Letters Between Linda And The Thompsonville Church, J.L. re: counseling, censure & attempts at reconciliation Options

[Eirene]

"The latter days are upon us. We need the evangelism that 3ABN can do. There has to be something done to fix this and it has to be done right and quickly. Maybe instead of writing here, day after day, we should spend our time writing to every SDA pastor, conference president & evangelist to plead with them to assist in cleaning up 3ABN. i don't think we need to expound endlessly on every detail or present any bias; but just emplore them to demand an expedient investigation because time is SO short and our first concern should be souls for the Kingdom."

[color=#006600]Rather than go to others why not take it to our Father in prayer. He is aware of all that is going on, the individuals involved, and the times we are in. He only can take a bad thing and turn it in to a beautiful outcome for His church.

[Observer]

Every time I read those letters there is one impression that I receive: John L. does not have even a minimal understand of ethical behavior, as defined by the secular world.

The secular world says:

1) Do not have a dual relationship.

John L. and many of the Board members were thinking of entering into such a dual relationship. Due the their employment with 3-ABN, they could not enter into a situation where they were to judge marital issues related to the President of 3-ABN in the person of his wife/ex-wife.

2) The secular world says that things must have the appearance of fairness.

No such appearance existed in discipline issues related to Linda.


John may (????) have been correct in his statement that the Board could have fairly judged Linda. I do not believe so. But, in theory he could have been correct. If so that is not the issue. As I have said above, those two ethical issues, and others, would prevent the local church Board from judging Linda.

This whole mess has presented the SDA denomination with clear evidence of a problem. That problem is that it does not have the procedures in place to resolve the issues in an ethical and fair manner. They simply do not exist. Because of that, on the human level, resolution can only come through the involvement of the civil authorities.

This post has been edited by Observer: Apr 10 2007, 07:22 PM

[mozart]

"The latter days are upon us. We need the evangelism that 3ABN can do. There has to be something done to fix this and it has to be done right and quickly. Maybe instead of writing here, day after day, we should spend our time writing to every SDA pastor, conference president & evangelist to plead with them to assist in cleaning up 3ABN. i don't think we need to expound endlessly on every detail or present any bias; but just emplore them to demand an expedient investigation because time is SO short and our first concern should be souls for the Kingdom."

[color=#006600]Rather than go to others why not take it to our Father in prayer. He is aware of all that is going on, the individuals involved, and the times we are in. He only can take a bad thing and turn it in to a beautiful outcome for His church.

Eirene,
thank you for your important comment, i have said here before that i think we should all pray before we even come in here. that said, the Lord wants us to give all our petitions to Him, but He also expects us to stand up for Him and uphold His church. if you saw a starving child, would you not take actions to feed that child? if you saw a woman being abused, would you not lend a helping hand? it's sad that lots of people won't do anything and it's sad that some get involved just because they like a drama. i hope we are not doing this that we do here for the latter reason. if we stay in prayer about it i think more solutions and less argueing will be the results. looking forward to more lovely post from you, God bless and guide you. Mo

[awesumtenor]

Fran,

Of course Nathan's a grown Man, as are my 2 boys, and they've struggled with some of the same as nathan, in addition my Oldest is bi-polar. and so I personally know how hard it is as a mother to try to support and help without condoning or enabling, so I have every sympathy with Linda in that regard. What I never had was a relationship with any of my Son's Doctors beyond what was considered proffessional and necessary for the well being of my Son.

Thanks to God they are both recovering and beoming what he wants them to be.

I also had a husband who was a alcoholiic and drug addict, and could not help himself much less our boys. He was abusive, controlling, possesive and VERY jealous, yet even he could not find anything to complain of regarding any of the Doctors or me.
As you claim to SEE so well, and are so defensive of Linda. Help me to understand what it is that you see here, that I cannot.

What do you really know about Nathan and the Doctor, other then one visit to Norway in January of 2004?

His drug use? recovery? any ongoing treatments or visits to Norway? any ongoing conversations or even a relationship between nathin and Dr A? Any contact at all?

What do you really know of Linda's ongoing relationship with Doctor A, after the begiinning of 2004?
Do tell, please.

You first, Cindy... since you persist in trying to proclaim Linda guilty.

What evidence do you have beyond what you have been told second and third hand? What have you personally witnessed?

By your own admission you have never met nor talked to Linda... so what makes you so certain of her guilt? What proof of said guilt were you provided? Did you even ask for any?

Your personal story is touching, I'm sure... but it does not qualify you to determine Linda's guilt or innocence.

This is the US, not France. The accused does not have the burden of proof to show himself innocent in this country.

You want to make the accusation; you have to prove it. You have been asked repeatedly for proof and you have not been forthcoming; we've gotten spin, innuendo, ad hominem and other foolishness... but no proof.

The ball remains in your court Cindy. Show us the trail of bread crumbs; show us how you came to the conclusion of Linda's guilt.

Be specific.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Rosyroi]

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/

Apparently censureship lasts no longer than 12 months and is NOT a permanent situation.

I wonder if Linda even had any idea about this. I doubt that the knowledge would have helped anyway. Especially since she had to abide by the gag order Danny gave to her. So going to the board would have been silly at best.

Example. She goes in. They talk... she listens. They ask questions....She has to be silent. Danny knew she would not win no matter what.

Also since she was so isolated from so much and was in so much turmoil in the midst of all that was going on she might have not even realized that the censure would not last very long. It is very apparent she DID NOT have adequate council.
JMO

Rosyroi
@}---;---;-----

[inga]

You said it well, "Observer"

Every time I read those letters there is one impression that I receive: John L. does not have even a minimal understand of ethical behavior, as defined by the secular world.

The secular world says:

1) Do not have a dual relationship.

John L. and many of the Board members were thinking of entering into such a dual relationship. Due the their employment with 3-ABN, they could not enter into a situation where they were to judge marital issues related to the President of 3-ABN in the person of his wife/ex-wife.

2) The secular world says that things must have the appearance of fairness.

No such appearance existed in discipline issues related to Linda.
John may (????) have been correct in his statement that the Board could have fairly judged Linda. I do not believe so. But, in theory he could have been correct. If so that is not the issue. As I have said above, those two ethical issues, and others, would prevent the local church Board from judging Linda.

This whole mess has presented the SDA denomination with clear evidence of a problem. That problem is that it does not have the procedures in place to resolve the issues in an ethical and fair manner. They simply do not exist. Because of that, on the human level, resolution can only come through the involvement of the civil authorities.

[Rosyroi]

The church chose censure rather than removal of membership because it was our desire to connect you with a Seventh-day Adventist church where you could find spiritual healing and recovery, not to cause you any further hardship. It is not our prayer that you pursue your calling; it is our prayer that you pursue the heart of God.

from JL to Linda in letter accepting her letter of dropping her membership.

Timeline...
She left Thompsonville church and was fellowshiping with folk in another church and asked for her membership to be transfered. Then Thompsonville church refused her transfer but made a decision to censure.
Sorry folks... this does NOT make sense to me.

I know there was a letter somewhere that Danny had to be the one in the right and Linda had to be the one in the wrong. Still strange to me.

Unless as JL said in his last sentence. "It is not our prayer that you pursue your calling..." yea right show up Danny as NOT 'the anointed one'.

NOT being sarcastic folks. Just writes em as I sees em.

Rosyroi
@}---;---;-----

[inga]

The church chose censure rather than removal of membership because it was our desire to connect you with a Seventh-day Adventist church where you could find spiritual healing and recovery, not to cause you any further hardship. It is not our prayer that you pursue your calling; it is our prayer that you pursue the heart of God.

John's letter is filled with a lot of nasty insinuations and emotionally laden negative language. Professing to be impartial, he reveals in his language that he is not for Linda in any way at all. Certainly his language is not pastoral. (Did he ever receive any pastoral training, by the way? And where did he receive the marriage counselor training, since he professes to be an experienced marriage counselor?)

What really takes the cake is the preposterous claim above!!

John writes that "the church chose censure... because it was our desire to connect you with a Seventh-day Adventist church where you could find spiritual healing"

In fact, censure would prevent Linda from gaining membership in any other Adventist church unless and until the Thompsonville church chose to allow her.

What in God's universe did JL mean???

It almost sounds as if he meant that "the church" (i.e. Danny, JL & company) planned to select a church of their choosing for Linda, thereby continuing to control her life.

As it is, events demonstrated an attempt to control Linda when the pastor in the church she was attending was removed to be replaced by a pastor favorable to Danny -- a pastor who forbade her active participation in the church.

Praise God that one little black church could not be coerced into doing Danny's will but wholeheartedly accepted Linda. (Now that really threw a monkey wrench in the Dannyite plans. )

[mozart]

John's letter is filled with a lot of nasty insinuations and emotionally laden negative language. Professing to be impartial, he reveals in his language that he is not for Linda in any way at all. Certainly his language is not pastoral. (Did he ever receive any pastoral training, by the way? And where did he receive the marriage counselor training, since he professes to be an experienced marriage counselor?)

What really takes the cake is the preposterous claim above!!

John writes that "the church chose censure... because it was our desire to connect you with a Seventh-day Adventist church where you could find spiritual healing"

In fact, censure would prevent Linda from gaining membership in any other Adventist church unless and until the Thompsonville church chose to allow her.

What in God's universe did JL mean??? You got me sister. That is some fancy double-sideways-flippin' talk . i've read it a bunch of times and still haven't figured out what he's trying to say. Mo

It almost sounds as if he meant that "the church" (i.e. Danny, JL & company) planned to select a church of their choosing for Linda, thereby continuing to control her life.

As it is, events demonstrated an attempt to control Linda when the pastor in the church she was attending was removed to be replaced by a pastor favorable to Danny -- a pastor who forbade her active participation in the church.

Praise God that one little black church could not be coerced into doing Danny's will but wholeheartedly accepted Linda. (Now that really threw a monkey wrench in the Dannyite plans. )
Oh Mercy, I'm not even gonna say what I'm thnking.

This post has been edited by mozart: Apr 10 2007, 11:07 PM

[roxe]

John writes that "the church chose censure... because it was our desire to connect you with a Seventh-day Adventist church where you could find spiritual healing"
[b] It almost sounds as if he meant that "the church" (i.e. Danny, JL & company) planned to select a church of their choosing for Linda, thereby continuing to control her life.
As it is, events demonstrated an attempt to control Linda when the pastor in the church she was attending was removed to be replaced by a pastor favorable to Danny -- a pastor who forbade her active participation in the church.

email posted on
http://www.save3abn.com/danny-shelton-demi...-of-what-05.htm

-------- Original Message --------
From: Danny Shelton
To: Linda Shelton
Subject: Re: Re:
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 11:33 PM
<snip>
from the love of your life
to the love of my life.

ps. I miss the old Linda terribly.
-------

hmmm...
is it the old "meek-mild-totally-controlled-by-Danny-Shelton" Linda that is missed??

This post has been edited by roxe: Apr 11 2007, 12:22 AM

[Observer]

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/

Apparently censureship lasts no longer than 12 months and is NOT a permanent situation.

I wonder if Linda even had any idea about this. I doubt that the knowledge would have helped anyway. Especially since she had to abide by the gag order Danny gave to her. So going to the board would have been silly at best.

Example. She goes in. They talk... she listens. They ask questions....She has to be silent. Danny knew she would not win no matter what.

Also since she was so isolated from so much and was in so much turmoil in the midst of all that was going on she might have not even realized that the censure would not last very long. It is very apparent she DID NOT have adequate council.
JMO

Rosyroi
@}---;---;-----

Oh! So it is apparent that she did not have adequate council! On what basis do you say that?

I am the one who advised her that she should request that the Thompsonville Chruch drop her from their membership rolls. As SDA clergy do your really think that I do not know and understand the CHRUCH MANUAL, and that censure is a temporary thing. Of course I know that.

This story has been so well published that I am only going to give a brief account of it.

The Thompsonville SDA Church did not move toward the discipline of Linda until it bacame apparent that Linda had associated with another SDA Chruch, and had been integrated into it's ministry. Linda had moved on with her life. She was involved with a SDA Church, and it's ministry. She planned to transfer her membership to that church.

It was at that point that the Thompsonville SDA Chruch began a process that probably would have led to a vote of censure for Linda. That vote would have prevented Linda from transfering her membership to that other SDA Chruch. It addition, it would have stopped her ministry within that Chruch.

I proposed to Linda that she request that her membership be dropped in the Thompsonville SDA Chruch. At that time, another person organized a very effective public relations campaign to persuade John L, the Thompsonville pastor to grant Linda's request to be dropped. Telephone calls and e-mails were sent to him by many people, and on a daily basis. That campaign, which I did not organize, was very effective. The Thompsonvllle Chruch granted her request to be dropped from membership.

As soon as Linda's membership was dropped, another SDA Chruch granted her membership on Profession of Faith. That process was immediate. I had advised her to seek membership on Profession of Faith, as soon as the Thompsonville Chruch dropped her. I guided her through that decision-making process.

Some might say that the her entry into the other chruch by Proffesion of Faith was in violation of the CHRUCH MANUAL. I disagree with that. I do not intend to specify the details. I will only say that Linda's acceptance into membership of the other SDA Church was done in compliance with the accepted standards of the SDA Chruch in North America, and after careful consideration by the involved parties, and consultation with others. If you think it violated the CHURCH MANUAL, you simply do not know what went on.

I am the one who proposed this plan to Linda. I advised interested parties to this process to the point where she became a member of the other SDA Church. However, I was not the one who organized the telephone/e-mail campaign. My advice was given within the guidelines, and accepted practices of the SDA Church in North America. Specific details, and consultations with others do not need to be made public.

I say again: What do you mean that Linda did not have good/adequate advice? You are entitled to your personal opinion. But, I will suggest that you are wrong.

This post has been edited by Observer: Apr 11 2007, 05:04 AM

[Observer]

John's letter is filled with a lot of nasty insinuations and emotionally laden negative language. Professing to be impartial, he reveals in his language that he is not for Linda in any way at all. Certainly his language is not pastoral. (Did he ever receive any pastoral training, by the way? And where did he receive the marriage counselor training, since he professes to be an experienced marriage counselor?)

What really takes the cake is the preposterous claim above!!

John writes that "the church chose censure... because it was our desire to connect you with a Seventh-day Adventist church where you could find spiritual healing"

In fact, censure would prevent Linda from gaining membership in any other Adventist church unless and until the Thompsonville church chose to allow her.

What in God's universe did JL mean???

It almost sounds as if he meant that "the church" (i.e. Danny, JL & company) planned to select a church of their choosing for Linda, thereby continuing to control her life.

As it is, events demonstrated an attempt to control Linda when the pastor in the church she was attending was removed to be replaced by a pastor favorable to Danny -- a pastor who forbade her active participation in the church.

Praise God that one little black church could not be coerced into doing Danny's will but wholeheartedly accepted Linda. (Now that really threw a monkey wrench in the Dannyite plans. )

Inga:

John L. is an ordained SDA minister. However, he did not become one through the traditional route. I do not believe that he has the typical Master of Divinity that SDA clergy in North America are supposed to have. I do not believe that he had the extensive experiences of working as an "intern" under a variety of pastors, and in a number of chruch districts prior to being ordained.

While the above is the recommended route for SDA clergy prior to being ordained, that route is not mandated for all. The Conference where I live ordained a person who works at an academy in guiding academy students in selling literature door to door.

The problem with people who have been ordained outside of the recommended route for North America is that people often believe that their ordination qualifies them to be the pastoral leader of a congregation, and to guide that congregation in it's spiritiual life. The reality is that typically such people are not qualified to give such leadership. They lack the congregational exposure to the problems that our members face, and therefore fail to properly guide them on their spiritual journey. Due their lack of educational training they lack the in-depth consideration of applications of Biblical council to congregational members, and they lack the interaction and sharing of pastoral leadership that takes place in the MDiv. program with other SDA clergy.

John L. is an ordained SDA minister. However, his published statements on various issues clearly reveal that he fails to understand aspects of the issues.


NOTE: If I have made any inaccurate statements in regard to John's background, please correct me.

[Aletheia]

Cindy, first of all let me ask your forgiveness for thinking that you could not possible understnad Lind'as situation. I did not say it out loud, but I thought it and I was wrong. You have, indeed, come through some difficult times. May God continue to bless and heal those wounds.

First let me say how much I appreciate that Diane, it means alot to me, and it's ok. How could you know? The truth is things just keep getting better all the time now, for the Lord is very good.

Second we obviously see things very differently here, from differing viewpoints, and we may just have to agree to disagree for now. It is actually because of my experiences that I do not see Danny as people accuse him. Sure he seems to talk without thinking first sometimes but that doesn't make him evil. I don't idolize him, as people calim but you know what, I like him, and i think he's got the raw deal here.

I will explain what I know, and understand about those couseling sessions, and it isn't what you are saying everone knows.

First I have never heard anything negative or heard anybody finding fault with John Lomacang, or with the Thompsonville Church until the problems arose because of Linda's relattionship with the Doctor. Suddenly he is evil and biased and part of a conspiracy against her. As far as I can tell the only reason that "everyone" believes all these negative things about those counseling sessions is because Linda said that to others and they repeated it, and so on. She gave her view to the Dr, to Johann and to whover would listen because someone had to be wrong here, and as she admitted no wrong the fault had to be with everyone else.

But there something a little wrong with the little girl marching out of step in the band and saying did you see how good I did and how everyone was out of step but me? They all tried to tell me I was wrong but I knew better, so I just kept on going. Don't you agree it's mean for them to keep picking on me?



The truth is Pastor Lomacang came to 3ABN because of Linda, she thought very highly of him.

People are reacting here like he want over to the house to attack her, and continued to do so. That isn't the case at all. Loving and caring for another means sometimes you have to disagree and say that is wrong. As a Pastor J.L has a greater responsibility to do so.


The truth is Linda went to him first, He heard her story first. She asked him to come to her house and talk to Danny. If anything he was at first biased in her favor having heard her side first.

How I understand it is it went like this. She called and was talking to her pastor about the situation of her friendship with this Doctor, and asked him if his wife Angie had any male friends, and how he felt about that.

So-- he explained that she had one very good friend who she had known for years before he'd met her. He said he'd met him and liked him too and that he knew it was simply a platonic friendship and so their conversations on the phone a couple times a year didn't bother him.

This was the first he'd heard from either danny or Linda about this and it didn't sound like there was a problem to him, so Linda asked him to come over and talk to Danny.

When he got there rather then telling Danny he was wrong, he told Danny that Linda had told him her side of the story and said "now let's hear yours"

After hearing about all the hours being spent on the phone and how Danny had caught her in lies several times and how after looking up the phone calls on the internet, she had started buying phone cards so they wouldn't show up on the bill, and after talking to both of them

Pastor Lomacang explained to Linda that her situation was a whole different story then the one with he and his wife, and there were many other factors here, and that she needed to stop the relationship before it hurt their marriage further. Tis was just one of many hours the pastor spent counseling...

Now I know some or many are going to say that's heresay. Yes it is, It came secondhand from someone who directly asked Pastor L about it, and relayed what was said to me, and now I am repeating it, so it is thirdhand. I would not do so except the words and testimony of John Lomacang are in the letter above regarding this, and his is a first person account and he is talking right to Linda about this:

"As a matter of record you probably remember well when you said to me,”John, God brought you to St. Louis so that we could bring you the rest of the way.” To suggest that you will be not be able to receive fairness and impartiality is ludicrous.

Linda, as we look at the time-line of events you were the first one to call me and ask for counsel about your friendship with the doctor. It was after I arrived at your home that I heard the other side of the story. It was hearing both sides that led me to give you counsel to sever the relationship with the doctor from Norway. I made that decision as your pastor and as a marriage counselor with 16 years experience, not as a “back-pocket” servant of Danny Shelton.


It has been nearly two years since this escapade started and you will recall that from the very outset, that Tuesday night in your living room, when you made the decision not to sever your relationship with the doctor, you set the course that led you to where you are today. Linda, the decision to hold on to someone other than your husband in spite of the months of counseling, was a critical decision in furthering your downfall. To further compound the matter, you still held firmly to your course after the relentless pleading from your friends, confidants, pastors, 3ABN board members, and non-Adventist counselors to sever the relationship. One has to be quite short-sighted and uninformed to come to the conclusion that all of those people were ”compromised.”

Really, Diane I don't want to argue, but my position if that either Linda has misrepresented what happed, or every single member of her former Church, her friends, her fellow employess and fellow board members, and even the Non SDA couselors her sister recommended so that they wouldn't be biased, all are lying. That to me is ludicrous indeed, for the only reason we have to believe evil of all those people is one woman who says that is what happened, and those she talked to, who weren't there and didn't see or witness anything.

And over and over what is presented doesn't match what Linda has said.

I do not see persecution or meanness in the letters above. I see a Church Pastor dealing with an erring member in the most loving and compassionate way possible. Some don't like the scriptural references, well they were given for our example and that's what he's using them for.

But as is obvious others here find fault. I guess that's what they want to see, and nothing I'm going to say will change that.

I find it ironic that those who keep asking for proof, never accept anything offered. Guess that's why they haven't ever got what they've asked for, all they'd do is pick things apart individually and deny it and still insist nothing had been proven. But to me all those individual things they deny can't be denied when you put them all together.


Anyway, I doubt fran will answer, because nathan had nothing to do with linda's relationship with the Doctor, that is simply how they met, after the beginning he never entered into it, so obviously Danny wasn't asking her to choose between him and her son. He was aksing her to choose him, and she chose the Doctor.

So I guess people can keep writing ugly things about everyone who thinks or ever thought linda made poor or wrong choices. I think I'm done with this thread. I also think maybe Gregory and others are right, a civil court is the last and probably only option available here.

But I do appreciate your spirit and sincerity in answering me Di.

God bless--

I know that Fran will answer, but just let me begin. Everyone knows about those "counseling" sessions. They were basically something of a crude "intervention"(in the loosest sense of the word) to get Linda to cut off Linda's association with the Dr. because they had been told by Danny that it was inappropriate. However, as a mother, they were basically asking her to choose between her husband and her son. Her husband who, like yours, should have been man enough to be by her side in this. I fyou say you know about addictions, then you know LInda was bound to support her child when he was serious about getting th help he needed. Danny had asked her I am sure within the confines of their home, and then went to the board and staff to make "his" request, and now her denial of this request was now basis for her being censured.

Secondly she was being asked to this board meeting by the same man who had conduted the "counseling" sessions. What was there to make her think that board meeting would be any different than she had been experiencing? I think she had blindly walked into the lion's den far too many time already. I believe she met with them and continue to talk with JL, because she didn't want to believe what he was doing. She was the one who was intrumental in bringing him and his wife to 3ABN and now he was basically stabbing her in the back. First her husband and now her friends, Brenda, now JL, and what others were there whom she thought to be friends, even family in that close knit community. No, I would not have walked into another trap with these people. Right now, they can only say she refused to meet with them and her own words in an email. If she would have met with them and actually gave them some her words to twist, as they already had, no tellin' what info you would be getting to post at this point.

Cindy it was a set up, like everything in this whole unfortunate story. I am telling you now, you should not even try to buy into that lie about lInda nd the Dr., it was devised by Danny for his own purposes. If the story was true, he could have said that from the beginning, why even bother making up the "spiritual adultery" mess? As long as women like you, a wife, mother, continue to buy into this, he will continue because your faithin him gives him credibility........he believes. Apply some things from your own situation and in your heart you will know there is something not quite right about this. You should already see similarities between Danny and your ex, especially in that jealousy dept. Danny doesn't have an substance abuse issues that I have heard of. IHowever, can see the similarities in just what you have told here.

Also, from the sound of it, Linda been given this choice before by Danny, and she had failed as Nathan's mother in order to be Danny's wife.(that actually should have been a HUGE red flag, a real man, christian man would never have presented her that choice). Danny does not have a good track record with his wives children.

So those are basically the problems I see, Cindy. Those emails are not saying what you want them to say, at lest not to me, Fran and Snoopy, and I don't believe we are alone in this.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 11 2007, 06:34 AM

[lurker]

Have you ever heard of someone who was prosecuted for a crime and refused to admit to a lesser crime in order to "plea bargain" and get a less harsh sentance. They refused because they were innocent but but were convicted of the more serious crime.

Well I believe that is what happened between Linda and her accusers. She thought they would believe her because she knew she was innocent and that the lack of evidence would prove it. But she failed to understand that sympathy is almost always with the husband in such cases. There is much sympathy (sometimes even admiration) for sexually straying among the brethren. There would have been much more sympathy for her if she had "admitted" to adultry and "repented" than telling the truth as she did.

This post has been edited by lurker: Apr 11 2007, 06:39 AM

[Aletheia]

Inga:

John L. is an ordained SDA minister. However, he did not become one through the traditional route. I do not believe that he has the typical Master of Divinity that SDA clergy in North America are supposed to have. I do not believe that he had the extensive experiences of working as an "intern" under a variety of pastors, and in a number of chruch districts prior to being ordained.

While the above is the recommended route for SDA clergy prior to being ordained, that route is not mandated for all. The Conference where I live ordained a person who works at an academy in guiding academy students in selling literature door to door.

The problem with people who have been ordained outside of the recommended route for North America is that people often believe that their ordination qualifies them to be the pastoral leader of a congregation, and to guide that congregation in it's spiritiual life. The reality is that typically such people are not qualified to give such leadership. They lack the congregational exposure to the problems that our members face, and therefore fail to properly guide them on their spiritual journey. Due their lack of educational training they lack the in-depth consideration of applications of Biblical council to congregational members, and they lack the interaction and sharing of pastoral leadership that takes place in the MDiv. program with other SDA clergy.

John L. is an ordained SDA minister.
NOTE: If I have made any inaccurate statements in regard to John's background, please correct me.

I do have a problem with this statement of yours:
"However, his published statements on various issues clearly reveal that he fails to understand aspects of the issues." You forgot to say "In my opinion" and you forgot to give any evidence. All that means is that Gregory Matthews disagrees with Pastor Lomacang, and Pastor lomacang has a different understanding then Gregory Matthews. -- and that may mean you lack understanding Gregory...

I also didn't like it when you said he had no ethics, that was rude and also unproven.

I don't know everything about his training.

I do know about "callings" and that the qualifications for a Pasor (bishop) are in the bible, and the conference has him listed as a Pastor, if they have no problem why should you?

He has 16 plus years of counseling experience...

But beyond that, and probably off topic, who ordained the Apostle Paul, gregory?

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 11 2007, 07:15 AM