Legal Posturing Options

[princessdi]

Pastor G, I really understand that GC has really no jurisdition over 3ABN. However, if we go back to the divorce/remarriage question, this should have been handled at the church level, but it wasn't. We all know why. Since the church, and the Danny clones just said the other week that it is an Adventist church. The pastor, JL, the electronics man, did not perform due process, because of his personal bias and involvement in the dismissal of Linda. And at the time they were only claiming "spiritual adultery". So there was no basis for her attempted censure, neither Danny's remarriage. Cannot the Union, because we already know about the conference Pres., intervene?

At least do a formal investigation and publish some results. At least act as if they are aware that something is wrong. IMO, one should have been held and Danny and both Linda sat down while it was sorted out. I just see that the church has put itself, it's member, and it's intergrity in jeopardy and ad a disadvantage with it's contract and dealings with 3ABN. What exactly is the church's position in such a situation? An independent ministry who attaches itself to the church, but then that ministry and it's leader come under fire.

[Observer]

Pastor G, I really understand that GC has really no jurisdition over 3ABN. However, if we go back to the divorce/remarriage question, this should have been handled at the church level, but it wasn't. We all know why. Since the church, and the Danny clones just said the other week that it is an Adventist church. The pastor, JL, the electronics man, did not perform due process, because of his personal bias and involvement in the dismissal of Linda. And at the time they were only claiming "spiritual adultery". So there was no basis for her attempted censure, neither Danny's remarriage. Cannot the Union, because we already know about the conference Pres., intervene?

At least do a formal investigation and publish some results. At least act as if they are aware that something is wrong. IMO, one should have been held and Danny and both Linda sat down while it was sorted out. I just see that the church has put itself, it's member, and it's intergrity in jeopardy and ad a disadvantage with it's contract and dealings with 3ABN. What exactly is the church's position in such a situation? An independent ministry who attaches itself to the church, but then that ministry and it's leader come under fire.

You have clearly illustrated that the denominaiton does not have a process to deal with this situation.

For matters of this nature, it is the local congregation that has the authority to deal with the issue. Right or wrong, the authority rests with them.

Frankly, we we deal with this issue in non-specific terms (not related to Danny & Linda) our conservatives and liberals agree. That authority should rest with the local congregation, and no one else. When we deal in general terms, no conservatives or liberals would want to change that.

The denomination has a de-facto policy that when a marital issue involved a SDA clelrlgyperson, that person may be transfered to the so-called "conference-chruch" and the issue dwelt with by the Conference Executive Committee. Danny was no SDA clelrgy. So, the de-facto policy does not apply. Even in this exception, there are many spread across the spectrum who beleive it should not be done.

We just do not have a polciy that fits the need here.

[princessdi]

Understood and agreed that we dont' need to change or establish policy for one situation that might doom us in many more. The problem is that at church level so many do not see the problem, and often don't until itis too late.

You have clearly illustrated that the denominaiton does not have a process to deal with this situation.

For matters of this nature, it is the local congregation that has the authority to deal with the issue. Right or wrong, the authority rests with them.

Frankly, we we deal with this issue in non-specific terms (not related to Danny & Linda) our conservatives and liberals agree. That authority should rest with the local congregation, and no one else. When we deal in general terms, no conservatives or liberals would want to change that.

The denomination has a de-facto policy that when a marital issue involved a SDA clelrlgyperson, that person may be transfered to the so-called "conference-chruch" and the issue dwelt with by the Conference Executive Committee. Danny was no SDA clelrgy. So, the de-facto policy does not apply. Even in this exception, there are many spread across the spectrum who beleive it should not be done.

We just do not have a polciy that fits the need here.

[SoulEspresso]

We just do not have a policy that fits the need here.

Isn't there a legal proverb that goes something like, "Difficult cases make for bad law"?

Having thought about it some more, I'm more inclined to agree with you that this is out of the church's jurisdiction--on a governance level.

But not on a moral level. I don't think the church actually can resolve this--but doesn't the body of Christ have a moral imperative to call her members on it when they sin before the whole world? Cannot they at least say, "Based on the available evidence surrounding these allegations, we no longer wish to have a relationship on any level with 3ABN until the president and his board resign. While we have been grateful for their many years of service, we as a church do not approve of the behavior exhibited by Danny & Co over the last three years"?

If it does nothing else, it may embarass Danny into backing off on his slander, if not his lawsuits.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but entire congregations can be placed on church discipline. I don't have my manual at the moment but I do believe that repeated "willful and malicious falsehood" is grounds for disfellowship.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: May 8 2007, 04:19 PM

[princessdi]

That would be ideal, SE, or at least call for an exhastive, independent investigation. However, as we see the representatives here, there are many who just go along with the program, what ever Danny says. They believe him to be the belagered and embattled head of God's chosen ministry to finish this work. In fact too many are sheep minded, just following somebody, because they "believe "them to be following Jesus. Then there is the group who believe this has absolutely nothing to do with them, but don't talk about it, becuase it brings a negative light to the church. So we waiting and let it fester until 60 Mins. gets a hold of it. Then they will say, this is a plot by the beast RCC and prophecy is being fulfilled and we are in the first phase of persecution.

We may or may not learn the hard to way expose and solve these issues inhouse, as a way of preventing the oozing infection we see now.

Isn't there a legal proverb that goes something like, "Difficult cases make for bad law"?

Having thought about it some more, I'm more inclined to agree with you that this is out of the church's jurisdiction--on a governance level.

But not on a moral level. I don't think the church actually can resolve this--but doesn't the body of Christ have a moral impoerative to call her members on it when they sin before the whole world? Cannot they at least say, "Based on the available evidence surrounding these allegations, we no longer wish to have a relationship on any level with 3ABN until the president and his board resign. While we have been grateful for their many years of service, we as a church do not approve of the behavior exhibited by Danny & Co over the last three years"?
If it does nothing else, it may embarass Danny into backing off on his slander, if not his lawsuits.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but entire congregations can be placed on church discipline. I don't have my manual at the moment but I do believe that repeated "willful and malicious falsehood" is grounds for disfellowship.

[awesumtenor]

I don't have my manual at the moment but I do believe that repeated "willful and malicious falsehood" is grounds for disfellowship.

Current manual lists it as "willful and habitual falsehood"... it also lists improper remarriage of divorced persons, fornication, promiscuity, incest, homosexual practice, sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults, and other sexual perversions, fraud and willful misrepresentation in business and persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church... in addition to the obvious sins like stealing and murder.

In His service,
Mr. J

[SoulEspresso]

Current manual lists it as "willful and habitual falsehood"... it also lists improper remarriage of divorced persons, fornication, promiscuity, incest, homosexual practice, sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults, and other sexual perversions, fraud and willful misrepresentation in business and persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church... in addition to the obvious sins like stealing and murder.

In His service,
Mr. J

Bottom line is, if Danny Shelton weren't the most familiar face in Adventism, and if he weren't backed by the wealthiest financier in the church, not only would he no longer be a member (for, as far as we can tell, all those reasons Mr. J has listed), but neither would Walter Thompsen, Shelley Quinn, Mollie and Hal Steenson, or John Lomocang--for the reason I mentioned (again, because no contrary evidence has been forthcoming).

The local church couldn't deal with it because the local church is in fact 3ABN. So the church itself ought to be subject to discipline in this case--even if there is no policy to that degree. Perhaps we should find a Thompsonville church directory and post it here ... can anyone get their hands on it?

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: May 8 2007, 04:30 PM

[Snoopy]

You have clearly illustrated that the denominaiton does not have a process to deal with this situation.

For matters of this nature, it is the local congregation that has the authority to deal with the issue. Right or wrong, the authority rests with them.

Frankly, we we deal with this issue in non-specific terms (not related to Danny & Linda) our conservatives and liberals agree. That authority should rest with the local congregation, and no one else. When we deal in general terms, no conservatives or liberals would want to change that.

The denomination has a de-facto policy that when a marital issue involved a SDA clelrlgyperson, that person may be transfered to the so-called "conference-chruch" and the issue dwelt with by the Conference Executive Committee. Danny was no SDA clelrgy. So, the de-facto policy does not apply. Even in this exception, there are many spread across the spectrum who beleive it should not be done.

We just do not have a polciy that fits the need here.

I understand what you are saying here, Observer. But I must say that while I understand the church not having a policy that fits this ugliness, I would hope that one byproduct of this mess would be the creation of such. In today's environment of electronic media, television personalities are bound to proliferate into more and more homes - and the names of more individuals become SDA household buzz words. While the 3ABN saga may currently be the most notorious, I'd be willing to bet that other such situations are out there, or will develop, unless the Lord comes really quick (PLEASE!!). As long as "we" are willing to put individuals on a pedestal, ie, in front of a camera, and send their faces into millions of living rooms, "we" might do well to have a plan in place to deal with behaviors of such who might fall below the line... BTJM...

The local church couldn't deal with it because the local church is in fact 3ABN. So the church itself ought to be subject to discipline in this case--even if there is no policy to that degree. Perhaps we should find a Thompsonville church directory and post it here ... can anyone get their hands on it?

hhhmmm...

c-o-n-f-l-c-t..... o-f.....i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t . . . . . ? ? ? ? ?




This post has been edited by Snoopy: May 10 2007, 01:58 PM

[Voktar of Zargon]

Some time ago a reference was made to the document "ISSUES: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries." published by the North American Division back in the early 1990's. This was a formal statement published by the denomination about prominent independent ministries. These organizations, "Hope International, Hartland Institute, Prophecy Countdown, and Steps to Life," showed themselves to be peculiarly dissaffected from the church, impacting the church on a number of negative levels. Some of the major issues were - diversion of tithe, opposition to church authority, and divisive doctrinal beliefs. Though the denomination could take no disciplinary action on these groups, and never initiated any broad-based formal investigation into their activities (that I am aware of), organizations like O.C.I. and A.S.I. did write letters of admonition followed by board actions removing from membership in their groups.
Moreover the N.A.D. published the book (ISSUES) containing copious documentation. Some of these documents outlined the financial, ethical, and political improprieties of these independent ministries.
Now for the application. The independent ministry of 3ABN has a more positive stance toward the denomination doctrinally than do these previously mentioned groups. 3ABN does not promote the diversion of tithe. 3ABN does not publically attack the church or its authority. Many denominational and supportive ministries are dependent on 3ABN for the promotion of their work (a big part of the problem perhaps).
All of this aside - 3ABN does have multiple financial, moral, ethical, Biblical and administrative problems which threaten to bring disgrace upon the church.
In light of this, A.S.I. should have been the first one to admonish and discipline 3ABN. It has not.
The North American Division has ample evidence to formally distance itself from 3ABN and even publish a document similar to "ISSUES:.." It has not.
For now "save3abn.com" functions as our "ISSUES" document until such time as the current lawsuit puts a muzzle on this site (one of its major goals I am assuming).
Let us petition A.S.I. and the denominational authorities to step up and do their job. Let us pray that God will likewise impress them to do so.

[Skyhook]

VofZ, those are good points. I recall that there was a committee that was set up by the GC to meet with the independent organizations and discuss the problems that existed between them and the church. I believe the outcome was a statement from the committee, speaking officially for the church. The statement said, in so many words, that those organizations must tone down the negative rhetoric about the church or it would result in severe disciplinary action. Meaning disfellowship, I assume. I do not hear much about the problems anymore. I know one of those organizations tells people that "they do not solicit tithe, but they are a tithe-worthy organization." 3abn also accepts tithe, but I have never heard them openly solicit it. Apparantly the GC does not now consider it wrong to divert tithe away from the church to an independent organization.

[Voktar of Zargon]

You can find the meetings and documents you mention referred to at the Biblical Research Institute website under "independent ministries." The General Conference Administrative Committee (ADCOM) appointed an ad hoc committee to sit down and ask questions of these ministries. Here's the url for the ad hoc commitees findings related to Hope International, Hartland, and Remnant ministries that were published in April 2000.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/I...nationalRpt.htm

This introductory paragraph is explanatory:
"The committee, comprised of General Conference Biblical Research Institute scholars, General Conference administrators, and Andrews University Seminary instructors, developed a 20-question instrument that was the basis of their inquiry and appraisal. The leaders of Hope International and its associated groups accepted the committee's invitation to answer the questions. They met with the General Conference appointed group on two occasions for a total of three and one-half days. The following report constitutes the committee's assessment of their responses, both written and verbal, and its evaluation of results of research done by individuals contracted specifically to study the theology and methodology of Hope International and associates."

Another relevant document is entitled, "Primacy of the Gospel Committee Report" This report chronicles another ad hoc committee's appraisal of the "1888 Message Study Committee".
Neither of these reports are favorable.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/I...oftheGospel.htm


Certainly the appointment of an ad hoc committee to inquire into and appraise 3ABN's activities would seem to be in order at this point. Would 3ABN be any less willing to sit down with such a committee to answer their questions than these other organizations?

This post has been edited by Voktar of Zargon: May 10 2007, 06:29 PM

[LaurenceD]

In light of a few comments above, I'm curious what kind of value others place on church membership. I'm in good standing, and have never been otherwise, but I wouldn't think about it twice if some church authority came along and told me I had been dismembered by the authorities (I know--wrong word, but humorous nonetheless, and of course I probably wouldn't even be able to think if I was dismembered, lol!). But why wouldn't it bother me? I've come to realize that "belonging" to organizations of the heart is fairly meaningless, and probably one of the greatest of human weaknesses. I draw zero security from belonging to clubs, organizations, etc. The only thing I value is my family...which I could never disown, and which I can't help but belong to.

[shinejoy]

good for you

[Pickle]

Would 3ABN be any less willing to sit down with such a committee to answer their questions than these other organizations?

I posted elsewhere the following: A few months ago or so I received a letter from an ally of Danny that indicated that he would sue a/the church, and even sue those outside of the U.S. That might help illuminate his comment on ClubAdventist.com that they had filed suit against two people to begin with.

Dangerous guy, that Danny is.

I wonder, would the anonymous donor bankroll a suit by Danny against a/the church? Hopefully not. That seems like it would be going way too far. As if it hasn't gone way too far already, like back on Dec. 31, 2006.

[Pickle]

I just looked the letter over again, and it was pretty clear that a conference could end up getting sued.