An Unauthorized History Of 3abn, Continues Options

[sister]

Part 4 of Nobody Owns the Church is now posted at Advent Talk:

Nobody Owns the Church, Part 4

Sister

Nobody owns the Church... Part 4

In Part 3 Jean Fiscalini, Danny Shelton, Pastor Samuel Thomas and the Nominating Committee retired to a private room to discuss Jean’s objections to Danny Shelton being re-elected as an Elder in the Thompsonville SDA Church. After returning to the Sanctuary, the vote was taken to accept the Nominating Committee Report as written. At that time the congregation was still unaware of what had transpired, what objections were raised, upon what grounds or upon what individual Pastor Fiscalini had objected. In Part 4 we will open the veil and see what transpired behind closed doors...

Entering one of the children’s Sabbath school rooms all those present seated themselves around a table as the Chairman of the Nominating Committee turned to Pastor Fiscalini and formally asked, “What is your objection to the Report?” Jean had already informed the committee he would publically object if Danny Shelton’s name was still listed as an Elder at the time of the second reading.

For the second time Jean explained to the Committee that twice he had approached Danny Shelton personally, as a fellow elder and chairman of the Church Board, in regard to his neglect of fulfilling his duties. It was not the conflict of Danny being away for ministry business which concerned Jean, but Danny’s choosing to walk out of Board meetings early or neglecting to attend at all because he had invited his cronies to play basketball with him. If Danny were unable to fulfill the duties of an Elder because of time conflicts with ministry business, was unwilling to schedule his private activities at times other than previously scheduled church board meetings, never attended Elder’s meetings or functioned in any aspect as a local Elder in the Thompsonville Church, he should not be re-elected to hold that position. It would be better both for Danny and for the Thompsonville church to elect another individual that was both able and willing to perform the duties required of an Elder. The office of Elder was not offered to Danny Shelton as an Honorary position, but as an opportunity to serve the local church.

Danny started immediately defending himself, “That is ridiculous!” He continued to ridicule Pastor’s Fiscalini’s objections, claiming that none of them were even worth considering and would not be legitimate grounds to hinder him from being an elder. As Danny continued his discourse it was obvious he would not accept being removed as an Elder of the Thompsonville Church and that no one had the authority to question his right to the title of Elder.

As first Jean Fiscalini, than Danny Shelton spoke, both were met with silence from the Committee. No comments were made, no questions were asked. Those present were aware that what Jean had said was true, Danny had not opposed the facts as Jean had presented them. Instead Danny’s attitude and arguments made it apparent that facts were irrelevant and should have no influence upon his continued role as an Elder in the Thompsonville SDA Church.

Barely a minute or two passed, after Jean Fiscalini and Danny Shelton left the Nominating Committee, when the Committee members returned to the Sanctuary. It became obvious that the members of the Nominating Committee were unwilling to oppose Danny Shelton’s re-election, although Danny did not dispute the truth of the allegations that he did not function as an Elder.

If the Nominating Committee finds the objection has merit then they have an obligation to remove that person from consideration for election. Given the nature of the situation at the Thompsonville Church, it would not have mattered what the objection was or it’s validity. The one unvoiced fact the members of the Nominating Committee could be certain of is they were being requested to make a decision that would be in direct opposition to the person upon whom they depended for their livelihood. There was little or no deliberation within the Nominating Committee that day. The potential rumblings of empty stomachs drowned out the sound of compromised consciences.

The inception of compromise does not lie at the feet of the Nominating Committee, but at the hands of the Illinois Conference that made themselves beholden to Danny Shelton by allowing him to pay half the pastor’s salary and by allowing the congregation to use a 3ABN building, rather than the Conference owning the church outright, which is the norm in the Adventist church. By allowing these things to happen, the Illinois Conference made Danny Shelton the de facto ruler of the Thompsonville Church.

To be continued...

This post has been edited by sister: Feb 9 2008, 07:06 PM

[calvin]

What I find unsettling is that this Elder Fiscalini is willing to expose the inter-workings of the Thompsonville nominating committee to the public, which is a confidential matter that should have stayed with the committee not even to the church at-large…and for what? Maybe a little redemptive therapy for the Elder? Why is this four year old story even important to tell at this point in the saga? Sister haven’t you exposed enough of Danny’s character in your previous stories? Did Sister and the Elder take into consideration what the members of this church and its nominating committee think of having this discussed on the Internet for all to see? Apparently Sister and Elder Fiscalini have rationalized that the ends somehow justifies the means. I don’t know this Elder Fiscalini but I don’t have much respect for him now.

[Clay]

good points Calvin... not sure what purpose this serves either.... those who are going to support Danny are not reading BSDA and will not be convinced no matter what they read IMO... those who have chosen not to support 3abn seem to be fixated on the downfall of Danny... time will tell I suppose, though we were told several years ago to be patient, that blockbuster information would soon be exposed and everything would be made right.... still waiting.....

[Pickle]

What I find unsettling is that this Elder Fiscalini is willing to expose the inter-workings of the Thompsonville nominating committee to the public, which is a confidential matter that should have stayed with the committee not even to the church at-large…and for what? Maybe a little redemptive therapy for the Elder? Why is this four year old story even important to tell at this point in the saga? Sister haven't you exposed enough of Danny's character in your previous stories? Did Sister and the Elder take into consideration what the members of this church and its nominating committee think of having this discussed on the Internet for all to see? Apparently Sister and Elder Fiscalini have rationalized that the ends somehow justifies the means. I don't know this Elder Fiscalini but I don't have much respect for him now.

While nominating committee members must keep things confidential, do non-committee members have to also do so?

This is the only story I have heard thus far that documents the reasons why Danny has not yet been disciplined by his local church. People could assume that since his church hasn't disciplined him that he's innocent, similar to the idea that since Tommy hasn't been convicted he must be innocent. But this story shows why that would be an unsound assumption.

[Clay]

While nominating committee members must keep things confidential, do non-committee members have to also do so?

This is the only story I have heard thus far that documents the reasons why Danny has not yet been disciplined by his local church. People could assume that since his church hasn't disciplined him that he's innocent, similar to the idea that since Tommy hasn't been convicted he must be innocent. But this story shows why that would be an unsound assumption.

that's the way you want to spin this? want to try again? how would non-committee members find out about something that went on in a meeting that was confidential? I am sure you see the problem.... or maybe you don't.....

[sister]

What I find unsettling is that this Elder Fiscalini is willing to expose the inter-workings of the Thompsonville nominating committee to the public, which is a confidential matter that should have stayed with the committee not even to the church at-large…and for what? Maybe a little redemptive therapy for the Elder? Why is this four year old story even important to tell at this point in the saga? Sister haven’t you exposed enough of Danny’s character in your previous stories? Did Sister and the Elder take into consideration what the members of this church and its nominating committee think of having this discussed on the Internet for all to see? Apparently Sister and Elder Fiscalini have rationalized that the ends somehow justifies the means. I don’t know this Elder Fiscalini but I don’t have much respect for him now.

Calvin, at the Thompsonville SDA Church the Nominating Committee leaked like a sieve. Information did not remain secret at the time and quickly became common knowledge among the members of the local church. Very little, if anything, remained confidential. As to the Nominating Committee in question, I have not revealed their names. One member of the committee has since died, some are not longer at 3ABN, but what took place at that particular committee, reveals the relationship between Danny Shelton and the Thompsonville Church. It is in a situation such as this--- where an employer pays half the pastor’s salary, where the majority of the church or their family members are dependent upon said employer for their livelihood, where the congregation meets in a building supplied and controlled by their employer--- that an unhealthy atmosphere is allowed to develop where the local church becomes beholden to an individual for it’s further existence. How is it possible for that church to discipline such a member? Even if he divorces his wife without Biblical grounds?

Calvin, I only posted a link to this elsewhere, it was you who chose to post it here for your members to read.

I do not see this as a situation of the ends justifying the means, but as an example of how sin can creep into not just the Thompsonville SDA congregation, but into any church where one unconsecrated individual has this much power and influence, where a church becomes so indebted to a “leader” that one day they will comply with honoring his wishes about the Word of God. I do not believe that Elder Fiscalini is sharing his story to garner your respect, but like a watchman on the wall, to give our churches the warning to base it’s decisions upon Scripture, to honor God above any man and how important it is for our churches and pastors to be indebted to no man.

Sister

This post has been edited by sister: Feb 10 2008, 12:41 AM

[sister]

While nominating committee members must keep things confidential, do non-committee members have to also do so?

This is the only story I have heard thus far that documents the reasons why Danny has not yet been disciplined by his local church. People could assume that since his church hasn't disciplined him that he's innocent, similar to the idea that since Tommy hasn't been convicted he must be innocent. But this story shows why that would be an unsound assumption.

What I find unsettling is that this Elder Fiscalini is willing to expose the inter-workings of the Thompsonville nominating committee to the public, which is a confidential matter that should have stayed with the committee not even to the church at-large…

Pastor Fiscalini was not a member of the Nominating Committee and has only commented concerning the interaction he and Danny had together with them, and the concerns he personally brought to the Committee. He has not discussed any other actions of the "inter-workings of the Thompsonville Nominating Committee" that was not directly connected to his situation. It is the members of the Nominating Committee that are bond to confidentially in regard to the concerns that are brought to them, not those who have concerns. But as I expressed in a previous post, the Committee leaked like a sieve and all was soon common knowledge.

Sister

[Clay]

Sister said in part:

Calvin, I only posted a link to this elsewhere, it was you who chose to post it here for your members to read.

your point is moot... you linked the latest installment to be read... when you opted to do that it really didn't make any difference whether it was linked to be read elsewhere or posted here, you wanted it to be read so IMO it doesn't make any difference....

[Pickle]

that's the way you want to spin this? want to try again? how would non-committee members find out about something that went on in a meeting that was confidential? I am sure you see the problem.... or maybe you don't.....

Non-committee members find out who got nominated for what when the first reading is given. The two meetings in question occurred after the first reading, based on the story. So I don't see where a breaking of confidence occurred.

I wouldn't think that Jean Fiscalini would have to keep confidential the fact that he appeared before the nominating committee not once but twice.

[Observer]

What I find unsettling is that this Elder Fiscalini is willing to expose the inter-workings of the Thompsonville nominating committee to the public, which is a confidential matter that should have stayed with the committee not even to the church at-large…and for what? Maybe a little redemptive therapy for the Elder? Why is this four year old story even important to tell at this point in the saga? Sister haven’t you exposed enough of Danny’s character in your previous stories? Did Sister and the Elder take into consideration what the members of this church and its nominating committee think of having this discussed on the Internet for all to see? Apparently Sister and Elder Fiscalini have rationalized that the ends somehow justifies the means. I don’t know this Elder Fiscalini but I don’t have much respect for him now.

Yes, the CHURCH MANUAL states in part the following (I have added my interpretative comments):
1) An individual member may appear before the Nominating Committee (NC) to object to a nomination for office.
2) Members of the NC are under an ethical obligation to hold the discussions of the objection confidential and not to be reported to the congregation or elsewhere.
3) While the individual discussions are confidential, the decision of the NC in regard to the objection is to be reported back to the congregation and therefore that decision becomes public.
4) The person who objects has the right to appeal the decision of the NC to the congragation at large and as a part of the process of that appeal to fully state the reasons for the objections. Folks, this is standard parlimentary process and accepted denominational proceedure.
5) In order to keep the discussions of the NC confidential, the person objecting to a person being placed in office is to be excluded from the room and the discussions of the NC are not to take place in the presence of the person who objected. [See page 157 of the 2005 edition of the CHRUCH MANUAL.]
6) The realistic consequence of a NC allowing the objector to be present during the discussions is to allow the objector to present elements of the discussion as part of the appeal to the congregation. The objector is not bound by confidentiality as are the NC members. The so-called seal of confidentiality is broken by allowing the objector to be present. Folks, that is simple standard ethics. He failure of the NC to exclude the person from the room during the discussions may be assumed to be a waiever of confidentiality. Again, standard practice.
7) Even though individual members of the NC have an ethical obligation to respect confidentiality, unless that seal has been broken as I have stated in #6, that seal is not absolute. The reference that I have stated in # 5 allows the Chairperson of the NC to break that seal of confidentility. Some will say that such circumstances are very limited. In one sense that is true. But, that limation is essentially that the Chairperson is required to determine that such is necessary. That determination opens the door very wide. The Chairperson could respond openly to questions from the congregation simply be deciding that it was necessary to do so.

Folks, as I view the comments made by Sister and Elder F it appears to me that Elder F may have been allowed to remain in the room during the discusion. If that was so, the seal of confidentialitiy was broken. He had no obligation to keep those discusisons confidential.

It may be that Sister's comments were based upon informatlion revealed by the Chairperson of the NC. If so, the seal of confidentiality was broken by a person authorized to do so and Sister's comments are allowed.

It may be that Sister's comments were based upon leakage of informaiton made by individual members of the NC. Such leakage is quite typical of SDA committees. People often do not know how to keep their mouths shut. In any case, once such leakage happens the ilnformatlion is public and subject to reporting and comment. When committees can not keep their respective mouths shut they can not expect that the ilnformation will not become subject to public discussion.

This post has been edited by Observer: Feb 10 2008, 07:39 AM

[Observer]

Non-committee members find out who got nominated for what when the first reading is given. The two meetings in question occurred after the first reading, based on the story. So I don't see where a breaking of confidence occurred.

I wouldn't think that Jean Fiscalini would have to keep confidential the fact that he appeared before the nominating committee not once but twice.

Elder F had every right to share his objections with anyone he chose to share with.

The decision of the nominating commettee was not to be confidential. It was to be shared with the congregation for their vote, either up or down.

It was only the individual nominating committee commets that were to be confidential and that with the exclusion of the objecting member. If the objecting member was allowe to witness the discussions the seal of confidentiality was broken.

If Elder F was allowed to stay for the NC discusison he was granted assumed permission ot use the information as part of any appeal that he might make to the congregation, at which time it would become public.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Thank you, Observer, for that lesson from the Church Manual, as I also wondered about that, and that makes perfect sense to me.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I have a couple questions.

As the normal process is for only the objector to present his/her objections to the NC, why was Danny Shelton also asked to be present?

Also, as this was a disruption of gathering for worship on the Sabbath, why did the NC meet right then and there?

Why didn't they simply move on and organize a meeting of the NC at a later date with the idea of bringing this forward the following Sabbath?

It seems to me that two normal processes were broken on that Sabbath day.

[Observer]

I have a couple questions.

As the normal process is for only the objector to present his/her objections to the NC, why was Danny Shelton also asked to be present?

Also, as this was a disruption of gathering for worship on the Sabbath, why did the NC meet right then and there?

Why didn't they simply move on and organize a meeting of the NC at a later date with the idea of bringing this forward the following Sabbath?

It seems to me that two normal processes were broken on that Sabbath day.

All good questions.

Remember, the individual congregation has a lot of authority to conduct the election of officers as they wish.

As to Danny: On the assumption that Danny was present throught the entire proceeding, one might assume that the NC decided in fairness to all to allow Elder F. to be present through the entire proceeding.

The CHURCH MANUAL does not explicitly prohibit the person (Danny) from being present at the time the objections are made. I can assume that the NC might decide that fairness required for Danny to hear the objections 1st hand rather than 2nd hand. Or that Danny be allowed to respond to the objections rather than the NC making a decision without Danny's input.

Again, in the election of officers the congregation has a lot of power. The CHURCH MANUAL does not spell out all of the details.

One may object to the decision that the NC and/or the local congregation made. But, I see in the reported process some attempt to be fair to both Danny and Elder F.

[GRAT]

Quote from chapter #3 -Assuming the congregation was unaware of the nature of the objection being raised, the pastor asked the Nominating committee to immediately adjourn, accompanied by Jean Fiscalini, to another room for private discussion. Passing Danny Shelton, Jean leaned over to him and requested that he join them since the discussion was in regard to him, “Danny, can you join us, it is about you and I want you to hear the information first hand.”

Sorry, I don't know how to put this in a box but thought it would answer some of the question.