Asi Mediation Fails! Options

[Observer]

It is with deep regret that I have to announce that the three month attempt of ASI to mediate the issues that involve Danny Shelton, Linda Shelton, and 3-ABN have failed. Yesterday, the ASI Executive Board took an official action in which ASI withdrew from any further attempts to resolve the issues that have troubled us for several years.

I was one of the few people directly involved in these discussion. As would be obvious, Mr. Joy was another. As to others involved, I will let them identify themselves, if they wish to do so.

Everyone involved in these discussions worked very hard, and devoted considerable effort to this task. But, the task has failed. I will publicly thank the representative of ASI for the work that he did. Honest and sincere people may differ. They may fail to reach agreement and perhaps understanding. But their integrity and sincerity should not be questioned. I say publicly that I appreciate the spirit in which the representative of ASI was involved in these discussions.

As I understand it, the action of the ASI Executive Board was simply to determine that further involvement in these attempts would be inappropriate. In one sense, any further comment would be speculation. However, I think that it is in the interests of all for me, as an involved person to comment on what I see as major difficulties. I will do so from that standpoint of a person directly involved in the discussions. There are probably more reasons for the decision of ASI. Perhaps some are more important than what I list. But, ASI did not specify their reasons in their communication with me. I suspect that they will read my statement, and they can add anything to it that they wish.

I personally believe that there were two major issues that prevented agreement:

1) Linda has been so publicly trashed that she, and we, believe that there should be full disclosure of the testimony, findings, and proceedings of any mediation panel. In fact, she wanted that full disclosure to be published in a manner that people around the world could access it, and reach their own conclusions as to whether or not she had given Danny Biblical grounds for a divorce. During the discussions, the respective parties could not come to agreement on public disclosure of the testimony, findings, and process of the mediation attempt.

2) The respective parties could not agree on the procedures for taking testimony from witnesses. The issue here revolved around who would question the witnesses, and the bounds of the questioning. Some wanted a restrictive process, to sum it up, and others wanted a more free process. Frankly, I am perplexed by this issue. I could propose situations in which Danny, Linda, and 3-ABN would benefit by a free process for questioning. But, I could also propose situations in which it might be claimed that Danny, Linda, and 3-ABN would not benefit by a more free process. In some ways, I suspect that ASI wanted a restrictive process. If I am wrong, they can correct me.

Well folks, the attempt to mediate has failed. What happens next? I cannot predict what will happen. But, I suspect that it will be along the following lines:

1) More of this will reach the secular media. Some, I believe, have been approached by the media and asked to cooperate in articles. Some, I believe have refused to cooperate in order to give this attempt to mediate a chance to work. I am not certain that they will continue to refuse to cooperate with the secular medial.

2) It is likely that some will take their issues to civil courts. Frankly, some of the issues, in my mind can only be resolved with fairness to all by the civil courts. Therefore, I do not believe that any one who does so should be criticized for doing so.

3) I have been told that there are currently some civil investigations going on now. If so, they will continue.

4) I expect that one or more books will be published on these events.

Folks, the bottom line is: I believe that it will get worse before it gets better.

I am sincerely sorry that the ASI attempt to mediated failed. I clearly believe that such an attempt could only have had limited success, and that ultimately some issues would have needed to have been resolved in the civil realm. But, I did believe that ASI could have been of some help. With this failure, I do not believe that any other denominational agency can succeed. Any further resolution will come by personal agreement, or in the civil realm.

We tried! We failed!

This post has been edited by Observer: Jan 5 2007, 01:31 PM

[Clay]

I don't believe that Danny would ever totally cooperate with a process in which the results would make him look bad.... so we have what we have... people will believe what they believe...

[husbandoftheyear]

I, for one, am personally outraged that the sins of one man and his family can cast such bad light on a ministry that is supposed to spread the Gospel. I have stood by and watched this saga unfold and hoped that 3ABN would retain its reputation at least. Now, with people and organizations around the world pulling their support from the ministry, it can only mean that this mess has struck at the heart.

It is no secret that 3ABN has had little support from its neighboring communities and is looked at with disapproving eyes. I have always felt that the sins of man were not important enough to remove myself from 3ABN, looking toward those people who have been uplifted and saved as a result. Now, with the added exposure that will be given, how can I and other employees continue to feel this way?


I truly hope that the Shelton gang and friends feel that all they have gained was worth the sacrifice of 3ABN, for it is a sad day for Christian people everywhere.

[Pickle]

Gregory,

As a member of the group trying to put together a process agreeable to all, I will add two thoughts.

First of all, Gailon Joy raised the issue prior to our entering into a confidentiality agreement of whether ASI could truly be impartial, since they had counseled Danny and Walt to not answer questions, according the Danny and Walt. Their statement that it was "inappropriate" for ASI to be further involved could be an acknowledgement that it would be difficult to be impartial, and if that was really the case, then of course it was the right thing to do for them to back out.

And they should be commended for this decision if this was what they intended to mean by the word "inappropriate."

Secondly, Danny has made it quite clear outside of our group's discussions that he intended for the ASI panel to review only his divorce and remarriage. He then stated that positive findings by an ASI panel in that matter would be used to convince everyone that all the other allegations against him were false.

It would not be hard to assume that this was also a major empasse between the two sides, but I am at a loss to know for sure. Thus far, though you and I and Gailon sent our communications to Danny and the ASI people involved, I have yet to receive a single communication from the "other" side. Not one. The only one I ever received anything from was the ASI representative chosen to oversee the process development process.

We weren't supposed to make any statement about the process except what was mutually agreed upon, but without any coommunication from the "other" side, what do you do?

[Observer]

Gregory,

As a member of the group trying to put together a process agreeable to all, I will add two thoughts.

First of all, Gailon Joy raised the issue prior to our entering into a confidentiality agreement of whether ASI could truly be impartial, since they had counseled Danny and Walt to not answer questions, according the Danny and Walt. Their statement that it was "inappropriate" for ASI to be further involved could be an acknowledgement that it would be difficult to be impartial, and if that was really the case, then of course it was the right thing to do for them to back out.

And they should be commended for this decision if this was what they intended to mean by the word "inappropriate."

Secondly, Danny has made it quite clear outside of our group's discussions that he intended for the ASI panel to review only his divorce and remarriage. He then stated that positive findings by an ASI panel in that matter would be used to convince everyone that all the other allegations against him were false.

It would not be hard to assume that this was also a major empasse between the two sides, but I am at a loss to know for sure. Thus far, though you and I and Gailon sent our communications to Danny and the ASI people involved, I have yet to receive a single communication from the "other" side. Not one. The only one I ever received anything from was the ASI representative chosen to oversee the process development process.

We weren't supposed to make any statement about the process except what was mutually agreed upon, but without any coommunication from the "other" side, what do you do?

Bob:

My use of the word "inappropriate" was of my own choosing, and it was not a direct quote. So, we cannot make anything of that word.

As to the issue that you raise in regard to Danny wanting to only discuss marital issues. I am well aware of that. I did not list that as a reason as I believe that we could have come to agreement on that issue. Or, at least, we could have come to an agreement as to what to do in regard to that issue. I also considered that issue to be unresolved. As such, I did not want to list it as a major issue.

As to confidentiality of communication: There were some gray areas here. But I believe that all knew that once a decision was reached, public announcements would have been made.

I have attempted to abide by the spirit of the discussions in what I have posted. One major example of that is in my not naming the person who was our primary contact in ASI, or any other person who was a part of that process.

I have sent a copy of my post to the primary contact in ASI. I have informed him that if he wants to comment on any aspect of my post, he can send it to me, and I will post it wherever I have posted my main comment.


So, if he thinks I have violated any agreement, he can say so, and I will post it.

While I do so "gray" areas in the agreement--we did not spend much time in talking about it, I do believe that I have generally kept to what was appropriate to post.

[Panama_Pete]

It is with deep regret that I have to announce that the three month attempt of ASI to mediate the issues that involve Danny Shelton, Linda Shelton, and 3-ABN have failed. Yesterday, the ASI Executive Board took an official action in which ASI withdrew from any further attempts to resolve the issues that have troubled us for several years.


As I understand it, the action of the ASI Executive Board was simply to determine that further involvement in these attempts would be inappropriate. In one sense, any further comment would be speculation.

Just a lingering thought I had:

I felt it would be politically difficult - to say the least - for the ASI executive board to ask the ASI membership to give $100,000 to 3ABN, only to tell the membership, later, that they were investigating the recipient of that donation.

http://www.asiministries.org/article.php?id=33

ASI Project Offering 2006

THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK $100,000

[husbandoftheyear]

I believe that when you look at the big picture here, it isn't hard to see that it was almost impossible from the beginning to believe ASI to be an impartial participant.

Think of the OJ Simpson trial. No matter if he was guilty or innocent, from the beginning, it was plain that he would be found innocent simply because of the botched-up investigation and mind-numbing amount of details. I'm not saying that the investigatin was not done thoroughly into the Shelton marriage. But the amount of information and he-said-she-said information coupled with the fact of 3ABN being an independent ministry made it pretty obvious from the beginning that this wouldn't go very far with ASI.

This post has been edited by husbandoftheyear: Jan 5 2007, 04:09 PM

[Daryl Fawcett]

From what I read, the ASI spokesperson said, "It now appears that it is not appropriate for ASI to be involved."

They used the words "not appropriate" in their email.

[gracetoyou]

What's the chance of the 3ABN board's opening their eyes, seeing the handwriting on the wall, convincing Danny and his Pentecostal posse to develop "health" problems and "resign" in order to save 3ABN from public disgrace and possible ruin?

Has the information that is available on BSDA been sent to 3ABN's board members?

[Pickle]

It is fairly apparent that the email we received was meant for public release. Here it is:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ASI action
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 08:04:54 -0800
From: Harold Lance

Greetings each one:

Last evening the ASI Executive Committee met to review ASIs' involvement in issues involving 3ABN, Linda and Danny Shelton including our progress in the process we initiated. ASI, in relevant part, took the following action:

"For approximately three months ASI has deeply considered its' involvement in issues involving 3ABN in three special Executive Committee meetings called for that purpose and multiple other contacts. On October 25, 2006 the ASI Executive Committee took an action authorizing the exploration of the possibility of its' involvement and asked Harold Lance to lead out in that process. It now appears that it is not appropriate for ASI to be involved."

Harold Lance

[sonshineonme]

Just a lingering thought I had:

I felt it would be politically difficult - to say the least - for the ASI executive board to ask the ASI membership to give $100,000 to 3ABN, only to tell the membership, later, that they were investigating the recipient of that donation.

http://www.asiministries.org/article.php?id=33

ASI Project Offering 2006

THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK $100,000

I know there are most likely SEVERAL uneasy reasons why ASI says "It now appears that it is not appropriate for ASI to be involved" and I would have to surmise that what Pete stated here has got to have some baring on their reasons. I think they would end up in the mud with the other mess. But like GM says, we tried, we failed - only I don't look at it as failure - I think it would never have come to pass thru ASI. So, lets look for the open window. It's here.

[roxe]

does this mean that Mr. Joy will now go public with his investigation results?

[Pickle]

does this mean that Mr. Joy will now go public with his investigation results?

I had a pastor call me and say that Gailon's giving the board two weeks to act.

Not sure I know what that means. Before he does what? What will he be doing in the meantime?

I can tell you what I'll be doing in the meantime.

[sonshineonme]

I had a pastor call me and say that Gailon's giving the board two weeks to act.

Not sure I know what that means. Before he does what? What will he be doing in the meantime?

I can tell you what I'll be doing in the meantime.

Is this the "3abn" board you are referring to? Has Gailon stipulated what kind of "actions" need to take place?

[PrincessDrRe]

It's 'bout to be on and poppin'....