply because she’s “indulged and willful,” as Lincoln labeled her in the letters he sent out. Leonie wanted a relationship with her parents more than just about anything else in the world. But her father related to her in a manner that so robbed her of value and personhood that she had to distance herself as a matter of survival. The stress caused by her father’s incessant dismissal of every concern she expressed has taken a terrible toll physically, emotionally and spiritually.

The watershed came in January 2003. Despite the fact that Leonie had faced six years of unremitting stress (our oldest son was seriously injured in a near-fatal auto accident), health problems and a plethora of other burdens, her father, having become angry, systematically demeaned and belittled her for two hours, effectively ending their relationship. I’m fully convinced that he desperately wanted the relationship re-established. And so did Leonie. But he wanted forgiveness without confession and repentance. She made it clear that she could risk re-entering the relationship only if she had evidence that any future interaction would be on a different footing. Her father wouldn’t or couldn’t admit the need for change. He went to his grave without the sweet release of reconciliation. And he, Leonie, her mother, Lincoln and everyone else associated were the worse for it. The breakdown of relationships in the Steed family is truly tragic—from whatever perspective it’s viewed. But, as is always the case, there’s more than one side to the story. And Lincoln’s circulated letters present only one extremely partisan viewpoint.

A clear example of this is found in the letter (enclosed) that Leonie sent to her family before the memorial service. It was sent via her parents’ pastor and friend, _______________, with whom Leonie and I had counseled on several occasions concerning the estrangement. Lincoln describes Leonie’s letter as an “attempted written assassination.” But note the following concerning the cover letter Leonie provided to ____________ [her parents’ pastor]:

1. Her stated reason for writing was to “preclude a barrage of questions that will otherwise arise” concerning why she and her family were absent—questions that would have to be dealt with individually and repeatedly if not addressed in some other way.

2. She sought to address the matter in such a way that her mother—whose culpability she viewed to be far less than that of her father—wouldn’t “appear to have been a contributor to this sad saga.”

3. If her family didn’t agree that it would be good to read the letter at the memorial service, she said she was “not trying to force the issue.”

4. She definitely wanted the family to hear the letter because she was “heart-broken that it has come to this,” and she wanted them to know how much she also was suffering and sorrowing.

5. She said, “I would give anything for such a relationship to have existed that I would never even consider absenting myself from such a significant event.”

6. She alerted the pastor to the fact that “today is my mother’s 81st birthday,” so he would be aware.

The tone isn’t what I would expect of a cover letter for an “attempted written assassination.” But note the “attempted written assassination” itself:

1. The first three paragraphs contain nothing but unqualified compliments about her father’s abilities and achievements. He’s clearly depicted as a remarkable man. (In fact, _____________ [her parents’ pastor] asked if he could use the specific wording in his presentation, since the letter was unlikely to be read publicly. Leonie said yes.)

2. The next two paragraphs outline her father’s priorities and modus operandi. They also describe in a circumspect and generalized fashion—she could have been dramatically more strident and more specific—the main issues that led to her alienation from him and her absence from his bedside and his memorial service.

3. Then she describes the intense sorrow she feels. The letter is the cry of a broken heart—Leonie’s heart. So, with all due respect to Lincoln’s choice of words, Leonie’s letter and its cover note in no way resemble what I believe the recipients of his letters would envision, based on his description. An “attempted written assassination”? Hardly. Furthermore, I believe that no allegation in Lincoln’s letters stands up to serious scrutiny any better than does his “attempted written assassination” label. Although I have no interest in airing dirty family linen, I’m more than willing to answer any questions raised in your minds because of Lincoln’s portrayals of me—be they past, present or future. I’m a player in a saga that’s about as sad as I can imagine. But I have nothing to hide.

I would hope that my track record during 31 years of pastoral and editorial ministry would be adequate, among those who know me, to counteract the effects of Lincoln’s efforts to discredit. However, for those who don’t know me, it’s a different matter. As the scriptures say, “The first to present his case seems right” (Proverbs 18:17, NIV). When a pharaoh arises who knows not Joseph, Lincoln’s prior planting of negative suggestions could yield a negative harvest for me.

Unfortunately, I have no idea who and how many have received Lincoln’s testimony, either orally or in writing. But I do know the devastation that his campaign against us has caused Leonie. For her, his approach is déjà vu—it’s her father all over again. Her own brother—to whom she has poured out her heart concerning the convolutions of this tragic situation—so dismisses her that he’s taking specific steps to jeopardize her husband’s employment and thus her wellbeing. His letters declare to others that our sons are guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.” He declares to my conference president and my colleagues in ministry that I’m guilty of behavior that’s “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.” Yet he refuses to read any letters of explanation and clarification from us.

The sad fact is, Lincoln’s actions have far-reaching implications. For me. For my family. For my congregation. For my mother-in-law—who’ll be increasingly embarrassed and hurt as more and more details of family dysfunction are brought into the public/church arena. And, much as he may not realize it, Lincoln is badly hurting himself by his course of action. Nor does it help the image of Liberty magazine. Or the church in general.

It has to stop.

I’ve requested an attorney to send a sensitively worded cease-and-desist letter to Lincoln —not because I want to deal with him through the legal system but because I do indeed want him to cease and desist. I want him to be awakened to the fact that, the Golden Rule aside, there are civil laws against what he’s doing. But that doesn’t undo what he’s already done. Nor does it provide any guarantees. Which is why I’m coming to you. I’m not asking you to heal the wounds within the Steed family. Or even to pass judgment on degrees of guilt and innocence. 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.

I just want to be able to get back to focusing on my pastoral ministry and my family. I want to be freed from having to spend time trying to salvage my reputation. I want my wife and sons to be certain that the intense pain to which they’ve been subjected isn’t going to be exacerbated by a new round of attacks.

I thank you for your time, I thank you in anticipation for your help, and I wish you God’s blessing as you minister for Him each day.

Sincerely,

James Coffin
[Address provided]

P.S. My cell phone number is__________, should you wish to reach me.

Copies:
Mike Cauley, President, Florida Conference
Lincoln E. Steed

Enclosures:
Lincoln Steed letter and cover letter
Leonie Coffin letter and cover letter
Photocopies of envelopes

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#10 of 54. Letter from Lincoln Steed (Undated)

2008-08-12T21:21:00.007-04:00

“From the point of view of someone of faith . . . , what sort of self-indulgent, abusive discussion are we allowing here?” —Lincoln E. Steed, editor of Liberty magazine, in a radio interview, commenting on the excessive language of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

LETTER

[The following letter was an enclosure in James Coffin’s letter of October 5, 2006, provided to inform six high-level church-headquarters leaders concerning what we were dealing with. The letter, undated, was sent to me and circulated to a still-unknown number of recipients in early August 2006.]

To James Coffin

I am writing this the same evening my father had his second surgery to address the-out-of-control lymphoma-related growth that has severely compromised his ability to function. While he survived the surgery, it was likely the last time he will be able to communicate coherently with us, and I expect his actual death in hours rather than days.

A week ago I sent Leonie the nicest appeal to her sense of charity that I could compose. So long as it was given to her I can do no more. If you withheld it, I cannot even comprehend a human explanation. However I know that ________________ [another brother and sister-in-law] kept you informed.

How we each will face the ultimate passage I cannot know. But I am so gratified that Dad faced it with confidence, even joy. He spoke often of his hope in the Lord during the trials of the past few days. As they wheeled him out for the second surgery, which he had been told was necessary else he would be in a coma by the next day, and an operation presented to him as only a high risk way to gain a few more days, be [sic] left calling out “I am an ambassador of the Heavenly King.” In the elevator he was singing “There is a happy land,” and as the anesthetist put him under they prayed together. I am happy amid tears to know this is how he is leaving.

I believe God in mercy sent him visions of those of his family not there. Going into the first surgery his last words were “Is Leonie here yet?” Some days later he said he saw her looking through the IC ward window at him. Today he told me that your three sons were in the room talking to him.

I cannot comprehend a child so completely cutting off contact with her father as to persist with it to his grave. There is no offence equal to that. Even less plausible is a cutting off with a mother for his offense.

Twice I have attended funerals for [Lincoln’s wife’s name] ____________’s family—her father and her sister. I can assure you that even if we were separated/divorced, if the family let me know of their situation I would attend out of respect and compassion. The obligation to respect our parents does indeed extend to our spouse’s parents.

Over the years I have often heard both of my parents extol you with pride, and I, even at the time when I could not think of much reason to have dealings with you, always told them and the few people that I discussed such matters with, that you were a good husband and father.

But how can that be reconciled with the attitude of your three sons? I again am at a loss to imagine? To suggest, as my mother does in her endless defense of them and Leonie, that they are being loyal to their mother is to miss the point entirely. They are adults now. ________ [one son’s name] may not have seen them weeping as he lay in a coma, but it was only one aspect of doting grandparents reaching out to him and each of the three boys now men. I, too, never hesitated to come when __________ [one son’s name] was ill, and will come if Leonie is ever in truly desperate straits. But how could these three men sit at home as their own blood grandfather dies and, surely as night follows day, their grandmother at an earlier time than otherwise? There is a systemic inhumanity here that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.

Doubtless you will find my comments as offensive as I find the Coffin family behavior inhuman—quite apart from unchristian. I cannot even suggest a remedy now. I can forgive you as Dad has done, but I cannot undo what’s done, nor do I have the gift of amnesia. I hope to see your family at the funeral, but I know that funeral tears are of necessity largely for the benefit of the attendees themselves. It is not a good place to deal with regrets.

PS The above was written the night of the last surgery and before Dad’s death the next day. Now, a few days after the funeral/memorial services and the attempted written assassination you and Leonie introduced, I must add a last thought.

God help you both! The supreme irony of withholding all contact from someone until their death because you felt they did not give adequate attention in your time of need cannot be lost on anyone who hears the story, regardless of your justification—and of course they will hear this story. You should thank God that till now my parents were too constrained by love and decency from telling any but a few close confidants. That you (Leonie and her coauthor) should dare accuse Dad of being controlling flies in the face of the fact that she was indulged and willful, and that your role in these events easily answers to the term controlling. How you can even look at your congregation without shame, much less speak of the deep things of the Spirit[,] escapes me.

Lincoln Steed

Comment from James Coffin: Lincoln notes in his letter above: "A week ago I sent Leonie the nicest appeal to her sense of charity that I could compose. So long as it was given to her I can do no more. If you withheld it, I cannot even comprehend a human explanation." Lincoln clearly insinuates that I intercepted his letter and kept it from Leonie.

The facts are, his letter indeed had gone astray, along with some other mail—though several weeks later we discovered what had happened to it. When I wrote to Lincoln to explain to him what we'd discovered about the letter's whereabouts, he returned my letter, unopened. He wasn't interested in reading anything we had to say. However, when he wrote to us by certified mail, alerting us to the fact that he wouldn't be reading anything we might write to him, he sent Leonie a copy of the missing letter—because he wanted to be heard. He expected us to read what he wrote. He just wasn't prepared to extend the same courtesy to her or to me.

Sadly, it's a pattern Leonie has faced throughout life—from her father, from her brother and from several separate sets of church administrators, including the six to whom we turned for help in this case.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#11 of 54. Letter from Lincoln Steed (Undated)

2008-08-12T21:16:00.002-04:00

“Who steals my purse steals trash. . . . But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.” —William Shakespeare, Othello.

LETTER

[The following letter, undated, was the second enclosure in James Coffin’s letter of October 5, 2006. The following is the cover letter sent (along with his undated letter to me) by Lincoln Steed in early August 2006 to a still-unknown number of recipients.]

Dear Pastor ____________,

Inasmuch as you are an associate of Jim Coffin and have probably heard some garbled version of recent events, I want you to read the following note that I have sent to Pastor Jim Coffin. Doubtless there is a self-serving explanation to the Coffin actions—but it must be asked What could possibly lead them to ostracize an old couple and systematically deny all attempts at contact until my father’s death and burial? Their own statement which they attempted to introduce at the memorial through a proxy brings the accusation down to _____________ [Lincoln and Leonie’s father] having an overly controlling nature and an over commitment to the church. Even taken at face value, which I would not, that absolutely exposes the Coffin stance as insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.

Lincoln Steed
[Work phone number provided]

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#12 of 54. Email from Leonie Coffin, Jul. 27, 2006

2008-08-12T21:10:00.004-04:00

“The freedom to exercise moral and ethical judgment is an essential ingredient in the dignity of personhood.” —Guidelines for Employer and Employee Relationships (voted by the 2003 Annual Council).

EMAIL

[The following email was sent to Leonie’s parents’ pastor on July 27, 2006. It was an enclosure in James Coffin’s letter of October 5, 2006.]

___________ [Pastor’s name],

I’ve shared my feelings with Jim and asked him to draft a letter on my behalf—because I simply don’t have the ability and the energy to do so right now. I’ve vetted his draft, and I’m sending it to you. This is what I would like to have read at my father’s memorial—not that I expect it will be. In my opinion, however, I think it would do more good than harm for it to be read. It will preclude a barrage of questions that will otherwise arise, and it addresses things in such a way that my mother doesn’t appear to have been a contributor to this sad saga. Others may not agree with my perspective, however. So I’m not trying to force the issue.

What I would ask is that, at the least, you read the letter to my family. (I see it as particularly important that it be read to them and not just handed to them.) I’m heart-broken that it has come to this. I would give anything for such a relationship to have existed that I would never even consider absenting myself from such a significant event.

Thanks for your help, and I’m sorry for the extra stress this causes you.

Leonie.

PS. Just so you are aware: Today is my mother’s 81st birthday.

My father, _______________, was a man of major accomplishments. Few people have achieved the things in life that he did. Whatever his hand found to do, he did it with all his might. He was a non-stop generator of ideas. Hundreds of ideas. And most of them, supported by his energy and enthusiasm, were winners. He was one of a kind.

My father was the consummate salesman. He never met a stranger. Every person he encountered was a sales project—to give up smoking, to quit drinking, to join the Adventist Church, to get involved in his latest venture. Where other people saw brick walls, he saw climbing opportunities—the chance to attain new heights from which new possibilities would surely be visible. He didn’t know the meaning of the words No and Can’t. He was a master of charm. And if charm didn’t work, sheer tenacity usually would.

My father was committed to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. A million percent. He ate it, drank it, slept it, breathed it. His focus during almost every waking moment was how to spread Adventism more effectively. As a young publishing director, he led his sales team to record-setting year after record-setting year. As youth director for the Greater Sydney Conference, he took the city by storm with his “Best Saturday Night in Town” programs. As director of the General Conference temperance department, he kept the administrators in a constant state of fear that his department would become the tail that wagged the GC dog. And retirement wasn’t a time for rest but a chance to try something new—church planting and the ensuing church building program.

With such an active program of church involvement and such an intense focus, my father’s interaction with his family was predicated on it (1) being his schedule, (2) addressing his agenda and (3) arriving at his conclusions. He had to be in control. He couldn’t waste time dealing with non-conformity or questioning or emotional weakness in the ranks at home when there was a world out there that needed to be saved.

I speak only for myself and not for my brothers, but my father’s absenteeism, both physically and emotionally, was extremely hurtful to me during my growing-up years. In retirement, however, when he no longer needed to earn his paycheck and no longer held the fate of his department in his hands, he unfortunately continued to put the church ahead of family—be it the celebration of milestones or bearing the burdens of family crises. My father’s repeated failure to be there for me, my children and my husband during times of indescribable need over the past few years—added to his adamant defense of his priorities and his strident denunciations of my pleas for him to change his priorities—means that I simply can’t risk being present at today’s memorial service.

Today is a time of sorrow for all who knew my father. A great achiever whose efforts have blessed many will no longer be in the trenches working. An amazing generator of ideas will no longer be coming up with new and better ways of achieving the goal. All who are present feel a justifiable sense of sorrow and loss.

Although I’m not present, my sorrow—though no less intense, and maybe even more so—is not so much over what has been lost but what might have been, yet never was. With my father’s passing, the last faint flicker of hope is gone that the kind of father-daughter relationship I so desperately needed, so desperately longed for and so desperately pleaded for will ever become a reality. I truly mourn with you at this time.

Leonie Coffin

#13 of 54. Letter from Janet D. Aldea, Oct. 10, 2006

2008-08-12T21:07:00.003-04:00

“[Pastors] are a very trusted, very important part of our church’s workforce.” —Jan Paulsen, president of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, to a group of pastors, September 14, 2007, Simi Valley, CA.

LETTER

October 10, 2006

Elder James Coffin
[Address provided]

Dear Elder Coffin:

Your letter dated October 5, 2006, has been received in the office of Elder Don C. Schneider. Currently Elder Schneider is attending General Conference Annual Council. When he is again at his desk attending to his correspondence, your letter and materials will be there for him.

Very sincerely,

Janet D. Aldea
Secretary to Don C. Schneider
President, North American Division

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#14 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Nov. 30, 2006

2008-08-12T20:56:00.010-04:00

#15 of 54. Letter from Lincoln Steed, Oct. 16, 2006

2008-08-12T20:47:00.003-04:00

“All intentional overstatement, every hint or insinuation calculated to convey an erroneous or exaggerated impression, even the statement of facts in such a manner as to mislead, is falsehood.” —Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets.

“We need to develop a culture of kindness, care, consideration, [and] non-abuse. . . . [Abuse] is not just physical; mental abuse can be just as bad.“ — Jan Paulsen, president of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, to the Abuse and Violence Taskforce, meeting in Silver Spring Maryland.

LETTER

[The following letter was an enclosure in James Coffin’s letter of November 30, 2006. This letter was sent overnight to my wife at home and to me at work after Lincoln learned that I had contacted six people at the church’s headquarters to whom he’s accountable.]

October 16, 2006
Jim/Leonie

In the few weeks since Dad’s death and my letter to you the immensity of the human tragedy wrapped up in the situation has continued to trouble my mind. Both in my letter to you and contacts with your associates I had hoped to impress on you both the need to reconcile with Mom before she dies. For her sake and yours. But after spending two days in hospital with what seemed like a heart attack, but was almost certainly my body complaining of the stress, I came to the conclusion that there is no more that I can do.

In my last letter to you, before I refused to answer any other letters because it is not good to magnify hurts that way, I wished you well in making peace with God. He must judge us all.

Perhaps we are each telling a different story, but I think we risk signaling to the brethren in the church that none of us want resolution. Surely that cannot be true!

Just today I read again a letter Dad wrote to his three children nearly two years ago. In part he wrote that “Despite our best efforts we come to the realization that we need a goodly measure of understanding, compassion, forgiveness and love about all the weakness of our humanity. Without a realization that God knows our need and His love, care and forgiveness toward us, often our case would be one of despair.” I still can’t understand what has led to this shunning of Mom, but I can forgive and I have for some weeks now decided I cannot become consumed by trying to intervene in this matter.

Again, I am praying for each of us to have healing. I pray for you and your family, and for ________________ [another brother and sister-in-law named], that we can ease our mother’s mind a little in her old age. None of us knows our time. All I know is that time is too short to burn it up in disputes. We may always have differences but I pray that I can apply more charity to where I see them—in myself and others.

Wishing you the best.

Lincoln.

Comments from James Coffin: Lincoln states in his letter of October 16, 2006: “I think we risk signaling to the brethren in the church that none of us want resolution. Surely that cannot be true!” Call me non-perceptive, but that’s exactly what the following five points suggest to me concerning his stance.

He (a) had openly declared that he was planning to circulate letters in an effort to make my life “miserable”; (b) he had said that others “will hear this story”; (c) he had already circulated such letters to an unknown number of my fellow ministers, denigrating my sons, my wife and me, as well as having carried on negative oral dialogue about us with his colleagues; (d) he had sent us a certified-mail letter alerting us to his intention not to read anything we might send him; and (e) he had in fact returned every letter either Leonie or I sent him after he made that declaration.

However, when he discovered that the matter had been reported to his workplace supervisors, he suddenly wrote to us in a seemingly altogether different tone—though, in many ways, even more misleading (the facts of which I won’t attempt to address here). As my wife, Leonie, similarly stated in her letter of May 14, 2007: “I haven’t attempted to counter the details of Lincoln’s accusations, as I do wish to retain as much privacy as possible. But for the record, I can assure you that you have not heard and do not know the sad truth.”

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#16 of 54. Letter from Halvard B. Thomsen, Dec. 4, 2006

2008-08-12T20:38:00.006-04:00

“We accept accountability for sound leadership decisions . . . .” —Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees.

“[A]ny further communication between us will not lead to different results. Consequently, I nor anyone else within the GC and NAD administrations will respond further to these communications.” —Halvard Thomsen in his third letter responding to James Coffin, after having written two previous letters—one with 17 lines of body text and one with 12 lines of body text.

LETTER

December 4, 2006

Pastor James Coffin
[Address provided]

Dear Pastor Coffin

I received your October 5 letter addressed to a number of recipients in the General Conference and North American Division on the 10th. First of all, allow me to share our sympathies for the recent loss of Leonie’s father. The passing of any family member is difficult at any time no matter what the present relationship is.

I apologize for my delay in responding to your letter. I appreciate your gracious acknowledgement of hectic schedules. Just now as I was writing you, my secretary handed me your November 30 letter. Shortly after receiving your first letter I spoke to Lincoln asking him not to involve the Church in these matters or by his writing imply any connection of his personal family matters with those of Liberty magazine. He has indicated a positive response to our requests.

We feel that the matter you have raised regarding relationships within the Steed family are of a private family nature that should be dealt with accordingly. I am not aware that anyone to whom you addressed your letters has received any letter from Lincoln on this matter, though perhaps some to whom you copied it have.

While we wish you the very best in the future, be assured that our intent is not to intrude into such private matters or to cast judgments on matters about which we do not have complete facts and have no reason to become involved.

May the Lord bless and lead in your lives.

Sincerely

Halvard B. Thomsen
Chair, Liberty Editorial Board
Assistant to the President for Administration, North American Division

cc:
Eugene Hsu, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Jan Paulsen, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Don Scheider [sic], Consulting Editor, Liberty
John Graz, Consulting Editor, Liberty
Robert Kyte, Office of General Counsel
Mike Cauley, President, Florida Conference
Lincoln E. Steed

#17 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Jan. 18, 2007

2008-08-12T18:14:00.005-04:00

“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?” —James Coffin, in a letter dated January 18, 2007.

LETTER

January 18, 2007

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

RE: More on defamatory letters circulated by Lincoln Steed

Dear Pastor Thomsen,

Thank you for your letter of December 4. I appreciate your taking time to reply, and I apologize that your time has had to be spent on a matter that should never have arisen in the first place. But, unfortunately, it has arisen. Therefore my time and energy—as well as yours—have been swept into this vortex, much as we both might wish otherwise.

You note that it’s not your intent “to intrude into such private matters or to cast judgments.” I agree wholeheartedly that private matters should be dealt with privately. However, Lincoln chose to take a private matter to the public—to a segment of the church public (how large a segment we still don’t know, because he hasn’t had the courtesy to tell us).

As I said to you in my initial letter: “I’m not asking you to heal the wounds within the Steed family. Or even to pass judgment on degrees of guilt and innocence. 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 my original letter).

I appreciate the fact that you spoke with Lincoln concerning those areas where your interests and mine intersect. Your interests relate to your position as one of the church leaders who oversees Lincoln. You recognize that you, the church and Liberty magazine can be significantly impacted by the repercussions of his actions. My interests relate to the fact that he engaged in a deliberate campaign to defame my sons, my wife and me. So while I appreciate your willingness to look out for my interests when they parallel yours, I must politely but candidly suggest that you dropped the ball when only we stood to benefit—and I speak here of my request for you to help Lincoln understand the need “to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already.” Simply telling him not to do it again isn’t the same as exerting pressure for him to make right the wrong he has committed.

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 would think that the very flamboyance of the language Lincoln used in the letters he sent to my colleagues would give you pause as an administrator. I would think it wouldn’t be too complicated to recognize that Lincoln acted inappropriately when, without having spoken even one word to my sons about his concerns about them, he sent out letters declaring them to be guilty of a “systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.” Not to mention that he said equally damning things about my wife and me.

I ask you, Pastor Thomsen, how would you feel if a fellow church employee sent out letters—to people who were total strangers to him—describing your children in the foregoing terms (assuming you have children)? Would you not feel strongly that such action is inappropriate? Would you not feel that some form of retraction was in order? (In fact, what kind of parent would you be if you didn’t feel that way?) Would you not feel that it’s no longer a private matter when it has been taken to the public? Would you not expect church leaders, even if only superficially aware of the facts, to be willing to put pressure on the perpetrator to take steps to undo the damage caused by such a lapse in Christian/ethical behavior?

How would you recommend that I explain to my wife, my sons and my fellow employees in our church office (at least one of whom received Lincoln’s letters) that as Lincoln’s employers in a Christian organization you don’t want to become involved because it’s a “private” matter? Really? Private? When out of the blue they received defamatory letters from Lincoln? What would it take for something to become a public matter?

And where does the Golden Rule come into play? How would you want to be treated if the tables were turned? Or do you believe that Lincoln’s actions were honorable? Keep in mind, 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.

I must repeat that I have great difficulty understanding the basis on which you categorize Lincoln’s actions as a private matter. If because of a disagreement I have with you I publish and distribute a book designed to destroy your credibility as a minister, is it still a private matter? . . . If in my book I describe your behavior as “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with pastoral ministry,” is that a private matter? Would you expect church administrators to whom you turn for help to say, “Oh, that’s just a private matter between the two of you”? Certainly, it may have started out that way. But when an issue is deliberately taken to a broader forum, it’s no longer private—whether delivered in the form of a broadcast, a voice recording, a book, letters or direct conversations.

Let me ask: If this matter is outside your domain as a church administrator, whose domain is in it? 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? I think the Bible is pretty clear.

In bringing this matter to you, I’ve followed the procedures outlined in Matthew 18. I fully understand why you would desperately like to have it ruled outside your jurisdiction on the technicality that it’s a private matter. But it ceased to be private when Lincoln chose to take it public. Some moral obligations on leaders are inescapable, however uncomfortable they may be.

The Bible says: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!” (1 Corinthians 6:2, 3.) If you feel you can’t put any pressure on Lincoln because you don’t know the whole story, then, as I stated in my initial letter to you, I’m certainly willing to have you probe the whole story. I have nothing whatsoever to hide. But I believe that one doesn’t need to know the whole story to recognize the impropriety of Lincoln’s actions.

I thank you for having spoken to Lincoln, “asking him not to involve the Church in these matters or by his writing to imply any connection of his personal family matters with those of Liberty magazine.” And I’m glad that he “has indicated a positive response” to your requests—as far as those requests went. Your interests have been well covered. But ours haven’t.

So I now ask you again to put pressure on Lincoln “to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already”—in other words, for him to send a letter to all recipients of both his written and oral defamatory comments, acknowledging the impropriety of his actions. It’s neither an unreasonable nor an inappropriate request. And I look forward to confirmation from you that, in the same way you addressed the first part of my request, you have addressed this part as well.

I wish you God’s richest blessing in your ministry. And, again, I apologize that your time is being taken up by this most unfortunate matter.

Sincerely,

James Coffin

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

#18 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Mar. 14, 2007

2008-08-12T17:49:00.004-04:00

“If, after investigation, you that feel [sic] what he [Lincoln Steed] says is true, then I would encourage you, as leaders, to fulfill your moral/spiritual obligation to safeguard the integrity of the church as a whole and recommend to the Florida Conference that I be terminated for behavior that is—to repeat Lincoln’s words—‘insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.’” —James Coffin, letter dated March 14, 2007.

LETTER

March 14, 2007

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

RE: Inaction regarding defamatory letters circulated by Lincoln Steed

Dear Pastor Thomsen,

On January 18, 2007, I wrote to you, responding to your letter of December 4. In that letter you noted (concerning Lincoln Steed’s defamatory letters and conversations about my sons, my wife and me) that it wasn’t your intent “to intrude into such private matters or to cast judgments.” I explained in my response that when something is deliberately taken public, as Lincoln chose to do, it’s no longer a private matter. Lincoln sent out an unknown number of letters to my fellow church employees, including my conference president, declaring me to be guilty of behavior that’s “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.” (And this was done without any prior communication with me regarding his concerns.)

Only when Lincoln repeatedly and categorically refused to discuss his accusations with my wife and me did I come to you, as the advisers/administrators to whom he’s accountable. I didn’t ask that he be fired or censured for his actions. As objectively and as dispassionately as I could, I simply alerted you to the problem, provided alternative perspectives and made certain requests. I stated: “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). It’s the latter part of my request that you haven’t honored and about which I write yet again.

When a family member takes the extraordinary step of circulating letters to people who are total strangers to him—in addition to making oral comments to his acquaintances—defaming his brother-in-law, his sister and his nephews, he clearly takes seriously what he’s saying. Further, he obviously hopes that the recipients of his letters and comments will also take his words seriously. And I can assure you that I take them seriously. So I’m asking that you also take them seriously. I’m asking that you declare Lincoln’s actions to be inappropriate—because on the very face of it they are—and urge him to provide a retraction to all who received his initial communications. However, if you feel you can’t take such a step because of the limited information you currently have, I’m asking that you investigate Lincoln’s allegations against me to determine their validity.

If, after investigation, you that feel [sic] what he says is true, then I would encourage you, as leaders, to fulfill your moral/spiritual obligation to safeguard the integrity of the church as a whole and recommend to the Florida Conference that I be terminated for behavior that is—to repeat Lincoln’s words—“insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.” If, on the other hand, you determine that his statements are unwarranted, then I would request that you fulfill your moral/spiritual obligation to safeguard the reputation of a church employee who has been defamed and take whatever steps are necessary to pressure Lincoln “to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already.”

I’m willing to provide you with whatever documentation and explanation you seek. I’m even willing to come to Silver Spring to meet with you to answer any allegation Lincoln might raise in addition to what has already been circulated. But I want this matter laid to rest––totally and completely, once and for all. And it’s appropriate that I should expect your help. He’s your employee, after all, and it was to other church employees that he spread his allegations. His efforts to discredit me in the eyes of those who work under me, above me and as equals qualify not only as defamation but also as harassment.

Lincoln, a high-profile denominational employee, deserves to be treated seriously. He has publicly disseminated major allegations against my family and me in an attempt to discredit us. Those allegations may be either true or false. I maintain they’re false. But, either way, it’s a disservice to him to ignore them merely because they’re inconvenient and hard to deal with.

Likewise, I, another denominational employee, deserve to be treated seriously. Lincoln has described my family in terms normally reserved for universally recognized perpetrators of extreme evil. Circulating letters that declare my sons to be guilty of a “systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency” is no casual indictment. (Again, these accusations were circulated without one word to them beforehand regarding his concerns.) But if you feel you can’t, just on the face of it, condemn your employee’s actions, then at least do all of us the courtesy of investigating and establishing the truth or otherwise of what he claims. (Obviously, a fair investigation must be predicated on the opportunity for full input from both Lincoln and me.)

For more than thirty years I’ve tried to give excellent service to this denomination. In whatever capacity I’ve found myself, I’ve tried to go beyond the call of duty in my expenditure of time and energy and creativity. My family has had to make significant sacrifice because of my commitment to the cause. I’ve taken seriously my responsibilities as a youth pastor, as an editor and as a senior pastor. I’ve sought to treat all people fairly—including Lincoln.

I’ve sought to be an advocate for the weak and disenfranchised. I’ve sought to be a healer of broken relationships. When I’ve failed—or have even been perceived to have failed—I’ve sought to shoulder more than my fair share of the blame to help foster healing. I believe that any objective onlooker would find it totally reasonable that I should ask you, as the employer/overseer of someone who has undertaken a deliberate campaign of defamation against my family and me, either to summarily declare his actions to be inappropriate or, at the very least, seek to determine the validity of the allegations. To refuse to do either is a dereliction of duty on your part.

I fully appreciate that you have a busy schedule, so I didn’t expect an immediate reply to my letter of January 18. But I would have thought that more than seven weeks provided adequate response time. I likewise understand that all of us have items in our “too hard” basket that we wish would just disappear.

But this situation isn’t going to disappear. I’ll continue to press the issue because truth and justice haven’t been served—and I believe that in your heart of hearts you know I’m right. My persistence is more for my wife and my sons than for me. It’s one thing for someone to defame me. It’s altogether different when it’s my wife and children who are maligned. But, the sad fact is, when something is done to hurt me, it also hurts them.

If there is some other venue in which this matter should be addressed, then tell me what that venue is. But at least extend the courtesy of responding in a timely manner to my requests and questions. To do otherwise is to be an accessory-after-the fact to behavior that’s both unethical and illegal. By your unwillingness to appropriately counsel your employee, you are aiding and abetting behavior that I don’t think you really wish to support. Can you truthfully tell me that you don’t believe that what Lincoln did was inappropriate?

Again, I thank you for having spoken to Lincoln, “asking him not to involve the Church in these matters or by his writing to imply any connection of his personal family matters with those of Liberty magazine.” I now ask you yet again to put pressure on Lincoln “to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already”—in other words, for him to send a letter to all recipients of both his written and oral comments, clearly and unequivocally acknowledging the impropriety of his actions and disavowing his defamatory comments, without adding new ones. And if he refuses to send such a letter, I’m asking you to get from him a list of those with whom he has communicated and send a pointed and specific letter yourself. Nothing short of this will be acceptable. This is neither an unreasonable nor an inappropriate request—though I recognize that it’s uncomfortable for you and nothing short of tragic that the need for such an action even exists.

I wish you God’s guidance and His richest blessing in your ministry. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

James Coffin

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

#19 of 54. Letter from Halvard B. Thomsen, Mar. 30, 2007

2008-08-12T17:44:00.004-04:00

“I came away from my recent conversation with church pastors reinforced in my conviction that we need to listen carefully to what these servants of the Lord say to us as leaders. Some of them feel that there is a disconnect between leadership and themselves. Where that is true, . . . leadership must take the initiative to correct it.” —Jan Paulsen, president of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, in a presentation titled “Shared Responsibility—Shared Trust.”

“[A]ny further communication between us will not lead to different results. Consequently, I nor anyone else within the GC and NAD administrations will respond further to these communications.” —Halvard Thomsen in his third letter responding to James Coffin, after having written two previous letters—one with 17 lines of body text and one with 12 lines of body text.

LETTER

March 30, 2007

James Coffin
[Address provided]

Dear Pastor Coffin --

Your January and March letters addressed to me and copied to a number of recipients in the General Conference and North American Division are in hand. You are correct that they came in the midst of an unusually heavy travel schedule during the first months of this year.

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.

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 which you raise in your correspondence simply must be handled in a private manner.

Sincerely

Halvard B. Thomsen
Chair, Liberty Editorial Board
Assistant to the President for Administration, North American Division

HBT:jda

xc:
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

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

2008-08-12T17:27:00.003-04:00

“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

#21 of 54. Letter from Leonie Coffin, May 14, 2007

2008-08-12T16:59:00.007-04:00

“I want Adventists to be known as honest people who teach and practice morality, people with the highest ethical standards. . . .” —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.

“I can tell you that in over 30 years as a minister’s wife, the greatest injustice and lack of care and consideration toward us has come from those who preach Christianity the loudest—yet who have an abundant inability to practice what they preach.” —Leonie Coffin, letter dated May 14, 2007.

LETTER

May 14, 2007

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

Dear Pastor Thomsen,

I’m not writing this letter to plead and beg for you to take action in response to my brother Lincoln’s defamation of my family; I’m simply going on the record about my feelings concerning your unwillingness to implement the most basic of Christian principles by encouraging him to try to undo his ill-advised actions.

In response to Lincoln’s public defamation of my husband, myself and our sons in August 2006, my husband, Jim, eventually turned to you to ask for specific help. Despite the unbelievable pain Lincoln caused us just after my father’s death, we attempted for weeks to write to him and deal with the matter personally and privately. He made his position abundantly clear when he returned our correspondence and stated (by certified mail) that he had no intention of communicating with us about anything.

Lincoln apparently believes he has the right to throw dirt at people and then run and hide in both a self-righteous and cowardly manner. Unfortunately, that has been his trademark in his relationship with Jim and me for over 30 years. Only when he chose to take his animosity public (to a group of church employees)—and then adamantly refused to communicate with us—did we finally turn to those church administrators he is accountable to. Not only has he tried to publicly destroy my husband’s reputation as a minister, but that of our children and myself. Therefore, we felt we had no choice but to appeal for help.

Your obvious unwillingness to address the very real problem Lincoln has created has not escaped me. Not only have my husband’s letters been ignored as much as possible by those to whom they’ve been addressed at the GC, but your recent response when he yet again asked that the matter be taken seriously and dealt with was, quite frankly, despicable.

Due to my intense desire for privacy and the fact that this problem was originally a family matter—until Lincoln took it public—Jim sought to minimize how much personal information he put on the record to you. He tried to provide only enough background to give a sense of perspective. He knows that anything made public is torturous for me, as all I have ever desired is to live a quiet, peaceful and private life. Yet when my own brother, the editor of Liberty magazine, publicly attempts to destroy our reputations by sending defamatory letters to Jim’s fellow ministers (we don’t know just how many received them), and carrying on equally defamatory conversations with employees at the church’s headquarters (again, we don’t know just how many he has talked to), and when Lincoln has taken on our children in such a hateful and contemptible fashion, my mothering instincts are going to override any need I have for privacy.

The sad truth is that by taking his hatred public through conversations and defamatory letters to Jim’s fellow pastors and the president of the Florida Conference, Lincoln stole that privacy not only from me but from our entire family—and he did so against the specific requests of his mother and other family members when they were together after my father’s death.

When the letters I wrote to Lincoln (in an attempt to bring understanding and perspective) were returned, unopened and marked “Unwanted—Return to Sender,” we chose to seek help. I have spent my life attempting to treat people fairly, to be kind and considerate to others. Sadly, the favour has not always been returned. And I can tell you that in over 30 years as a minister’s wife, the greatest injustice and lack of care and consideration toward us has come from those who preach Christianity the loudest—yet who have an abundant inability to practice what they preach.

Unfortunately, this characteristic has been dramatically more prevalent among the church hierarchy than among the parishioners. So much so, in fact, that several years ago I severed my connection with the Seventh-day Adventist Church —because I did not want my name associated with an organization whose treatment of employees has been so far from what I believe is the essence of Christianity. My decision at that time came after we had been subjected to intensely hurtful, unethical treatment by my husband’s church employers. What you are now doing is simply a tragic replay of what I have experienced and observed over and over again.

Not only did you make it perfectly clear in your letter of March 30 that you were refusing to deal with a very clear and well-documented case of one employee’s public defamation of another, you suggest that nobody would even know about the problem if it weren’t for Jim’s letters (at least not at the only place where it seems to count from your perspective—at the GC headquarters). You hide behind your contention that Lincoln’s public assault is a private matter. Quite frankly, I feel sick to my stomach with the cowardice, callousness and dismissiveness you have shown toward your fellow human beings. You are absolutely wrong in your contention that this is just a family issue. It ceased to be so the moment Lincoln went public with it.

You are the ones attempting to portray as a private matter what is in reality a deliberate public defamation by one church employee against another (and his wife and children). It is not a private issue now. Not since it has been made public. But you seem determined to misrepresent reality. And, contrary to Lincoln’s later contention that he wrote what he did only so I would gain a sense of my need to be reconciled with my mother, he never even sent me a copy of the deplorable letters he circulated—not to me or to any of our three sons. The very tone of his letter, even if you knew nothing else, should have caused you grave concern. But it doesn’t seem to have done so.

I know I should be used to such indifference from church administrators by now, but I always somehow hope for better. Unfortunately, I am consistently disappointed by those who legislate and judge about how I should act as a Christian—but somehow never seem to feel that those same principles apply to their own behaviour.

My husband—and indirectly myself and our sons—has given over 30 years of service to this church. Jim has served with a commitment and care that has been genuine and time-consuming. He always goes beyond the call of duty. His ministry both as a pastor and as an editor has been greatly appreciated. In both his financial and time commitment he has given to the church beyond what our family could really afford––we went without for the good of the church. So as his wife, I say, How dare you be so callous and cavalier in your attitude toward such a loyal employee and his entire family.

You didn’t bother to offer even one word of support and respect for Jim’s loyalty and commitment. Rather, you curtly dismiss his requests and then insinuate that he is at fault for having even raised the issue. Do you have any idea how that makes a person feel? Do you even care? Your replies to Jim’s very reasonable and clearly written letters suggest that the answer is a hellish No! Unfortunately, in my experience, this is how the church consistently treats its employees. And if you feel you are sensing a lifetime of frustration on my part, you certainly are.

Obviously, I’m not writing to you because I think that anything I say will make a difference. (It’s doubtful anyone will even bother to read this.) Nor am I trying to supplement Jim’s appeals. He is more than capable of writing in a manner that is clear, fair and considerate toward all concerned. He has more than excelled at apprising you of the problem at hand. He has already said it all. I, on the other hand, no longer have any intention of keeping my thoughts to myself concerning the disgust I feel in how you have responded to an eminently reasonable plea for help.

In one fell swoop, your reply has put into my brother’s hands the ammunition to make any private reconciliation within our family virtually impossible. You could have provided moral perspective. Instead, you did what my parents have consistently done: You condoned his bad behaviour. You didn’t state that it was unchristian and unwarranted to go after another employee—and his entire family—in the manner Lincoln did. No, you managed to dismiss the issue in such a way as to attempt to make Jim look like he is causing the problem, to make it look like he is somehow the one who is out of line and unreasonable. I don’t know how you could have any more effectively helped perpetuate a pattern of bad behaviour.

You not only didn’t help us, you further hurt us by your statements—few though they were. Jim made it very clear he did not expect you to try to deal with our family’s personal and private issues. Jim outlined with great clarity the public nature of Lincoln’s defamation, and he asked you to take certain steps—which were his right to expect from Lincoln’s bosses—that would help to ensure that the allegations Lincoln sent to Jim’s ministerial colleagues would not be left
to haunt us.

Instead, you have made the family discord even harder to deal with. And we are still left with the real issue that you should be concerned with: Your employee has attacked—publicly—another church employee and his family. While Jim and I have tolerated Lincoln’s unchristian attitude toward us for years, we have finally had enough. He has stepped way over the line in publicly defaming us—and, believe me, his public attack on our sons will not be tolerated. Amazingly, though, you seem quite willing to tolerate it.

Lincoln may want to move on and just ignore what he has done. You very obviously want to ignore what he has done. But we can’t ignore what he has done—or your part in aiding and abetting his behaviour—because it is defamation. It has implications. It is my family—our lives—he has so callously attempted to destroy. We have been unjustly accused. And we won’t allow such accusations to stand as if they were truthful—because they are not.

Nobody deserves to be publicly maligned and denigrated in the manner Lincoln attacked our children—declaring them guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.” Yet your willingness not only to tolerate his public defamation but to add to it by your letter that seeks to throw the blame back on Jim makes you complicit in Lincoln’s wrongdoing. I hold all of you at the GC with whom my husband has corresponded to be guilty of not only enabling Lincoln to do wrong but guilty of doing wrong yourselves in dismissing us so summarily.

I haven’t attempted to counter the details of Lincoln’s accusations, as I do wish to retain as much privacy as possible. But for the record, I can assure you that you have not heard and do not know the sad truth. Lincoln’s actions are unbelievably hurtful and humiliating to me. And the manner in which you so flippantly discount my life, my pain and the distress that Lincoln’s public defamation of my family causes us is an additional slap I don’t need—and, quite frankly, won’t accept quietly. Your refusal to acknowledge Lincoln’s actions as inappropriate and your unwillingness to take the simple steps necessary to help undo the damage your employee has caused another employee is reprehensible.

Lincoln is all the more to be damned—not to be held less accountable—for being so callous as to publicly treat his own flesh and blood the way he has. You apparently see it otherwise. The fact that it is his sister’s family he is attempting to destroy is just fine and dandy with you. The family connection automatically lets you off the hook. Because we’re part of Lincoln’s family, you seem to think you no longer have any administrative or moral obligations. He can act with impunity. You tell us we “must” work it out on our own, even though Jim has explained very clearly that we have already tried to do that—but Lincoln refused to even discuss the matter with us.

Our major mistake in dealing with Lincoln over the years has been turning the other cheek again and again and again. When repeatedly he has chosen to believe falsehood—despite having the facts clearly presented to him—we too quickly have dropped the matter in the pursuit of peace. Instead of emphatically and resoundingly denouncing his bad behaviour and false accusations for what they were, we inadvertently aided and abetted by dropping the matter rather than forcing him to face the facts.

It takes some of us nearly a lifetime to clue in to the fact that being nice will not ever win some people over—it will never make them what they intrinsically are not. So it is ridiculous for me to entertain the possibility that Lincoln might ever apologize and make any attempt to “undo, to the degree possible,” (to quote Jim’s letters) the harm he has done to my family. Sadly, in my entire lifetime I don’t recall ever seeing Lincoln (or my father) truly apologize to anyone for anything. It would be totally out of character. It is indeed most unfortunate that you have helped cement Lincoln’s attitude by calling our behaviour into question for having had the audacity to expect your assistance.

Likewise, I have come to the sad conclusion that it is also ridiculous for me to expect any administrator in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, my husband’s employer, to act other than you have. A lifetime of being a preacher’s daughter and a preacher’s wife has left me in despair and convinced me that expecting the church to act with integrity would, very sadly, be out of character from what I have consistently witnessed throughout my life.

I make no apologies for my forthrightness. And I am under no illusions whatsoever that anything I say will move you in the least to practice what you preach. But if I can claim back a smidgen of self-esteem by being willing to stand up to this organization that over many years has so consistently caused so much hurt to my husband, myself and my children—and countless others—with its inability to act on principle and treat its employees fairly, I will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that my own integrity is intact.

Sincerely,

Leonie 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

[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

#22 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, May 15, 2007

2008-08-12T16:47:00.008-04:00

“We value ethical and moral conduct at all times and in all relationships.” —Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees (emphasis mine).

“Clearly, we have no right to control how he [our employee, Lincoln Steed] deals with intra-family concerns.” —Halvard Thomsen, in a letter to James and Leoni (i.e. Leonie) Coffin, May 23, 2007.

[The following letter was sent to each of the six addressees by certified mail. Although dated May 15, it wasn't mailed immediately, so it was still in transit at the time Pastor Thomsen's letter of May 23, 2007, was sent.]

LETTER

May 15, 2007

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
Robert Kyte, Office of General Counsel

RE: NAD/GC continued refusal to act re Lincoln’s [sic] Steed’s defamatory letters

Gentlemen:

On October 5, 2006, I wrote to you—in the spirit of the instruction given in Matthew 18—asking that you as church leaders provide moral perspective in the matter of defamatory letters sent out and defamatory conversations engaged in by a church employee under your supervision, to other church employees, against yet another church employee and his family.

Specifically, I said: “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). To date—at least to my knowledge—you’ve refused to declare his actions improper or to encourage him “to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already.”

In a subsequent letter I stated clearly to you: “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, I’ve said: “If there is some other venue in which this matter should be addressed, then tell me what that venue is.” But in his two letters to me, Pastor Thomsen has ignored every argument and every question I’ve put forward, merely resorting to a highly dismissive mantra that it’s a “private” matter. Quite frankly, I don’t—and I won’t—accept Pastor Thomsen’s indefensible assertion that this matter is “private” and “simply must be handled in a private manner.” It ceased to be private when it was taken public.

That fact notwithstanding, my wife and I still repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to deal with the matter privately. Only when Lincoln told us (by certified mail) that nothing we wrote would be read, did we, quite reasonably and understandably, turn to you. As I stated in an earlier letter to you: “Clearly, there has to be some arbitrating entity—the Bible calls for such. Matthew 18 recognizes that some issues won’t get settled without third-party involvement.”

I’ve made it clear that I will not sit by while my family is defamed in such a vicious manner to my fellow employees by another employee. Nor should you be willing to do so—either from a spiritual/biblical perspective or from a purely organizational/administrative perspective. Leadership carries certain responsibilities. Church employees have the right to expect administrative assistance when seeking redress for the kind of public defamation/workplace harassment in which Lincoln has engaged.

As I’ve stated in earlier letters, if I were the only one being defamed, I might well ignore it. But Lincoln has publicly attacked my wife and sons as well. He has declared our sons to be guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency.” He disseminated his letters making these accusations without having spoken even one word beforehand to our sons about his concerns. Do you actually believe that such behavior is acceptable for anyone, let alone a high-level church employee? Is that the message you wish to convey to the church’s youth?

If your unwillingness to provide even the most elementary moral input concerning this matter is based on things Lincoln has said privately to you against my family and/or me, you’re perverting justice. I’ve asked you to intervene on the basis of the face-value impropriety of Lincoln’s letters themselves. While I’ve expressed a willingness to have you delve into private family matters should you feel it necessary—because I have nothing whatsoever to hide—I’ve said that, should you do so, fairness demands that such an investigation have full input from both Lincoln and me. Since you’ve not requested any additional information or clarification from me, I would hope that you haven’t sought or allowed it from him either.

Matthew 18 says that Step 3 in the process of interpersonal problem resolution—after thorough personal attempts and seeking the help of church leaders—is to take the matter to the church. Obviously, the writer of Matthew is addressing a congregational setting. But the principle behind the specifics is universal. Further, the writer presupposes that the need to take the matter beyond the church leaders would be necessitated by the intransigence of the perpetrator rather than the moral indifference of the leaders. But either way, the church is the court of final appeal. So I will do what the Bible outlines. Therefore, this is the last letter I intend to write to you concerning this matter.

I’ve wrestled with this issue considerably. You see, when I take to the church the matter both of what Lincoln has done and what you as church leaders have refused to do, people will be hurt. They’ll be hurt because they’ll lose faith in the church’s leadership. What I’ve asked of you is so eminently simple, so eminently reasonable and so eminently biblical that they’ll find both Lincoln’s behavior and yours to be as appalling and as hard to understand as I do. They’ll be angered as I am. The only way such a modus operandi survives within the church hierarchy is because, for the most part, the church public never becomes aware of it.

My dilemma is that if I don’t take this matter to the church, people will still be hurt. If I turn a blind eye to Lincoln’s defamation and––even more significantly––your refusal to respond to it, if I act as if it never happened, other church employees and church members will receive similar treatment. There will continue to be no accountability. I know. I’ve seen it happen over and over with sickening regularity. So there comes a time when by my silence I become an accomplice. As has been aptly stated, all that’s needed for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing. So I’m choosing a course that I hope will, in the long run, minimize hurt. And in the short run, it will at least demonstrate to my wife and sons that I have the moral fortitude to stand for principle on their behalf, even if the leaders of the church are unwilling to do so.

Sincerely,

James Coffin
[Address provided]
Phone: ________________

Copies to:
Mike Cauley, President, Florida Conference
Lincoln E. Steed

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#23 of 54. Letter from Halvard B. Thomsen, May 23, 2007

2008-08-12T16:39:00.004-04:00

“Employees should have access to a process of consultation and genuine discussion in matters affecting their labor . . . .” — Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees.

“[A]ny further communication between us will not lead to different results. Consequently, I nor anyone else within the GC and NAD administrations will respond further to these communications.” —Halvard Thomsen in his third letter responding to James Coffin, after having written two previous letters—one with 17 lines of body text and one with 12 lines of body text.

LETTER

May 23, 2007

James and Leoni [sic] Coffin
[Address provided]

Dear Pastor and Mrs. Coffin,

I acknowledge receipt of your recent letters. Clearly, any words I use to explain the position of the Church in this matter, as to its personal and family nature, are being misconstrued and turned on me implying some type of conspiracy with Lincoln Steed in hurting your family. That was not my intent. I merely wanted to explain that to my knowledge, none of the individuals in this building to whom you are copying your letters have been the recipient of any letters from Lincoln regarding you and your family. These GC/NAD people copied on your letters have learned the details about this situation from you, not Lincoln. 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.

Following your first letter, I talked to Lincoln and insisted that he must not use his position in the Church to communicate on any private matters outside the purview of his assignments. He agreed and it is my understanding that since that time he has not done so.

You have alleged he defamed you in writing. I understand that he did write your conference president, who certainly has seen your side of this matter through your letters copied to him. As to your associate, Pastor ____________, I assume you have provided adequate information for him to understand your positions. I believe there may have been some communication with ______________ [Leonie’s parents’ pastor], mentioned in your first letter, but you have also had conversations and communications with him which no doubt address these matters as well. I am unaware of any other contacts by Lincoln.

You wish to make this an employment matter for the Church to deal with. We do not see this as an employment matter. I’m sorry that is troublesome to you. You have not heard from others addressed or copied in your letters because it was agreed I should respond since your letters were addressed to me but copied to the others. We have taken appropriate action to be sure this matter is not brought into Lincoln’s workplace or that he speaks from a position of his employment on such personal matters. Clearly, we have no right to control how he deals with intra-family concerns.

Your allegations of defamation are troublesome. Whether Lincoln’s statements are false, leading to defamation is open to interpretation, just as your statements regarding Lincoln are open to interpretation as to their veracity. 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. We have refrained from judging either you or Lincoln in these matters.

I would wish that the Coffin and Steed families would resolve these differences through Christian mediation, but the Church is not in a position to mandate any action here.

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.

I wish you God’s blessings in your lives and hope that He will bring you peace and joy in the future.

Sincerely,

Halvard B. Thomsen
Chair, Liberty Editorial Board
Assistant to the President for Administration, North American Division

HBT:jda

xc:
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

#24 of 54. Letter/email from Robert Kyte, May 30, 2007

2008-08-12T16:34:00.004-04:00

“From my perspective, I don’t see what would be accomplished by taking this matter to a broader church audience. In fact, it may only execrate the situation in making wider known the statements made about you and your family. I would also suggest that until you have attempted resolution through an agreed resolution process that it is not appropriate to do so, if it ever is.” —Robert Kyte in an email dated January 3, 2008.

LETTER

May 30, 2007

James Coffin
[Home address listed]

Lincoln E. Steed
[Home address listed]

Gentlemen:

I received the May 15, 2007, letter from Jim addressed to various Church leaders in North America and the General Conference. Hal Thomsen and I then discussed this matter by telephone since Hal is out of the area on itinerary. In your most recent letter, Jim, you refer to the processes outlined in Matthew 18 for resolving disputes. At least in our reading, this seems to be a different direction for resolving matters between your and your brother-in-law, Lincoln, than for the Church as Lincoln’s employer to take some kind of unilateral action.

At the end of my telephone conversation with Hal, we agreed that I would contact both of you as well as do a follow-up letter indicating the availability of a conciliation and dispute resolution procedure under North American Division policy BA 45, a copy of which is being sent with this letter for your review. The procedure outlined in this policy is suitable for disputes at all levels of the Church, from Church member disputes to various institutional and conference related disputes. Thus, it would be seem that this is a possible path to resolution of the differences expressed in the relationship between the Coffin family and the Steeds. Hal and I would like to encourage you to review this dispute resolution process, and if you are willing to abide by the procedure outlined, then either of you can submit a request to Carolyn R. Forrest, Director of Human Resources for the North American Division, to put in motion a dispute resolution procedure. Obviously, this procedure requires the consent and involvement of both of you in order for it to move forward. Therefore, once one of you has initiated a request to Carolyn Forrest for moving forward with a conciliation and dispute resolution procedure in this matter, I will suggest that she contact the other of you to determine your willingness to be involved in that procedure as well.

You can contact Carolyn Forrest at the North American Division office. Her email address is __________________. We urge that any further dealings on this process be directed to Carolyn Forrest.

We hope that this alternative will offer a viable way for these matters to be resolved for all that are involved. We wish you God’s blessings and leading in these matters.

Very truly yours,

Robert E. Kyte
General Counsel

REK:mw

xc:
Halvard B. Thomsen
Eugene Hsu
Jan Paulsen
Don Schneider
John Graz
Carolyn Forrest
Michael F. Cauley, President, Florida Conference

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#25 of 54. Letter from Carolyn Forrest, Jun. 12, 2007

2008-08-12T16:31:00.006-04:00

“We don't subscribe to a theology that says actions don't matter. But rather, we know that our conduct is either a constant confirmation or denial of our faith." —Jan Paulsen, president of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, Adventist Review.

LETTER

June 12, 2007

Pastor James N. Coffin
[Work address provided]

Dear Pastor Coffin:

Thank you for taking my call last Thursday, June 7, 2007. This letter is in follow-up to our conversation and to communicate in writing the request that has come to the North American Division Office of Human Relations. Lincoln Steed, an employee of the North American Division, has requested Conciliation and Dispute Resolution in accordance with NAD Working Policy BA-45 to reconcile and resolve a dispute involving the both of you.

We have respectfully recommended to Elder Steed the “Mediation” process as the process for conciliation and resolution of your dispute. The mediation process calls for both parties to voluntarily meet together with one or more mediators, who will guide the negotiation as the parties seek to agree and become reconciled. To assist you in responding to this request you may wish to review NAD Working Policy BA-45 (a copy is enclosed for your review). If you have questions regarding the policy or the process, please feel free to contact me at_______________.

Pastor Coffin it is my understanding from our conversation last week that you wanted to speak with your spouse and pray about this matter before indicating your desire to participate or not to participate in this conciliation and resolution process. To assist us in responding to Elder Steed, could you please notify me in writing of your decision no later than Thursday, June 21, 2007. You may write to me at the address above or e-mail me at_______________.

Again, please feel free to contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address above if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Carolyn R. Forrest, MSM, SPHR
Associate Secretary/Director, Office of Human Relations
North American Division

Enclosure (1)

cc:
Lincoln Steed (w/o enclosure)

Comment from James Coffin: Note that Ms. Forrest's letter was sent to my work address. Since I've consistently used my home address in all correspondence, even though this is a workplace issue, I find it interesting, granted the administrators' contention that this isn't a workplace matter, that Ms. Forrest sent her letter to my church office rather than to my home. (See also my comment at the conclusion of Carolyn Forrest’s letter of July 5, 2007.)

#26 or 54. Letter from Carolyn Forrest, Jul. 5, 2007

2008-08-12T16:22:00.005-04:00

"I want the world to know we will do more than simply talk about the Scriptures; we will live its principles.” —Jan Paulsen, president of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, Adventist Review.

LETTER

July 5, 2007

Elder Lincoln E. Steed
[Address provided]

Dear Elder Steed:

In follow-up to our conversation earlier today, please accept this letter as written notification that the North American Division Office of Human Relations will be unable to facilitate your request for Conciliation and Dispute Resolution. We have reached this decision due to no response from the second party, Pastor James N. Coffin, to our telephone inquiry of June 7, 2007 nor our letter of June 12, 2007 requesting his voluntarily [sic] participation in the mediation process.

The North American Division Working Policy BA-45 states, “If the informal negotiation does not suffice, the parties in dispute must voluntarily meet together with one or more mediators.” Since we have not been able to bring both parties together on a voluntary basis, the Office of Human Relations has closed this matter and respectfully asks that both parties seek to resolve their differences in a non-work related setting and manner.

Sincerely,

Carolyn R. Forrest, MSM, SPHR
Associate Secretary/Director, Office of Human Relations
North American Division

cc: James N. Coffin

Comments from James Coffin: Carolyn Forrest contacted me by telephone on June 7, 2007, as noted in her letters. At the time, our congregation was involved in Vacation Bible School, which is a major event on our annual church calendar. All staff members—from the pastor to the janitor—essentially set aside all other commitments to ensure that VBS runs smoothly.

She stated her reason for calling, asking if it would be possible for me to get back to her with an answer within two weeks. I said that should be OK. In fact, I said, I would have to get back to her even sooner than that as I was leaving for a conference and a speaking engagement overseas. She did indeed ask for a response within two weeks. However, she did not say that the two-week window was a policy mandate, and that, if I failed to respond within that time period, the window would close and the option would be off the table.

Because several issues in my local congregation had to be dealt with before my overseas trip, and because of having to get things organized for the trip, I simply ran out of time. Responding to her was but one of several things that either didn’t get done or had to be left in the hands of others. Pastor Thomsen’s response to the first letter I had written to the church’s headquarters requesting help had taken nearly two months—and more than two months for his second response. And in both cases, I’d had to write a second letter before finally getting a reply.

In light of that track record, I never thought for a moment that time was actually a highly significant matter, despite Ms. Forrest’s mention of two weeks. Further, she’d promised that she would send a follow-up letter with some documentation, which she said I might wish to study. I assumed it was probably the same documentation that Robert Kyte had sent to me earlier. But I wanted to be sure she was talking about what I thought she was talking about. No letter of follow-up and no documentation had arrived by the time we left for the airport on June 19, 2007.

However, as we were waiting for our flight, my administrative assistant rang and said a document and a letter from Ms. Forrest, dated June 12, 2007, had arrived at the church office. He noted that the letter requested a reply no later than June 21, 2007—which was just two days away. I told him I’d try to email a response to her. Unfortunately, the first three or four days we were overseas I had neither time nor access to internet connections so I could follow though. Since the deadline had passed, I decided to address the matter when I returned home.

Scarcely had I come home than a letter arrived saying the case was closed. Since I planned to address the matter in a letter I was writing to Robert Kyte, and since Ms. Forrest hadn’t been involved in the discussion from the beginning, and since I felt I’d have to give a reasonably detailed explanation as to why I was declining her offer (if it was to make sense to her), and since the matter was closed anyway, I didn’t reply. I probably should have. But when you’re extremely busy in your work as a pastor, plus fighting what should be a totally unnecessary battle with the church hierarchy, time is in short supply.

I note three items of interest about Ms. Forrest’s correspondence:

1. Ms. Forrest seemed in a hurry to get the matter closed as quickly as possible, despite the fact that (a) she’d been told about the pressure I was under and that I’d be leaving before the date by which she’d requested a response, (b) she knew that five days of her 14-day window had elapsed before she even wrote—let alone before I could receive—her promised follow-up letter, (c) she may or may not have known that the letter lay around somewhere for additional days, meaning that it didn’t reach me until 12 days of her 14-day window had already elapsed and I was already en route to my speaking appointment. Despite these facts, at least some of which she knew, she neither phoned, wrote or emailed to ensure that I had indeed received what she’d sent and that I had indeed made my decision. But policy is policy when it fits the agenda.

2. Perhaps I’m reading more into this than is merited, but I note Ms. Forrest’s comment that since the window of opportunity had lapsed, her office “respectfully asks that both parties seek to resolve their difference in a non-work related setting and manner” (emphasis mine). It seems a strange comment to make—unless, that is, she was privy to my ongoing debate with six high-level church-headquarters leaders about whether this was a workplace issue or a personal/private issue.

For eight months I’d been told it was a private matter in which the church would play no role whatsoever. When I stated that my next step would be to take the matter to the whole church, I was (somewhat grudgingly, I’d suggest) offered a window of opportunity in which the church structure could play some role. Having missed the window of opportunity, I needed to understand that we were back to where we started. At least, that’s I how perceived her comment. Why else the expression “non-work related setting and manner”?

3. A final curious point from Ms. Forrest’s letters is the consistent reference—there were no exceptions—to me as “Pastor Coffin” and to Lincoln as “Elder Steed.” When I was a youngster growing up in North America, ordained ministers were quite consistently called “Elder,” and unordained ministers were quite consistently referred to as “Pastor.” In fact, at ordinations the ordinand was often introduced at the end of the ceremony as “Elder ___________”—with considerable fanfare, much as a couple is introduced at the conclusion of their wedding ceremony “for the very first time as Mr. and Mrs.___________”

These days, the term “Elder,” which was never used much outside of North America, has given way almost exclusively to “Pastor.” And where “Elder” is still used somewhat, it’s typically used interchangeably with the term “Pastor.” So I found it interesting that the two terms weren’t used interchangeably in Ms. Forrest’s letters, and I wondered what the rationale might be.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#27 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Jul. 26, 2007

2008-08-12T15:46:00.005-04:00

“While in the employ of the General Conference we will . . . uphold, in word and conduct, the teachings and principles held and advanced by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” —Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees.

“We will honor the privacy . . . of others.” —Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees.

LETTER

July 26, 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:

I stated in my letter of May 15, 2007 (which was actually mailed somewhat after that date), that it would be my last letter regarding my concerns and requests. And Pastor Thomsen stated in his letter of May 23, 2007, that no one from the church’s headquarters would respond if I wrote again. Granted that you’ve made contact with me despite his assertion, I too will make an exception and reply.

In response to all the correspondence to date including your phone call and subsequent letter of May 30, 2007, suggesting that I might wish to avail myself of the North American Division’s mediation/arbitration policy, I note the following (and I would urge you to read this letter in its entirety):

1. Attitudes of the heart are really outside the purview of mediation/arbitration. Lincoln has harbored animosity toward both my wife and me for decades. No mediator/arbitrator can effectively require love from someone who hates. Mediation/arbitration is useful only with respect to specific, objective, overt action that needs to be taken.

2. While overt action certainly needs to be taken, it would be an exercise in futility to engage in mediation/arbitration with Lincoln in the hope of bringing about such action—granted that Pastor Thomsen has made it emphatically clear that those to whom I’ve written at the church’s headquarters have declared Lincoln’s behavior a “private” matter. So even if the mediator/arbitrator were to agree with me that Lincoln should “seek to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done,” there would be no teeth whatsoever in the decision. Lincoln could ignore the verdict with impunity—because he knows, going into the exercise, that those to whom he’s professionally accountable will refuse to require accountability in this matter.

3. On the other hand, should the group of church leaders to whom I’ve written say that, in the event of a mediation/arbitration decision, they would demand compliance, the question arises: Then why not demand accountability right now? Why would it magically fall within their purview after mediation/arbitration but not before?

4. The fact that Lincoln has expressed a willingness to engage in such mediation/arbitration comes as no surprise. He knows that, at the worst, he will be told to take the very simple step I requested in my very first communication with his supervisors—namely, seeking “to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already.” He further knows that he won’t be held accountable for his follow-through because the entire issue has been declared outside of the purview of the church’s administration. But more significantly, both he and you as church leaders know that a prerequisite to utilizing the church’s arbitration policy, should the process get that far, is that I must sign away my rights to address the matter through the legal system. I’m sure that he, you and the church administrators who’ve refused to deal with this matter would love to see me sign such a waiver.

5. More to the point, however, my issue is no longer primarily with Lincoln. It is with those at the church’s headquarters who have refused to (a) offer moral perspective as spiritual leaders, and (b) refused to ensure that I have a working environment in which another employee can’t harass me with impunity—which is the point that members of my church board emphasized to me when I sought their input concerning this matter. In other words, you’re recommending mediation/arbitration between the wrong parties. So why should I personally spend substantial sums of money to travel to Silver Spring , Maryland , to engage in mediation/arbitration with the wrong party? Equally, why should I pay to mediate/arbitrate with the church’s administrators, when the church administration should protect its employees without the employee’s having to fight every inch of the way for justice?

6. Even if the administrators at the church’s headquarters were willing to enter into mediation/arbitration with me concerning their failure to come to my aid, I would be loath to participate in such an exercise. How fair a hearing could I get when the group I’m contending with has already made their pronouncement, and when any mediator/arbitrator would be a church employee who is below them in the church hierarchy?

7. In his letter of May 23, 2007, Pastor Thomsen, who seems concerned only about what happens at the GC/NAD complex, states that the church has “taken appropriate action to be sure this matter is not brought into Lincoln’s workplace . . . .” With all due respect, Lincoln’s workplace isn’t my sole concern. It’s the workplace. His place of work, mine and everybody else’s. In other words, the church workplace as a whole. Just ensuring that Lincoln doesn’t in the future malign me at the GC/NAD complex falls far short of achieving the protection for the future and correction of the past that I both seek and deserve.

8. Suppose that Lincoln were to write a letter (on his own time, at his own expense, on non-letterhead paper and sent out in plain envelopes) to every church employee listed in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook. Suppose that in that letter he denounces my actions as “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with the pastoral ministry.” Suppose that in it he declares my sons to be guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency”––which is an amazing claim by any standard. Suppose that in his letter he also accuses my wife and me of ostracizing an old couple [his and Leonie’s parents], systematically denying all attempts at contact until after their father’s death and burial––which is pure spin and isn’t borne out by the facts, facts that Leonie explained to Lincoln in detail during a five-hour phone conversation, the content of which he conveniently chooses to ignore.

When the assault is so intense and so widespread and carried out completely in the workplace, would you at the church’s headquarters still consider such actions to be a private family matter? Or would you finally admit that it’s a workplace issue? What if he wrote to every employee in the Florida Conference, where I’m currently employed? Would that qualify as a workplace issue? What if his communications are simply with a smaller, select group of employees, people with whom my reputation can still make or break my career? At what point does it become/cease to be a workplace issue? Or is there no action he could take that could cause it to be considered such, at least from the perspective of those at the church’s headquarters? And is your reasoning that no such thing as workplace harassment exists? Or is it that workplace harassment, by your definition, can’t exist between two members of the same family, no matter how unchristian, how brutal or how widespread it might be?

9. Pastor Thomsen states in his letter of May 23, 2007, that appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that Lincoln doesn’t speak “from a position of his employment on such personal matters.” I would suggest, however, that when every year Lincoln sends to every pastor in North America several letters promoting Liberty magazine, he can’t then send to pastors (with whom he’s had no other interaction) a letter not on church letterhead, but still bearing his signature, without a connection being made to his official role. The name Lincoln Steed carries weight precisely because of its association with his position in the church, whether overtly stated or not. In short, a person in Lincoln’s capacity—or mine, as a pastor, for that matter—has no truly private life. We always represent the church. Our position in the church always punctuates our words and actions.

10. Pastor Thomsen goes on to say in his letter of May 23, 2007, “Clearly, we have no right to control how he [Lincoln] deals with intra-family concerns.” Really? Not even when the harassment is vitriolic and carried on in the workplace? I find it incongruous that if it were discovered that Lincoln was consuming the occasional beer in the privacy of his own home, the church hierarchy would feel totally free to address the matter. Or if he were buying a weekly lottery ticket, that too could be addressed. But when he uses the workplace—and only the workplace, mind you—to disseminate both written and oral vitriol against his family members, declaring his nephews, with whom he has not spoken one word about his concerns either before or after his diatribe, to be guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency,” you as church leaders say that constitutes a “personal” and “private” matter that you have no right to address either at a spiritual/pastoral level or at an administrative/organizational level.

No, according to you, leaders at the church’s headquarters have “no right to control” that kind of behavior. Which baffles me—because, as I read it, Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat others than He did about whether we drink the occasional beer or buy the occasional lottery ticket. And if I’m not mistaken, Dr. Paulsen preached a major sermon about three years ago––at an Annual Council, I believe––in which he emphasized that people are what really count. So please explain to my wife and sons just how this very important biblical principle is being applied in this case.

11. I would reiterate that my complaints about Lincoln’s actions, and my appeals to the church’s administrators to urge him to “undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already,” exclusively address things that were done within the context of the workplace. Not one of my relatives, to my knowledge, received his defamatory letters. To my knowledge, not one mutual friend outside of the church-employment arena received such a letter. To my knowledge, only those with whom I have a direct or indirect workplace association received his letters or were included in his conversations concerning how evil my sons, my wife and I are. My wife and sons didn’t even receive a copy of his denunciations. Lincoln even sent his letter to me to my church, not to my home. There was no notation on the envelope to say that it was “Private” or “Personal.” So it was opened by a workplace colleague. Yet, despite these clear facts, you as church leaders continue to maintain that this has nothing to do with the workplace.

12. I find it highly offensive—and that’s understatement—that in my correspondence, extremely clear, unambiguous, verifiable statements that I’ve made have been ignored as if they were never made. A case in point: In his letter of March 30, 2007, Pastor Thomsen states: “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 responded in my letter of April 13, 2007: “I . . . 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 colleague) discussed [“regaled” is the word actually used by my church member to describe the exchange] 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. 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.”

Yet despite that clear statement, Pastor Thomsen, in his letter of May 23, 2007, again stated: “These GC/NAD people copied on your letters have learned the details from you, not from Lincoln.” What good does it do to provide information if what I write is either not read or dismissed out of hand?

13. Mr. Kyte, it was not because you are chief counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the General Conference that I included you with the list of consulting editors on Liberty magazine’s masthead when I sent my letters of concern. It is because you are the one I alluded to who gossiped about me to my church member. And you did it on the basis of information you had received directly from Lincoln. Or perhaps you got your information through a third party who got it from Lincoln. Or perhaps you got it third- or fourth- or fifth-hand because it was being discussed that widely around the GC complex. I don’t know. But wherever you got the grist for your gossip, it wasn’t from me. You know that you had information about Lincoln’s animosity toward me and his accusations about me well and truly before it came to you from my letters. Have you chosen not to mention that fact to Pastor Thomsen? Or did you mention it, and he chose to ignore it, thus repeating his invalid assertion that I’m the sole source of information about this matter for those who’ve received my letters?

14. I may be naive and overly idealistic. I may live in a spiritual “fool’s paradise” when it comes to how Christianity should be lived out in the crucible of daily life. But from my reading of the Bible, gossip isn’t spoken of positively. To be more specific, it’s emphatically condemned. I said in my letter of October 5, 2006, “The breakdown of relationships in the Steed family is truly tragic—from whatever perspective it’s viewed.” But, for whatever reason, you, Mr. Kyte, found that tragedy to be an entertaining topic for discussion in a context where it was categorically inappropriate to discuss it. What did you think could be gained from engaging in such discussion and passing on such information to one of my parishioners (and who knows how many others)?

In what way were your comments (and those of your headquarters colleague present with you) designed to benefit either Lincoln or me? Not only are you a high-ranking employee at the church’s world headquarters, but you’re an attorney. Do neither of those facts give you pause concerning what you choose to say about a pastor in front of his parishioner? And how does this all fit with the Mission Statement of the Office of General Counsel, which states, in part: “Above and beyond basic legal requirements, the Office of General Counsel advises the Church as to what appears to be fair, just, moral and equitable, thereby seeking to direct the Church toward a position of moral and social leadership in harmony with scripture and reflective of Christian love”?

15. I wonder what it would have taken to evoke a spontaneous apology from you. My letters—if any of them have even been read—make it clear that I’m extremely distressed by what Lincoln has done and by what the church administration has refused to do. My letters also make it clear that I wasn’t pleased by the fact that aspects of the tensions within the Steed family were laid out before one of my parishioners by a high-ranking person from the church’s world headquarters. But, as a courtesy to you, I didn’t name you when in my letter of April 13, 2007, I first alluded to your gossiping. But did you come forward and apologize? Did you say, “I really shouldn’t have done that to either you or Lincoln—I’m sorry”? No. From all appearances, Mr. Kyte, you may not have even acknowledged your role to your colleagues in administration. And you certainly haven’t acknowledged it to me––even when in your phone conversation with me I created the ideal opening for you to do so by letting you know that I knew that you knew more about this matter than just what I’d written in my letters.

16. What I’ve asked the church administration to do is so simple and so minimal that it truly boggles the mind that they persist in refusing to protect an employee from harassment by another employee. I said: “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.” If, in response to my first letter, any of the recipients had written back and said, We understand why you would be concerned about the things Lincoln has said about you and your family, the manner in which it was said, and the audience to whom it was said, and we’re encouraging him to take the necessary steps to correct the situation—if anyone had said that, it would have been an adequate response from my perspective. Even if Lincoln hadn’t followed through on the advice. It would have said for the record that an employee can’t engage in such actions with impunity. That church leaders have a clear sense of what’s acceptable and what’s unacceptable behavior.

But not once in any of his three letters to us has Pastor Thomsen suggested that we have even the slightest justification for being distraught. Rather, like Pilate, it has been a matter of washing the hands and saying, We’re having nothing to do with this. That would be bad enough if it went no further. But in addition, he has thrown the blame back on us, as if we’re the ones who created the problem. (Pastor Thomsen’s responses evoke images of King Ahab’s greeting to the Prophet Elijah: “Are you the one who’s troubling Israel?”) Granted the ongoing intransigence of the administrators, our bar for satisfaction is being raised progressively higher with each rebuff and each added insult.

17. My reason for pursuing this issue is that when a fellow employee has taken steps that are clearly designed to destroy my reputation, my credibility and thus my career as a minister, there comes a point at which turning the other cheek is not only counterproductive but unfair to my family and the church where I serve as pastor. When everything Lincoln has done and said has been in the context of the workplace, it seems more than reasonable––to me, at least––to talk to those in charge of the workplace. Especially when he put me on notice in his original letter to me that others “will hear this story” (italics in the original). Your gossiping simply confirmed concretely that he was indeed living up to his promise––and at the highest levels of the church organization, at that. So I chose to request help from those whose responsibility it is to help in such situations. To leave such accusations on the record, unchallenged, would be irresponsible on my part.

18. The irony of the situation didn’t escape me, Mr. Kyte, when you phoned in late May to encourage me to stop urging the church to take “some kind of unilateral action” concerning what Lincoln has done, and to instead avail myself of the church’s conciliation and dispute-resolution procedure. I’ve consistently contended that this is a workplace matter, and that those to whom Lincoln is accountable have both a spiritual and an administrative obligation—to him and to me to (as I noted in my first letter) “help him to 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.”

Yet you, like your administrative colleagues, seem determined to portray this as nothing more than “differences . . . in the relationship between the Coffin family and the Steeds”—despite the fact that your personal role as both a recipient and disseminator of GC-complex gossip provides a prime example of why Lincoln’s actions need to be dealt with as the workplace infraction that they truly are. Yet there you were––someone with a personal vested interest––trying to convince me to pursue a course of action that would tacitly admit that the matter was just a personal disagreement between Lincoln and me, nothing more.

19. From my very first letter (October 5, 2006), I made it clear that I wasn’t seeking for those to whom Lincoln is accountable “to heal the wounds within the Steed family.” Rather, I said: “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.” In other words, I was asking administrators to deal with those aspects of his behavior that clearly lie within their purview as his employers. I’ve never asked them to deal with the personal side of this tragic saga. Nor do I think they should. Nor do I want them to attempt to do so.

20. I find your letter of May 30, 2007—which is a repeat of what you said in an earlier phone call to me—to be disingenuous. You state: “In your most recent letter [May 15, 2007], Jim, you refer to the process outlined in Matthew 18 for resolving disputes. At least in our reading, this seems to be a different direction for resolving matters between you and your brother-in-law, Lincoln, than for the Church as Lincoln’s employer to take some kind of unilateral action.” What evokes extreme skepticism within me is how my reference to Matthew 18 in my sixth letter suddenly opens up a whole new realm of possibilities—when my very first words in my very first letter were: “In Matthew 18 we’re told . . .” What generated the sudden insights about Matthew 18? I can only guess that it was my declaration of intent to now take Step 3 in the resolution process outlined in Matthew 18, which is to take the matter to the church, and the fact that my letter arrived by certified mail. It took that kind of intensity from me—in my sixth letter—to receive even a hint of what might be considered serious consideration of my concerns and requests.

21. Although Pastor Thomsen’s three letters have been relatively brief, they’ve contained several comments that nearly take one’s breath away, particularly when coming from someone who carries the title “Pastor.” For example, Pastor Thomsen states: “You have alleged that he [Lincoln] defamed you in writing. I understand that he did write to your conference president, who certainly has seen your side of this matter through your letters copied to him. As to your associate, Pastor _____________, I assume you have provided adequate information for him to understand your positions. I believe there may have been some communication with ______________ [Leonie’s parents’ pastor], mentioned in your first letter, but you have also had conversations and communications with him which no doubt address these matters. I am unaware of any other contacts by Lincoln.” In essence, Pastor Thomsen is saying, What’s your problem? If Lincoln maligns you, you have the privilege of trying to salvage your reputation by tracking down any with whom he’s communicated and sharing your perspective. The mind boggles at such a statement.

First, I’ve repeatedly made it clear that I have no way of knowing who have been sent letters or who have received oral renditions of Lincoln’s vendetta against my family and me.

Second, I have no access to those others who, like you, have listened to Lincoln’s laundry list of accusations and then have proceeded to gossip.

Third, I’m employed as a pastor and need to focus my attention and my energies on my pastoral duties rather than on propping up my reputation. (I find it highly offensive that the high-handedness and intransigence of leaders at our church’s headquarters have forced me to take so much time already—time that should have been dedicated to my family and my church family—writing to request, and consistently being denied, a minuscule level of assistance, when that assistance should have been granted readily.)

The real folly of Pastor Thomsen’s recommendation, however, is that in many cases the damage done by Lincoln’s accusations simply can’t be undone. Pastor Thomsen himself is a prime example. He says in his letter of May 23, 2007, concerning my statements about Lincoln, that it’s “open to interpretation as to their veracity.” Clearly, my attempts to bolster my reputation haven’t been effective with him. So Lincoln’s defamatory assertions seem to still stand as reality from Pastor Thomsen’s perspective.

22. In his letter of May 23, 2007, Pastor Thomsen refers to “the position of the Church.” And what is the position of the Church? That the issues I’ve raised are of a “personal and family nature” and totally unrelated to the workplace. I fully agree that it started out as a personal and family matter. But when the workplace is used as the venue to wage war over “personal and family” matters, when a high-profile church employee uses other employees as his audience to discredit his family nemesis, who’s also an employee, and when even the chief counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the church’s world headquarters is gossiping about it, it becomes a workplace issue, whether those in charge of the workplace wish to admit it or not. But the truly amazing part of Pastor Thomsen’s assertion is the assumption that the collective opinion of four administrators, one departmental director and one headquarters lawyer constitutes “the position of the Church.” One wonders just how small the number could be and still justify the claim that an opinion is “the position of the Church.”

23. Without question, the most offensive of all the comments Pastor Thomsen has made is his openly calling into question the veracity of my statements. It’s one thing to say that more detail and more documentation would be needed before any decisions could be reached or any action taken. That’s highly understandable. In fact, I’ve volunteered to provide such additional detail/documentation as might be considered necessary. But—surprise! surprise!—I don’t take it well when I’m told by someone from the church’s world headquarters that there’s a real possibility that I might be lying. Of course, he’s right: I could be lying. As might be any person who ever makes any statement about anything. However, I would hope that a few things would militate against such an assumption.

First, the tone of Lincoln’s letter, in and of itself, should cause you extreme concern.

Second, I have more than 31 years of track record as a pastor and editor. During that time I certainly haven’t developed a reputation for being a liar.

Third, in my first letter I provided concrete documentation for quite a number of my assertions.

But, fourth, and more significant, many of my assertions could be verified by simply taking a few moments to make a phone call. For example: Did Lincoln state in the presence of [Leonie’s parents’ pastor] that it was his specific intention to “make Jim’s life miserable”? Confirming that such sinister motivations were openly declared is definitely germane to this matter, both from a spiritual and a workplace perspective. So I find it disingenuous—and that’s a very generous term, considering the depth of my feelings, let me assure you—for Pastor Thomsen to say that my veracity may be suspect, when it would have required so little time and so little effort to at least spot-check some of my most crucial assertions.

24. It’s remotely possible that someone at the church’s headquarters has had a pointed heart-to-heart with Lincoln that no one is reporting to us. I doubt it. But I don’t know. What I do know is that not one word of support and understanding concerning why we would be so upset has come our way in any form whatsoever. Worse, though, Pastor Thomsen has significantly called my integrity into question. So, however inadvertent it may be, Pastor Thomsen and his behind-the-scenes colleagues have played into Lincoln’s hands dramatically.

Lincoln has received copies of every letter sent from us and to us—as he should have. Yet any person to whom Pastor Thomsen’s letters are shown, without mine also being present as a counter-balance, would definitely get the idea that I’m the real problem in this sordid situation. I’m certain that’s the story being fed to my mother-in-law. So not only has the church administration failed to help with my very legitimate concerns about protection for the future and correction of the past concerning a clear case of workplace harassment and defamation, they’ve exacerbated our family situation as well. Plus the spiritual toll has been horrendous.

What has resulted is that Leonie has now experienced at the highest level of the church’s structure the same hypocrisy, the same stubbornness, the same indifference toward human feelings, the same offhanded dismissiveness and the same self-preservation-at-all-costs that she has experienced consistently at other levels of the church. What a tragedy.

25. One thing I’m absolutely certain about is the veracity of Pastor Thomsen’s statement in his letter of May 23, 2007, that “further communication between us will not lead to different results. Consequently, I nor anyone else within the GC and NAD administrations will respond further to these communications.” I fully believe his statement. I believe that no amount of information, no amount of argumentation, no amount of reasoning will ever change people who are so high-handed and intransigent. I also believe that if accountability is to be achieved, it will have to be brought about by a means other than direct dialogue. So we’re back to where we were in my last letter. I see no choice but to follow the counsel of Matthew 18 and take this matter directly to a larger body, the church. How sad.

Sincerely,

James Coffin
[Address provided]

PS. In the interest of full disclosure and balance, I must note that, while I heavily fault Pastor Thomsen’s letters for their tone, for the unbelievable red herrings he throws out, for the things that haven’t been said that should have been, for things that were said that shouldn’t have been, and for a style that’s high on pontifical pronouncement and low on reasoned rationale, there is one bright spot: He did express concern over the fact that Leonie has consistently had a bad experience with the church, and the possibility that he might have added to those feelings. Both she and I greatly appreciate that gesture.

A second point I wish to clarify concerns my church member to whom you gossiped about me. Let me make it clear, he didn’t come running to me to gossip about you. I was having lunch with him (a very close friend), his wife (a very close friend of Leonie) and his wife’s cousin and her husband (both close friends of mine). They asked how Leonie was doing, and I described the tremendous toll Lincoln’s actions were taking on her. I said that Lincoln was discussing the matter around the GC/NAD complex, much to my consternation and hers. My church member then affirmed that my concerns weren’t unfounded, because he had picked up gossip about the topic while attending an out-of-state convention. He briefly described the exchange, its tone and who had initiated it. That’s how I came to know about your truly unfortunate involvement in this matter. And that’s why you’ve received copies of my letters.

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

Comment from James Coffin: In the foregoing letter and in several other places I’ve stated that the tensions between Lincoln Steed and me that were brought into the workplace definitely “started out as a personal and family matter.” It's actually somewhat more complicated than that, though.

In the mid-1980s, I was called to a job in the church that Lincoln apparently would have liked and felt I should have turned down. He became angry and spread accusations about me to various church employees. He likewise shared his diatribes within the family, forever changing the family dynamics. So in one sense the most tangible original precipitating factor was workplace-based. Those workplace tensions spilled over into the family, and have caused major problems there ever since. Workplace and personal/family issues have been intertwined since that time.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#28 of 54. Letter from Robert Kyte, Aug. 2, 2007

2008-08-12T15:42:00.011-04:00

“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’?” —Letter from James Coffin, dated August 15, 2007.

LETTER

August 2, 2007

James Coffin
[Address provided]

Dear Pastor Coffin:

I received your letter of July 26, 2007 and read it in its entity [sic] as I have done with all your letters.

I understand you being upset with Lincoln over writing to several of your fellow workers. I understand you are satisfied with Lincoln’s supervisors getting this stopped as you requested but are not satisfied that enough was done to “undo” what Lincoln did. Candidly, I don’t think you can “unring a bell,” and in this case I think the fact that you have copied your conference president on the letters, work with your associate Pastor _____________, and have some connection with the members of the pastoral staff at _____________’s [your father-in-law's] church probably has undone what can be undone. I understand that those are individuals to whom Lincoln copied a letter. I think Lincoln spoke to others but I really don’t know who they are. I think you can appreciate that it is one thing for an employer to require an employee to conform to certain actions; it is another to try to require an individual to make further statements contrary to his viewpoint which there is no reason to believe has changed.

I am sorry for any misunderstanding regarding a conversation that took place with ___________ and Mrs. ____________ and my fellow attorney from the GC and me at a Sabbath afternoon outing to a zoo during a lawyers’ conference in the Southern Union. I don’t agree with your characterization of this as “gossip” or that I “regaled” the ____________s with information. My colleague and I spent the afternoon with the ____________s. During that whole afternoon of conversation my memory of this portion of the conversation was that it lasted less than 5 minutes. It started when I asked where they attended church and they indicated you were their pastor. I expressed I knew your from your editing history and book writing. I also mentioned that I had worked with your brother-in-law at Pacific Press. It was then obvious that the ____________s were very aware of the internal family strife surrounding the death of ___________ [your father-in-law]. There was then an exchange of a few comments regarding the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the Steed funeral. I was really only aware at that time that your family was absent. My colleague observed it was unfortunate that a daughter would not attend her own father’s funeral. Mrs. ____________ then explained the history of psychological abuse she felt your wife was subjected to and that she was no longer an attending church member. The gist of the conversation was not of a gossip nature but rather a sense of shared regret for the circumstances involved. Be assured that neither my colleague nor I had any intent to malign you or your wife. In fact, we came away more informed of the perspective of your family from the information shared with us.

I wish there were some easy answer to the relationship challenges that exist between the Coffins and the Steeds. While you now suggest that somehow Church administration is responsible for failing to do certain things, your earlier indications were that the underlying problems are family problems that date back twenty years. The sincere desire of our suggestion for conciliation was to provide some forum of healing and to allow these matters to be aired in a neutral environment. By the way, I understand that the mediator(s) would have been neutral, non-church employees. However, to be candid, based on the depth of these issues that have arisen and the absence of trust that both sides of this dispute have for each other, I don’t know if reconciliation at this point is really possible. Clearly, you and your family feel aggrieved and hurt by Lincoln’s actions and words. Similarly, Lincoln feels aggrieved and hurt by actions and words of your and your family.

During my years at Pacific Press I heard many very positive things about your work, ministry and of course your writing. _____________, who I have known for many years, and his wife speak very highly of your ministry. I have no reason to doubt the significance or positive impact of your ministry. I wish you continued blessings in your work and for your family.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Kyte
General Counsel

REK:mw

Xc:
Halvard Thomsen
Eugene Hsu
Jan Paulsen
Don Schneider
John Graz
Mike Cauley
Lincoln Steed

[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

#29 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Aug. 15, 2007

2008-08-12T15:22:00.003-04:00

“On the basis of everything communicated to me to date . . . 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.” —Letter from James Coffin, dated August 15, 2007.

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

#30 of 54. Letter from Robert Kyte, Aug. 27, 2007

2008-08-12T15:15:00.005-04:00

“I’m truly amazed that any of the five other GC/NAD recipients of my letters could fail to 'understand why he was getting these letters. . . .' Granted that every issue of Liberty magazine publicly proclaims that Jan Paulsen, Don Schneider, Eugene Hsu and John Graz are Lincoln Steed’s advisers (consulting editors), and that Halvard Thomsen is the chairman of the Liberty board, who would be the most logical people to turn to if someone felt Lincoln needed to be given spiritual counsel? So why the failure to understand?”—Letter from James Coffin, dated September 20, 2007.

LETTER

August 27, 2007

James Coffin
[Address provided]

Dear Pastor Coffin:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 15, 2007. While I am not opposed to dialogue, I have concluded there is little more I can offer on this topic. I want to clarify a couple of points.

I stand by my perspective of the discussion with the ____________s. But we all must admit that how one perceives the same set of events is not necessarily the way another does. My referring to __________ by name was certainly not intended to create any ill will toward him. As I expressed, I have known ________ for many years and consider him a friend. I do not intend to let these exchanges impact that in any way. Nor do I feel that my colleague, _____________, meant anything negative with his comment but expressed a sincere question as to why a daughter would absent herself from her father’s funeral. I would like to ask that if you provide information to _________ that you give him full disclosure. I think it would be good for him to see your letters regarding him and my responses in full. But of course that is your prerogative.

Regarding Pastor Thomsen’s comment about the level of knowledge of the recipients of your letter, after reading your letters and noting the list of recipients, I commented that I thought the people getting the letters in NAD and the GC, (referring to the various officers) were probably perplexed and had learned more from your letters than they ever would have known otherwise. I believe that to be true since I had one of them comment to me that he could not understand why he was getting these letters as he had never heard about any of this before. While I had some information about the funeral situation, it is also true that I have learned much more about your family’s situation from your letters than I ever learned elsewhere.

I don’t know of anyone who is not sympathetic to the type of family disputes that you and the Steeds are going through. I sensed, especially at the time of ______________ [Lincoln's father's] death, that this was a tremendous emotional upheaval to Lincoln. Children relate differently to such circumstances and in this situation where this loss was overlaid with the family issues, I suspect Lincoln’s actions reflected his emotional state. I am not saying that to defend or justify, but merely to provide some understanding. Clearly, there is a disagreement between your family and Lincoln on many things including the role that ____________ [Lincoln's father] played in the respective lives of the children.

I suspect those who had any conversation with Lincoln at that time gave allowance for his emotional state and have moved on without any further ill thoughts for Lincoln’s emotional state at that time or the Coffins. I have asked myself, what would Jim and Leonie have Lincoln do at this point? While Lincoln may be willing to move on and stop any further comments regarding this situation, I suspect that he continues to hold the same personal views about you and therefore to expect him to retract his communications seems like a difficult possibility.

Again, I am sorry for any misunderstanding about the conversation I had with __________ and his wife. There was no negative intent. I wish you God’s blessing in your ministry and in your lives. I do not expect a response to this letter as I really don’t sense it needs one. Best regards.

Very truly yours,

Robert E. Kyte
General Counsel

REK:mw

xc:
Halvard Thomsen
Eugene Hsu
Jan Paulsen
Don Schneider
John Graz
Mike Cauley
Lincoln Steed

#31 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Sep. 20, 2007

2008-08-12T14:48:00.005-04:00

“I’ve afforded Lincoln the privilege of reading every word I’ve written to you about him. Neither he nor you nor your five colleagues have afforded me the privilege of sharing with me even one word he has spoken to you about me.” —Letter from James Coffin, dated September 20, 2007.

LETTER

September 20, 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,

I’m in receipt of your letter of August 27, 2007. I thank you for your prompt reply. In the same way in which you responded to my last letter because you felt certain things needed to be stated to set the record straight, I won’t let some of your statements stand without comment.

1. You note that you stand by your perspective of what transpired in your conversation with my church member and his wife—i.e. that they weren’t “regaled.” And I stand by my contention that my church member wouldn’t have so deliberately chosen the word “regaled” if that wasn’t exactly how he perceived the exchange. I certainly acknowledge, with you, that participants in an event may perceive things differently. And I think it highly probable that the term “regaled” may have applied more to your colleague than to you—perhaps even exclusively to your colleague. Be that as it may, your listener didn’t come away from the exchange with the same perspectives as you did concerning its overall tone. It was more than just a solicitous expression of deep concern.

2. I’m truly amazed that any of the five other GC/NAD recipients of my letters could fail to “understand why he was getting these letters” (see the third paragraph of your letter). Granted that every issue of Liberty magazine publicly proclaims that Jan Paulsen, Don Schneider, Eugene Hsu and John Graz are Lincoln Steed’s advisers (consulting editors), and that Halvard Thomsen is the chairman of the Liberty board, who would be the most logical people to turn to if someone felt Lincoln needed to be given spiritual counsel? So why the failure to understand?

3. I’m equally amazed that any GC/NAD leader could express bafflement over receiving my letters because “he had never heard about any of this before.” Do leaders at the GC/NAD complex never receive letters addressing issues that are totally new to them? Do all the letters they receive address topics that have first been hashed and rehashed around the GC/NAD complex?

4. You suggest that the recipients of my letters “were probably perplexed.” Again, I’m amazed. What’s so perplexing about being given the details of what an employee (for whom they’re the designated advisers) has done to discredit and defame another employee before yet other employees? What’s so perplexing about the defamed employee asking that spiritual counsel be given to the defamer and that he be urged to cease his course of action, to not re-engage in it and to undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already? I mean, these men have risen to the top of the organizational ladder. They’re leaders at the world headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They’re la creme de la creme. And, quite frankly, my writing isn’t that unclear. But your comments, as well as those of Pastor Thomsen, insinuate that somehow I’m out in left field for having brought this matter to the attention of the six to whom I’ve written.

5. You express your certainty that the men to whom I’ve written “had learned more” from my letters “than they ever would have known otherwise.” Of course! Absolutely. So what? I’m bringing the matter to their attention, requesting their assistance. I would expect that they would learn things they didn’t know before. I would assume that some of them had no knowledge of the matter before I wrote. Again, so what? My displeasure over Pastor Thomsen’s statements wasn’t about the respective quantity of information that Lincoln or I may have provided. It was about the fact that Pastor Thomsen said no one at the General Conference complex had any knowledge other than what I had provided. And he repeated that assertion even after I had shared facts to the contrary. I find that highly offensive.

6. Pastor Thomsen stated in his letter of March 30, 2007: “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” (emphasis mine). Note, he maintained that my letters were the only source of information on this topic for anyone who works at the GC/NAD.

7. I pointed out two things in my response of April 13, 2007: First, I said: “I wrote specifically to inform you. . . . So it doesn’t surprise me that you might not have heard anything from another source” (emphasis not in original). I’ve never said that anyone who works at the GC had received a letter from Lincoln. In fact, I’ve consistently said I don’t know who might have received one because Lincoln hasn’t been courteous enough to tell me. Second, however, I pointed out that I knew for a fact that certain employees at the GC had heard oral renditions of Lincoln’s accusations because they’d told me about it. Further, I knew that at least one of the six recipients of my letters also had such knowledge, alluding specifically to you.

8. Despite my clear assertion that even one of the six recipients of my letters had knowledge about this matter, acquired quite independently of me, Pastor Thomsen turned right around and stated in his letter of May 23, 2007: “These GC/NAD people copied on your letters have learned details about this situation from you, not Lincoln.” Again, I raise two points: First, so what? As I stated in my letter of April 13, 2007: “The facts are what the facts are, irrespective of how the information gets to you.” Second, and far more important to me: Was Pastor Thomsen straight-out calling me a liar? Or he was attempting a Clintonesque parsing of words that he hoped could technically be defended but that would convey the wrong impression? Or did he not know any better because you hadn’t told him that his statement wasn’t supported by the facts? And the facts are: Some of the people who work at the GC/NAD complex and at least one of the six recipients of my letters—you—received details about this matter directly from Lincoln (or from some second- third- or fourth-hand source) before you heard anything from me.

9. Since I don’t take well to, in essence, being called a liar by someone who works at the world headquarters of the denomination for which I work, I want to know how this unfortunate turn of events came about. I ask you again: Did you or did you not, clearly and unambiguously, tell Pastor Thomsen that he was unjustified in his categorical assertion that I was the sole source of information about this matter? Maybe I’m missing something in your letter, but I don’t see how the exchange you describe there would have alerted him to the fact that his statement was incorrect and he needed both to retract it and not repeat it.

10. I haven’t sent even one letter to anyone at the GC/NAD headquarters about this matter without sending a copy to Lincoln so he can know exactly what I’ve said—because I feel that’s an act of Christian courtesy. A person about whom complaints are being made deserves to know exactly what’s being said so he can defend himself if he feels he’s being misrepresented. From my perspective, a fair process is imperative—even if I risk disadvantaging myself to ensure it for the other person. Lincoln doesn’t seem to share that ethical concern. He has felt free to lash out against my family and me as he pleases, with no chance for rebuttal from me unless I happen to stumble onto the fact that he’s said such things.

Because of his geographic proximity to those to whom I’ve addressed my letters, he has the luxury of private, face-to-face dialogue. He can deny and dismiss anything and everything I say, without my knowing a thing about it and with no opportunity to respond. He can make any allegation he chooses against me, unrebutted. I bring this up because you seem quite conversant with Lincoln’s feelings concerning “many things including the role that ___________ [Lincoln's father] played in the respective lives of the children.” So I repeat what I’ve said before: If you or any of the others to whom I’ve turned for help are listening to Lincoln’s version of things without giving me a chance to share my perspective, you’re perpetrating an injustice. And I have little doubt but what that’s happening.

11. You ask what Leonie and I would have Lincoln do. As has been the case throughout this protracted exchange of letters, you’re focusing on the wrong thing and asking the wrong question. Before I came to ask for help from his supervisors/advisers, Lincoln had already made it crystal-clear that he intends to do nothing—not even communicate with us. Lincoln, a church employee, used the workplace as a venue to defame, discredit and seek to destroy the career of another church employee before an audience of yet other church employees. He took public a highly embellished and distorted picture of what should have been a private family matter. And the workplace was the arena into which he took it. In that venue he defamed and harassed my wife, my children and me. The solution to the problem is no longer in Lincoln’s court. It’s in the court of the NAD/GC, as his employers.

12. Deny it all you want, but this matter is an employee issue. As a church employee, I not only deserve a harassment-free working environment for the future (remember, Lincoln’s stated objective was to “make Jim’s life miserable”), I deserve to have the workplace offenses of the past appropriately addressed. What Lincoln did was grossly out of line, it was done in the workplace, and we won’t settle for his simply being told by his employers not to do it again. To the degree possible, the bell must be “unrung,” to borrow a term from your last letter. It’s not my responsibility to outline every step in how to achieve that goal. But, be assured, I won’t drop this matter until a satisfactory resolution is reached. This issue won’t simply fade away.

13. A good start toward resolution would include: serious dialogue instead of offhandedly dismissing my concerns and contentions; respect rather than directly contradicting my statements about objective facts; verifying my assertions rather than openly questioning my veracity; answering my arguments with reasoned rationale rather than pontifical pronouncements; and ceasing to portray this matter as if I’m totally out in left field for having brought it to the group of people I have or in the manner I have. Those things would be a start.

I thank you for your letter, and I would like to have this issue resolved.

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

#32 of 54. Letter from James Coffin, Dec. 17, 2007

2008-08-12T12:56:00.007-04:00

“After I told you in my early letters that Lincoln was engaging in defamation of my wife, my sons and me around the GC/NAD complex . . . you brazenly contradicted me (in effect, you called me a liar) and said that no one who works at the GC/NAD complex would know anything of the matter were it not for my letters. When I responded that, even before I ever wrote to you, I knew that at least one of the six recipients of my letters had received independently acquired information concerning the matter, you contradicted me yet again, noting that the details came from me, not from Lincoln.” —James Coffin in a letter dated December 17, 2007.

[The following letter was personalized, for reasons that will become self-evident, to each of the six high-level church-headquarters leaders who have received all my previous correspondence. Thus there are minimal adjustments—extremely minimal—to each version of the letter, as part of the personalization. Two letters had a postscript attached, which are included here.]

LETTER

December 17, 2007

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

Dear Pastor Thomsen,

I urge you to read this letter in its entirety.

On October 5, 2006, I wrote to you, along with five other church leaders at the General Conference/NAD complex, alerting you to the fact that my brother-in law, Lincoln Steed, editor of Liberty magazine, was engaging in a campaign of defamation (i.e. character assassination) against my wife, my sons and me. And this was being done through letters to (and conversations with) other church employees. In harmony with the admonition of Matthew 18, I stated: “I’m asking that you seek to help him [Lincoln] 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” (emphasis not in the original).

You (who I wrote to because you’re chairman of Liberty’s board) indicated in a reply dated December 4, 2006, that after receiving my letter, you asked Lincoln “not to involve the Church in these matters or by his writing to imply any connection of his personal matters with those of Liberty magazine”—which Lincoln had clearly been guilty of already, granted that his diatribes were sent (to my knowledge, at least) only to church employees, and granted that he had returned to us, in Liberty envelopes, the letters (unopened and unread) we’d sent to him seeking to resolve the matter.

Yet despite all the facts I’ve presented in repeated letters, you, Pastor Thomsen, who have functioned as chief spokesman, have adamantly and categorically refused to address the matter of the impropriety of what Lincoln, a high-profile church employee, had already done by engaging in his campaign to defame me—another church employee (and my family)—before an audience of yet other church employees.

Lincoln’s hatred toward me, toward his sister and toward his nephews certainly had its origins in the context of the Steed family. I’ve never suggested otherwise. But he chose not to address his concerns in that venue. Rather, he took his allegations public, without even first speaking to us about them. Specifically, he took them into the workplace and sought to discredit my family and me before my subordinates, before my conference president, before those who work at the same level as I do and before others whose identity I don’t even know. But because I happen to be related to Lincoln by marriage, you argue that the church leaders to whom I’ve written have no right to offer spiritual counsel concerning such behavior or to call for any accountability. You state in your letter of May 23, 2007: “Clearly, we have no right to control how he [Lincoln] deals with intra-family concerns.” Really? Not even the character assassination done in the workplace?

I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’m not asking those of you to whom I’ve written to sort out the convolutions of this family tragedy. Rather, I’m asking you, as church leaders, to address only the impropriety of what Lincoln has done in the workplace. I haven’t even asked for any punitive measures to be taken against Lincoln. But I’ve consistently requested that those of you to whom he’s accountable provide spiritual perspective about the impropriety of what he did and urge him not only to cease and desist in his defamation but to “undo, to the degree possible, what has been done already.” With all due respect, Pastor Thomsen, it's not sufficient simply to say, in effect, "Make sure you don't do something inappropriate in the future." The inappropriate behavior already engaged in needs to be labeled for what it was: inappropriate. Unequivocally so.

If initially any of the six of you had written back to me stating that you’d encouraged Lincoln to acknowledge the impropriety of his having sent out such hate-filled letters to (and having engaged in such conversations with) fellow church employees, that would have at least stated for the record that such behavior by one church employee toward another church employee before yet other church employees isn’t viewed as appropriate.

But that hasn’t happened. Nor am I holding my breath that it ever will. Which is mind-boggling, granted that Lincoln’s openly stated objective (which on the very face of it is categorically unchristian) was “to make Jim’s life miserable”—a fact that any of the six of you could have easily substantiated had you actually cared enough to make a simple phone call to the pastor to whom the statement was made. Just how hard is it for Christians—ministers, at that—to pass judgment on the kind of workplace behavior in which Lincoln engaged? Your failure to do so evokes images of the inability of many U.S. Government officials recently to take a stand concerning what constitutes torture.

You’ve been the addressee or co-addressee or have been sent a copy of all the letters exchanged between you or Robert Kyte and my wife and me. In your letter of May 23, 2007, you state that “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.” Let me state with equal finality that until this matter is addressed seriously, and until fairness and justice have been served, I’m not going to back off. Especially not when the issue is so crystal-clear to everyone but those of you with a vested interest in staying uninvolved.

Granted your emphatic assertion that nothing will be done, there’s little likelihood that you’ll respond to this letter. However, as a courtesy to you, before this matter is taken to the larger forum of the church (as provided for in Matthew 18), I’m giving you opportunity, as an individual, to distance yourself from any part of what has transpired concerning which you have reservations, whether your reservation is related to Lincoln’s actions, to what has been said and done by you or Mr. Kyte in your responses to my wife and me, or to both. In the absence of any personal comment from you, however, I’m left to assume the following:

1. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for a high-profile church employee (Lincoln) to engage in a campaign of defamation and denunciation against a fellow church employee (me), before yet other church employees, with the openly stated (and clearly unchristian) goal of making the denounced church employee’s life (my life) “miserable.”

2. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for a high-profile church employee (Lincoln) to circulate to other church employees accusations about a fellow church employee and his wife and sons (my family and me)—circulated both in letters and in conversations—without having first addressed the matter with those thus being maligned.

3. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for a high-profile church employee (Lincoln) to declare to other church employees that the fellow church employee’s sons (my sons) are guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Christianity and human decency”—without having said one word beforehand to those young men about his concerns.

4. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for a high-profile church employee (Lincoln) to refuse to read the letters of explanation and clarification sent to him by the fellow church employee and his wife (my wife and me) whom he has publicly denounced—even going so far as to state by certified mail that he intends to read nothing they might write even in the future.

5. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for leaders at the church’s headquarters (you and your five colleagues) to refuse to provide spiritual perspective simply because the church employee (me) defamed before his fellow church employees happens to be related by marriage to the high-profile church employee (Lincoln) who’s doing the defaming.

6. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for a leader at the church’s headquarters (you, Pastor Thomsen) to undermine a pastor (me) who has presented a grievance, by saying that the pastor’s statements “are open to interpretation as to their veracity”—when several of the pastor’s assertions are clearly established by the documentation he has provided, and several other assertions easily could have been established, had any of the six of you to whom the grievance was presented actually cared enough to investigate.

7. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for all six of you at the church’s headquarters who have received my letters to justify your refusal to get involved when a high-profile church employee (Lincoln) defames a fellow church employee (me) before an audience of yet other church employees—because, after all, the defamed employee is free to race around trying to prop up his own reputation and set the record straight on his own—notwithstanding that the defamed (me) doesn’t know fully to whom he’s been defamed or exactly what has been said. (See your letter of May 23, 2007.)

8. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for a leader at the church’s headquarters (you, Pastor Thomsen), to repeatedly contradict an assertion made by a pastor (me) who’s bringing a grievance—even when the pastor has provided proof of his assertion that at least one of the six recipients of his letters already knew considerable detail about this situation, having received the information from Lincoln himself or from others to whom Lincoln has spoken. (See your letters of March 30 and May 23, 2007.)

9. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for the leader of the world church (Dr. Jan Paulsen) to preach wonderful-sounding sermons about the importance of pastors, and for the church to issue high-sounding position statements on such topics as abuse within families—yet for the church’s leaders (specifically, you and your five colleagues) to refuse to offer any spiritual perspective when a pastor (me) asks for help because a high-profile church employee (Lincoln) is subjecting his sister (my wife) to emotional abuse by engaging in a deliberate campaign to destroy her husband’s reputation and career, as well as her own reputation and that of her children.

10. That you believe it’s appropriate, from a Christian perspective, for a church leader (you, Pastor Thomsen) simply to issue pontifical, patronizing, because-I-said-so-that’s-why pronouncements in response to a pastor’s (mine) clearly reasoned requests for help but not to provide any rationale or justification for the decisions made—as if mere repetition of a position and the tenacity with which it’s stated somehow establishes its validity.

I’d like to think you’d be gut-wrenchingly ashamed if you had any idea of the pain and anguish caused by the indifference and high-handedness with which we’ve been treated over this matter. My wife has accumulated more than her fair share of spiritual scars over the years. Sadly, most of them have been caused by those who (a) are close to her, who (b) make a high profession of their religion and/or (c) who are church administrators. When, through me, she requests that those at the pinnacle of our denomination help bring spiritual perspective concerning public behavior that 99 percent of pagans in the street would immediately categorize as appalling, and you refuse to become involved by seeking shelter behind your indefensible mantra that it’s a “family matter,” it takes an unbelievable toll in just about every aspect of her life—especially since she has wrestled with health problems for years and has few physical, emotional and spiritual reserves.

(By the way, even if this were purely a family matter—which it isn’t, but—even it had never been taken publicly into the workplace as Lincoln did, who says the process outlined in Matthew 18 still wouldn’t apply? If the church is going to issue high-sounding statements about abuse within families, it’s going to have to be willing to address the complaints and revelations that such statements elicit. And on occasion, the issues will have to be addressed by those who actually wrote and/or approved the high-sounding statements rather than by mere pastors in the local-church setting.)

Several years ago one of my church members who had considerable influence in the community made a totally unfounded accusation against me that would have effectively destroyed my career if it were believed. Within an hour of finding out about the false allegation, I had told my wife, consulted with my church staff and contacted my Conference president (Gordon Retzer). His response? “I’ll get to the bottom of this before I go to sleep tonight—even if it takes me until 4:00 in the morning. I’m not going to have the reputation of one of my highly effective pastors ruined by false accusations.”

Within minutes we’d contacted the head elder. Within a few more minutes we’d contacted the accuser. And within a few more minutes, the accuser had declared that he’d been totally misunderstood (which he hadn’t, but at least he was repudiating his statement, once he knew he would have to give account of himself to me, to the head elder and to the Conference president). So I know what it’s like to have a church leader step up to the plate to help someone who’s being unfairly maligned. And, sadly, I know what it’s like to have church leaders refuse to step up to the plate. To have them twist and squirm and try to throw the blame in other directions or to declare it out of their jurisdiction––anything but face the hard, cold facts.

Pastor Retzer understood that a pastor’s credibility is based on his/her reputation. When the reputation is destroyed, so is the career. Reputation is the coin of pastoring. Certain types of allegations, if left unchallenged, insidiously erode pastoral effectiveness—especially when the accusation comes from a credible source. When, out of the blue, a high-profile employee (Lincoln) at the church’s headquarters writes to a group of church employees to inform them that his brother-in-law (me), a pastor with whom they associate, is guilty of behavior that’s “insupportably unchristian, inhuman, and improper for anyone connected with pastoral ministry,” it’s not an insignificant act. And it’s [sic] onerous nature is heightened, not diminished, by the family relationship.

When, out of the blue, the high-profile church employee at the church’s headquarters (Lincoln) disseminates copies of a letter originally addressed to the pastor (me), stating, “How you can even look at your congregation without shame, much less speak of the deep things of the spirit [,] escapes me,” it’s not inconsequential. When he tells recipients of his letters that whatever the pastor (me) may have told them is probably a “garbled version,” it’s tantamount to calling the pastor a liar. And when he declares the pastor’s children—who are potential church employees—to be guilty of “a systemic inhumanity . . . that defies all norms of Chrisitanity and human decency,” the picture gets even worse. And, remember, all of this is coming not only from a high-profile church employee at the church’s headquarters but from a family insider who should know what he’s talking about. But what you and your five colleagues desperately seek to ignore is that it all transpired in the venue of the workplace.

Pastor Retzer clearly understood that not only do pastors have an obligation to administrators, but administrators—at all levels—have an obligation to pastors. And one of those administrative obligations is not to let reputation-destroying accusations against a pastor (and his family) go unchallenged. If the accusations are found to be true, disciplinary measures should be taken against the miscreant pastor. If they’re found to be false, the pastor should be exonerated. But employing red-herring excuses to avoid involvement is a dereliction of the moral responsibility that comes with church leadership.

Collectively, the six of you have opted for a particular course of action—or should I say, inaction? But it’s not a benign inaction. It’s an inaction that is in fact a default form of action. It’s an inaction that exacerbates the situation. It’s an inaction that declares that the accusations might well be accurate—as demonstrated by your assertion in your letter of May 23, 2007, that my statements “are open to interpretation as to their veracity.”

So I’m inviting you, Pastor Thomsen, as an individual, to step up to the plate and distance yourself both from what Lincoln has done and from how you and your colleagues at our church’s headquarters have both responded and failed to respond. I’m asking you to demonstrate to my wife, my sons and me that there are still people, like Pastor Retzer, who understand the obligations incumbent upon administrators and who grasp what it means to be supportive of pastors (or any church employees, for that matter) who’ve been unfairly maligned.

I would remind you that I’ve asked you to address this matter on the basis of Lincoln’s letters and actions, in and of themselves. On the very face of it, his behavior is inappropriate. However, if your refusal to provide spiritual perspective and to call for employee accountability is based in any way on information Lincoln has provided to you privately, you’re dealing with me unfairly. I’ve afforded Lincoln the privilege of reading every word I’ve written to you about him. Neither he nor you nor your five colleagues have afforded me the privilege of sharing with me even one word he has spoken to you about me.

If you truly believe that the course of action Lincoln has pursued toward my wife, my sons and me is defensible, if you truly believe it would be inappropriate for you as a leader at the church’s headquarters to provide spiritual perspective and to call for employee accountability in this case, if you truly believe that administrators have no right to intervene when two employees are related by marriage and one of them uses the workplace as the venue to denounce and defame the other, and if you truly believe that the response you’ve collectively made is administratively, morally and spiritually appropriate, you won’t at all mind having the facts concerning your response shared with the church as a whole.

On the other hand, Pastor Thomsen, if you don’t believe these things, I invite you, as an individual, to stand up and be counted.

Sincerely,

James Coffin
[Address provided]

PS. I have some questions, Pastor Thomsen, to which I would like direct, unambiguous answers, for the record.

After I told you in my early letters that Lincoln was engaging in defamation of my wife, my sons and me around the GC/NAD complex––I knew because employees there had reported it––you brazenly contradicted me (in effect, you called me a liar) and said that no one who works at the GC/NAD complex would know anything of the matter were it not for my letters. When I responded that, even before I ever wrote to you, I knew that at least one of the six recipients of my letters had received independently acquired information concerning the matter, you contradicted me yet again, noting that the details came from me, not from Lincoln.

1. Why did you twice contradict me (in effect, calling me a liar)? Was it because you believed I was lying, so deserved to be contradicted? Or was it done accidentally?

2. If it was an accident, a sort of oversight, why have you not apologized to me for your faux pas, since I’ve made it crystal clear that I find your action highly offensive?

3. When I told you that I knew that even one of the six recipients of my letters to GC/NAD personnel knew about the matter before I wrote, did you inquire to find which letter recipient it was?

4. If you did make such an inquiry, did Robert Kyte acknowledge that he had heard a considerable amount of detail from Lincoln (or through secondary sources that originated with Lincoln) as well as from a couple of members of my congregation?

5. If you inquired and got the foregoing information from Robert Kyte, then why did you repeat your contradiction of me (in effect, calling me a liar yet again)?

6. If you didn’t inquire from your colleagues to see who knew what and at what point, why did you not inquire? Further, did Robert Kyte ever come to you and of his own volition acknowledge that he was probably the one to whom I was referring in my letters and that your assertions weren’t correct?

7. If Robert Kyte did volunteer such information, why did you repeat your contradiction of me?

[sic—no number 8!]

9. On what basis did you declare that my statements were “open to interpretation as to their veracity”? Is that the approach you always use with people who bring grievances to you?

[In the version of this letter sent to Robert Kyte, the following postscript was attached.]

PS. I have some questions, Mr. Kyte, to which I would like direct, unambiguous answers, for the record––unlike the un-answer you provided in your last letter, which didn’t address the question I’d asked. (The discussion wasn’t about who had given you more information, Lincoln or I? Rather, it was how Pastor Thomsen could make––and repeat––certain assertions when you knew they were false.)

After I told all six recipients of my early letters that Lincoln was engaging in defamation of my wife, my sons and me around the GC/NAD complex––I knew because employees there had reported it––Pastor Thomsen brazenly contradicted me (in effect, he called me a liar) and said that no one who works at the GC/NAD complex would know anything of the matter were it not for my letters. I responded that, even before I ever wrote to anyone at the GC/NAD headquarters, I knew that at least one of the six recipients of my letters had received independently acquired information concerning the matter. Yet Pastor Thomsen contradicted me yet again, noting that the details came from me, not from Lincoln. My questions to you are these:

1. When I told Pastor Thomsen that I knew that even one of the six recipients of my letters to GC/NAD personnel knew about the matter well and truly before I wrote, did he inquire among the five of you to find out who I was referring to?

2. If he did make such an inquiry, did you acknowledge that you’d heard about it from Lincoln (or through secondary sources that originated with Lincoln) as well as from a couple of members of my congregation?

3. Did you let him know that, based on information to which you were privy, there was the possibility that Lincoln’s sister might have been the victim of psychological abuse––and, therefore, there were definitely two sides to this matter?

4. If he didn’t inquire among you and your colleagues to see who knew what and at what point, did you approach him of your own volition after reading his assertions and acknowledge that you were probably the one to whom I was referring in my letters and that his assertions––that my letters were the only source of information––definitely weren’t correct?

5. If you did seek him out to correct his assertion, when did you do so and what was his response?

Again, I’m asking for direct, honest, unambiguous answers.

Copies:
Mike Cauley, President, Florida Conference
Lincoln E. Steed

Comments from James Coffin: Not one of the six recipients of the letter above has in any way sought to distance himself from what Lincoln did or how the six of them have collectively responded to his actions. Neither Pastor Thomsen nor Mr. Kyte have responded to the questions I addressed specifically to them. In fact, the only response I’ve received from any of the six is a comment from Mr. Kyte in an email of January 4, 2008: “For the record, I don’t agree with your conclusion that if I (or other recipients of your letters) do not respond denying certain statements [it] is tantamount to agreeing with those statements.” Which begs the question: Why is it impossible to get any church-headquarters leader to acknowledge that the behavior of their colleague was just plain inappropriate? What motivates that sort of collective behavior?

Although none of the recipients responded to my invitation to distance themselves individually from anything that had been done either by Lincoln Steed or by the high-level church-headquarters leaders in their response, the letter was sufficiently motivational to cause Robert Kyte to seek to contact me by phone. However, I declined to speak to him, as will be explained.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#33 of 54. Email from James Coffin, Jan. 3, 2008

2008-08-12T12:35:00.004-04:00

“[W]hen I put in writing documentable facts, yet still have my veracity called into question, and when I actually provide documentation for written assertions and still have them contradicted, I’m certainly not going to engage in conversation in a setting where it’s simply my word against someone else’s concerning what I may have said or not said.” —Email on January 3, 2008, from James Coffin to Robert Kyte, declining to speak with him via telephone.

EMAIL

From: Jim Coffin [email address]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:16 PM
To: [email address]
Subject: message from James Coffin

January 3, 2008

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 recent attempts to make contact. At this point I won’t be available for discussion by phone, a fact that I find most unfortunate.

In my letter to you of September 20, 2007, I stated: “A good start toward resolution would include: serious dialogue instead of offhandedly dismissing my concerns and contentions; respect rather than directly contradicting my statements about objective facts; verifying my assertions rather than openly questioning my veracity; answering my arguments with reasoned rationale rather than pontifical pronouncements; and ceasing to portray this matter as if I’m totally out in left field for having brought it to the group of people I have or in the manner I have. Those things would be a start.”

I note that neither you nor any of your colleagues bothered to reply.

My problem is that I can’t risk engaging in dialogue over the phone, because, sadly, there’s not a track record of trust––either in dealing with this specific situation or in dealing with several other situations with several other church administrators over many years. In this case, however, when I put in writing documentable facts, yet still have my veracity called into question, and when I actually provide documentation for written assertions and still have them contradicted, I’m certainly not going to engage in conversation in a setting where it’s simply my word against someone else’s concerning what I may have said or not said.

You have my address. And I’m more than happy to consider anything you say on the record.

Sincerely,

James Coffin

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#34 of 54. Email from Robert Kyte, Jan. 3, 2008

2008-08-12T12:29:00.002-04:00

“Thank you for your recent attempts to make contact. At this point I won’t be available for discussion by phone, a fact that I find most unfortunate. . . . You have my address. And I’m more than happy to consider anything you say on the record.” —Email from James Coffin, dated January 3, 2008.

EMAIL

From: Kyte, Bob [email address]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:21 PM
To: Jim Coffin
Subject: RE: message from James Coffin

Pastor Coffin

Thank you for your email. I am sorry for the direction you have taken on speaking with me. I had thought that we could cut through some of the back and forth and discuss some possible solutions to this matter as I have a suggestion or two. Sometimes these matters are easier to discuss than they can be handled by exchange of letters. That said, I will honor your request and write. By the way, I am aware that you have also written individually to others in the building but I suspect they will remain the course of having me respond on this matter.

Regards

Bob

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#35 of 54. Email from Robert Kyte, Jan. 3, 2008

2008-08-12T12:12:00.008-04:00

“You wish to make this an employment issue for the Church to deal with. We do not see this as an employment matter. I’m sorry this is troublesome to you.” —Pastor Halvard Thomsen in a letter dated May 23, 2007.

“Hopefully this step would result in resolution of any outstanding issues related to any actions Lincoln took in communicating in your workplace.” —Robert Kyte in an email dated January 3, 2008 (emphasis not in original).

EMAIL

From: Kyte, Bob [email address]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:55 PM
To: [email address]
Cc: Steed
Subject: Response to your letter and suggestions

Dear Pastor Coffin

I received and read your letter of December 17, 2007, that arrived during the Christmas break. As you know, I attempted to follow up with you by telephone but you have decided not to speak with me. While you may not agree, Pastor Thomsen and I have tried to be responsive to you. Pastor Thomsen ended his communication with you when he felt that no help could come from it. I followed up to suggest a conciliation process which you declined to take part in.

I understand that you have also recently written directly to other individuals who were addressed in your original letter on this matter. While it is certainly their decision to respond or not, I suspect they are looking for this matter to be resolved, if possible, through our discussion. For the record, I don’t agree with your conclusion that if I (or other recipients of your letters) do not respond denying certain statements is tantamount to agreeing with those statements.

Once again I reviewed Matthew 18 and tried to determine how it can best be applied in this situation. The text states that if your brother fails to be responsive to you one on one, that you take 2 or 3 others to visit with him. I don’t see that this step of taking 2 or 3 with you to visit Lincoln has been fulfilled. I would like to suggest you consider doing this. Further, I would like to suggest that we provide you assistance by trying to set up such a meeting if you and Lincoln would be agreeable to that. In order to facilitate such a meeting, I suggest that two individuals who can be neutral and helpful to the process be selected.

Two names that come to mind are _____________ and ___________. I know _______________ is a friend of yours so I don’t know how Lincoln would react to him coming to a meeting with you. But I personally find _____________ to be of very high integrity and a good thinker. _________________ [the other person] has a pastoral and administrative background. I don’t think he is really familiar with either you or Lincoln based on where he has worked in the past. I find him to be someone interested in fairness and open to neutral listening. These are just suggestions that you might find helpful. Hopefully this step would result in resolution of any outstanding issues related to any actions Lincoln took in communicating in your workplace.

In addition, the North American Division has provided you with a process to address this matter. A conciliation process was suggested whereby a panel of 3 neutral individuals would listen to your concerns (and those of Lincoln Steed ) and then make recommendations to address them. NAD was willing to facilitate this. Lincoln Steed was willing to take part. You declined the opportunity. So I respectfully disagree with your statement that NAD administration has been unwilling to address this issue. While the process may not be what you prefer, you have declined participation in what we suggested without making any alternative suggestion for resolution. If you have an alternate suggestion for resolving this, I am happy to hear it.

From my perspective, I don’t see what would be accomplished by taking this matter to a broader church audience. In fact, it may only execrate the situation in making wider known the statements made about you and your family. I would also suggest that until you have attempted resolution through an agreed resolution process that it is not appropriate to do so, if it ever is.

If you are unwilling to join in a conciliation process, then I do not see any further benefit from an ongoing exchange of letters. If you wish to pursue an agreed resolution process, then I certainly am willing to facilitate initiation of the meeting for you, or in the case of the conciliation process, arranging with the NAD Office of Human Relations to re-open its file for this process.

As we begin this New Year, I wish you and your family the blessings of God and the hope of peace that a New Year can bring.

Sincerely,

Bob

[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

#36 of 54. Email from James Coffin, Jan. 4, 2008

2008-08-12T12:03:00.006-04:00

“Answer . . . with silence and indifference. It works better, I assure you, than . . . argument.” —Gioachinno Rossini.

“The General Conference will treat all individuals and groups with loving justice.” —Statement of Ethical Foundations for the General Conference and Its Employees.

EMAIL

From: Jim Coffin [email address]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:24 PM
To: [email address]
Subject: RE: message from James Coffin

Dear Mr. Kyte,

I feel your brief email deserves a response.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that oral dialogue has numerous advantages, and even more so when done face to face. Thus my comment that I find it “unfortunate” that I feel I must, at this point, limit any exchange to written words.

But let’s note a few historical facts:

When I, a church employee, request spiritual and practical help from six leaders at the church’s headquarters because my family and I have been defamed and denounced by a high-profile church employee before an audience of yet other church employees, I’m told it isn’t an employment issue. When I push my argument that, yes, it is, I’m told by the spokesman representing those to whom I’ve appealed that “any further communication between us will not lead to different results. Consequently, I nor anyone else within the GC or NAD administration will respond further to these communications.”

Further, when I write a letter to you in September (also copied to your five colleagues), stating, “A good start toward resolution would include: serious dialogue . . . .” (emphasis not in original), neither you nor any of your colleagues reply.

Despite these examples of refusal/failure to engage in dialogue, when you decide that you’re ready to talk, you have the audacity to patronize and chide me for my respectfully having stated, sadly, that any dialogue at this point must be pursued in a particular format, for the unfortunate reasons I provide. I resent your insinuation that the unwillingness to truly communicate lies in my court.

Please be assured, however, that I certainly welcome serious dialogue and definitely want this matter resolved.

Sincerely,

James Coffin

PS. I’ve received your second email and will reply later.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#37 0f 54. Email from Robert Kyte, Jan. 4, 2008

2008-08-12T11:50:00.003-04:00

“Despite these examples [several cited] of [your] refusal/failure to engage in dialogue, when you decide that you’re ready to talk, you have the audacity to patronize and chide me for my respectfully having stated, sadly, that any dialogue at this point must be pursued in a particular format, for the unfortunate reasons I provide. I resent your insinuation that the unwillingness to truly communicate lies in my court.” —Email from James Coffin, dated January 4, 2008.

EMAIL

From: Kyte, Bob [email address]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:57 PM
To: Jim Coffin
Subject: RE: message from James Coffin

Dear Pastor Coffin

Thank you for your response. Point taken. I guess at some time we work with written exchange. I trust you received my subsequent email sent with my suggestions.

Best regards for a good Sabbath. As a pastor, I highly suspect yours is not a restful one.

Bob

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#38 of 54. Email from Robert Kyte, Jan. 4, 2008

2008-08-12T11:46:00.003-04:00

“My problem is that I can’t risk engaging in dialogue over the phone, because, sadly, there’s not a track record of trust––either in dealing with this specific situation or in dealing with several other situations with several other church administrators over many years.”

EMAIL

From: Kyte, Bob [email address]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:01 PM
To: [email address]
Subject: RE: message from James Coffin

Sorry for the typo -- meant to say I guess at this time we work with written exchange.

Bob

#39 of 54. Email from Robert Kyte, Jan. 4, 2008

2008-08-12T11:42:00.002-04:00

“Please be assured . . . that I certainly welcome serious dialogue and definitely want this matter resolved.” —Email from James Coffin, dated January 3, 2008.

EMAIL

From: Kyte, Bob [email address]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:03 PM
To: Jim Coffin
Subject: RE: message from James Coffin

Well, it's been a long day:-) --I have read this on my handheld and only later notice your p.s. about the second email. Thank you. Respond at your convenience. Sabbath blessings.

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#40 of 54. Email from James Coffin, Jan. 7, 2008

2008-08-12T09:46:00.004-04:00

“In any case where the integrity or the moral or professional standing of any holder of credentials is called into question, it is the duty of the union to join the local conference/mission in conferring, with a purpose to clear away any uncertainty, in order that no reproach or shadow may be left to rest upon all the credentials held by the ministry.” —General Conference Working Policy.

EMAIL

From: Jim Coffin [email address]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:21 PM
To: [email address]
Subject: Response to your e-mail

Dear Mr. Kyte,

Around Christmas I wrote a letter that hadn't been mailed to you and your colleagues at the time I received your phone messages and emails. That letter should reach the six of you about midweek. I would urge all of you to read it carefully and in its entirety.

Granted that any reply to your emailed proposal would necessarily be a repeat of much of what's in that letter, I'll wait to reply until you've had a chance to read it. Then I can reply in a more abbreviated form, merely addressing some additional points your email raises.

This week I'm attending a ministers meeting for the entire Southern Union, so it will be several days before I'll be in contact with you.

Sincerely,

James Coffin

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin

#41 of 54. Email from Robert Kyte, Jan. 7, 2008

2008-08-12T09:41:00.003-04:00

“A good start toward resolution would include: serious dialogue instead of offhandedly dismissing my concerns and contentions; respect rather than directly contradicting my statements about objective facts; verifying my assertions rather than openly questioning my veracity; answering my arguments with reasoned rationale rather than pontifical pronouncements; and ceasing to portray this matter as if I’m totally out in left field for having brought it to the group of people I have or in the manner I have.” —Letter from James Coffin, dated September 20, 2007.

EMAIL

From: Kyte, Bob [email address]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:36 PM
To: Jim Coffin
Subject: RE: Response to your e-mail

Thanks for this update. I will await your letter. Hope your meetings are good. By the way, the formally [sic] of Mr. Kyte is not needed … Bob will work.

Bob

Copyright © 2008 James Coffin