tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719139866984861669.post820795276025388511..comments2023-08-15T08:50:00.391-07:00Comments on Adventist Perspective: The Burbank Case: Do Seventh-day Adventists really have a representative church government?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719139866984861669.post-12174586541388599802021-09-29T12:12:18.266-07:002021-09-29T12:12:18.266-07:00I read Limboline faithfully when I,was a minister ...I read Limboline faithfully when I,was a minister in So. Cal. It opened my eyes to the raw power of the Adventist hierarchy. Burbank was an early test case about ekklesia versus Church.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08085558186586841416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719139866984861669.post-63484878788569649162007-08-03T11:53:00.000-07:002007-08-03T11:53:00.000-07:00Andy,As I read The Burbank Case, I remembered the ...Andy,<BR/><BR/>As I read The Burbank Case, I remembered the group of spiritual and intellectual giants I was so privileged to have been with for those years, my first experience as a church pastor. The article brought back many emotional, personal, and church related political memories. It shaped me and my decision to leave the ministry, and I have not regretted this decision even though I have never liked any job as much as I liked the pastoral work.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Charles Randall. I think I have never known any person who could record so word-for-word a meeting, by just taking notes. He would sometimes chair a meeting and the report he would write was as if it was from a taped recording. He was such a "genius" in so many areas and gifted with a "spirit" of goodness that I have seldom seen in anyone. To think of him and then recall his untimely death on a family outing, seems almost too much to incorporate into my simple "God is watching out for all of us".<BR/><BR/>Dr. William Evans. What a giant of a man, then chief of the huge LA County Hospital and whose father was one of the pioneer-founders of Loma Linda University School of Medicine. I remember so clearly his response to Conference President R. when he was "talking down" to the congregation and reading Bible verses to add insult to injury. Bill got up and quoted from memory the many texts that refuted the emphasis R. was trying to promote. R. looked so "lesser than" in both intellect and perception.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Winston Nethery. He was straightforward in confronting the issues. Pussyfooting around or double speaking in generalities was not his style. "Does the local church or does it not have the right to make it's own decisions in certain matters." He was raised in China, and his commitment to Adventism could not be questioned, as was his authority to critique church organization and its "misuse" of power.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Ed Westphal. He was a straight shooter and dedicated to our church and congregation in Burbank. He too had the ability to sit down and type up a meeting with almost perfect recall. He was brought up in the South American mission field where money was very tight, and where commitment to the cause of Adventism was primary and complete. This gave him a "moral authority" that the Conference President and President B. of the Union did not have.<BR/><BR/>As the apostle Paul once wrote Heb. 11:32 "time would fail me to tell of" the Kuzmas, Hornings, Van Puttens, Hamms, Hendricksens, Rathbuns, Taylors, Crowders, Bolanders, Geretys. Heppenstalls, and Craines; the sisters Katie and Crystal who were born on a ranch and were feminists before feminism was cool; Mother Colvin at 90 undiminished in her English and single mother independence, unafraid to speak her peace and not intimidated by conference "black suits"; Dorothy and her son George, who was only seventeen at the time but had a sharp independent mind and spoke out against the Conference misuse of power; young Etcheverry, the UCLA motorcycle riding bright and fearless graduate student who felt it not discourteous to speak up with vigor in a conference leaders' meeting with the church membership; hard working, salt of the earth families like Burns and Nigro who were not intimidated by "young turks", intellectuals or conference mercenaries"; the Farrahs who worked at the Voice of Prophecy and searched the Spirit of Prophecy writings to discover that local church authority was praised and promoted by Sister White; Bob Ashlock with his radio voice, six foot three in frame and leg lost during the war who demanded you look him straight in the eye if you had an issue with him as Sabbath Superintendent; his wife Edith who faithfully churned out the bulletin and newsletter and still does similar work for the Conference president; the Inman's and Smiths and Shepherds.<BR/><BR/>And Wesley Nash, the Burbank Church's first administrator, who in 1960 as a delegate to the Southern California Conference Constituency Meeting from the Glendale City Church, made a motion at that conference to have an independent audit of conference funds. If this motion had been accepted and implemented, the Unions and General Conference might have followed suit. This action might have prevented some of the financial debacles that have occurred in the intervening years. Wes was about thirty years old at the time and the youngest member of the finance committee of the Glendale City Church as well as a Vice President of United California Bank.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting to remember that some laymen at that conference questioned the fact that independent audits were necessary with such "godly men" running things. This notion remains a green light for those who seek to misuse power and position.<BR/><BR/>I think if Conference Pres. S. had remained as president, the Burbank church might have continued and become a pilot church in experimenting with some of the changes that have followed since. S had been a pastor long enough and of enough big churches to understand the dynamic possibilities of the Burbank congregation. I believe that he recognized that the "Burbank Case" was more than just a power struggle of a church vs. conference authority. R. didn't have this pastoral background and Conference President C. who followed R. had pastoral background but never seemed to be his "own man".<BR/><BR/>Looking back to 1967, the decision I made to go on and get a Masters in Social Work was the right decision for me. I am appalled at some of the things that have gone on since then, and it is clear to me that I would not have lasted in the ministry.<BR/><BR/>I have sometimes referred to the SDA church government as a kind of Mafia family with a long-standing pecking order rather than a religious club of equals. Early SDA families established a pecking order and carved out family territories that became known as Divisions and Unions. These Divisions and Unions met periodically to decide territory issues. For instance, if a conference president got out of line or didn't seem able to keep the good name of the "family" safe and without dissent and criticism, he needed to be disciplined or at least shifted to someplace where he couldn't do any more damage.<BR/><BR/>This Mafia analogy best describes the North America church that I knew. However, I imagine that the same thing is true of other administrative units of the church, because when these Division and Union "Dons" get together in General Conference Committee, seniority often overrules democratic decision-making.<BR/><BR/>Andy, as far as change in church government is concerned, I come back to something you said back then, "The church will change, but it will be because of money or lack of it, not because of self examination". The SDA church is too far-gone for ethical reform to have a significant effect on administration. I mean by this that like the Catholic Church, administrators serve for life. Consequently, the status quo, rather than reform is very likely to be promoted by most insiders. Change, if and when it comes, will be the product of external forces.<BR/><BR/>In my view, the SDA church is like a family or small business that started with the sacrifice of its founders and grew because of their efforts. The second, third, and fourth generations have gotten into control and power by heritage, seldom by talent; never by sacrifice. Reform will not happen until there is near bankruptcy facing the company, wherein the "money grabbers" see that there is nothing left for them, and leave. (Note the exodus of church administrators to the Adventist Health System!) Then maybe a new group of sacrificers will come in and take over.<BR/><BR/>Back to The Burbank Case. This article deals mainly with the time during which I left the Ministry in 1967. It should be pointed out that the Conference thought that forcing me to resign would cure the problem. This strategy had worked in the past and would have worked again if the Burbank congregation was following the pastor and not doing their own thinking. This action turned out to be a serious miscalculation. When the Burbank church hired me to be a "Minister of Social Concern" it was the first time a church had done such a thing. This was done without notifying the conference and without the expectation that the conference would pay my salary. (I was awarded the same salary and benefits I got as a pastor employed by the conference.) This was in essence a move that confused the conference administrators and at the same time allowed me to go to graduate school and prepare myself for another profession.<BR/><BR/>The conference first demanded that I not attend the Burbank church, which was impossible to enforce. This gave the Burbank group a taste of power and revenge that was like winning a big game in the first round of the play-offs. The Conference then sent another minister to get the people in line. Burbank lucked out in getting Jack Powers as that pastor. He was able to work with the Burbank leaders and accept a limited, new pastoral role in which he was not chairman of the church board. He worked well under this arrangement and was there five and a half years. I believe he was able to do this because of his age and maturity and the ability to deal with the Conference and not go to them in panic. In short, he told them all was under control. He and I were not close, nor were we in conflict, so I don't know exactly what he thought. (I think he got "tired" of the situation, however, because he accepted a chaplain call before he retired. Ken Richards came but stayed only six months. I think he saw the potential "blow up" coming.)<BR/><BR/>Mike Blaine came and tried to "fit in" but gave into the Conference direction to "get them in line". This resulted in his locking the church. This was when all hell broke loose with the church cutting the locks. The police were called by members of the Burbank church to keep order because the conference sent over a number of employees to try to keep the members out of the church. A restraining order was ultimately issued against the Conference until a trial. Mike Blain has passed away, so it is now impossible to learn what went on with him and Conference during his time there.<BR/><BR/>What is to learned from all this? I'm not sure because even though the Burbank church was ahead of its time, events like these are not so unusual when compared to other groups ahead of their time in various organizations. If the Burbank group had been more into the freedom fighters mold and able and willing to carry on guerrilla warfare, I suspect it could have brought down some part of the local conference organization in a more direct way with perhaps lasting structural changes. However, I don't see many SDA moderates and liberals as diehard "true believers".<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, the Burbank church was a unique happening. It was small enough for the pulse of the entire congregation to be known and felt and organized. It had both young and older capable leaders with the "smarts" and fiscal capacity to carry through what they wanted to do. It had a mixture of conservatives, moderates, and liberals who were dedicated to the vision of an Adventist church responsive to the needs of its members and the community as well as the church organization. This vision required that church administrators explore new ways for congregations to operate within the official structure of the Adventist Church. Jack and I were able to keep the peace between factions in the church because almost without exception, we were accepted as "good guys", and members were satisfied with the way we analyzed problems and were willing to accept the "oil" we poured on troubled waters.<BR/><BR/>By the time the Burbank Church got expelled from the sisterhood of churches at the constituency meeting of 1975, it was pretty much the "Young Turks" who carried the ball and won the support of a third of the 900 delegates. No small thing as I think back on this.<BR/><BR/>The conference made the mistake of disfellowshipping seven of us by declaring we were members of the Conference Church. Ervin Taylor argued that this was against General Conference policy. He pushed this all the way to the General Conference, and it was reversed. I remember the day that I received a letter from the conference notifying me that I was again a member in good standing. They admitted no wrong doing, of course.<BR/><BR/>I think the lesson the conference learned was the local church does have a lot of power because individual membership lies here alone. I am guessing that the conference hierarchy may also have learned that it is better to either negotiate a peace or kick out a group early. Of course I don't really know if they learned anything, but I would so advise if I were their counsel.<BR/><BR/>Well Andy, that's about it. Blessings to you and your family and Adventist Perspective,<BR/><BR/>Brother WayneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com