Gailon Arthur Speaks Out On Independent Ministries, Including BSDA, AsTalk, Maritime Options

[Johann]

This has just been posted on Advent Talk:

For many years I wondered why the Independent Ministries were not succeeding in their original goals. I have come to the conclusion the issue is in the Governance structures that are selected.

When a single personality or small cabal elect to establish an Independent Ministry, they begin that process of governance in direct conflict with the Counsels. They elect to develop a governance that allows a small group or individual to direct the ministry, and to do so in secret, without openness and transarency and without accountability to the supporters and donors. That election of governance violates the principals of Christian governance and Christian Leadership that require that we be open and transparent in all our dealings and requires accountability to the constituency that is to form the foundation of a "representative" form of governance.

In some cases, a larger group is initially formed in the form of a directorate, but if the directorate ever begins to hold the ministry's "founder" in any way accountable, they will find themselves subject to a "coup d'etat" and will quickly become "un-welcome". If the coup fails and the alternative develops, where the counsel of many gains pre-eminence, the counsel, without a constituency support, will find themselves unwelcome and the ministry will virtually collapse as the founder ignores their very existence or abandons the ministry.

Many "founders" elect to develop a governance that some refer to as "dictatorships for the Lord" or "benevolent dictatorships", a contradiction of terms, at the very least. They nearly all consist of a membership or constituency that is largely, or only, the hand picked board of directors consisting of from 3 to a dozen, that meets one to four times a year, largely for a small period of time, and are fed the managing directors' or presidents' view of what is going on. The directorate/membership really have no clear idea what the ministry is actually doing or how it is spending it's money, which means the officers or managing director have virtual free reign over the ministry. Frequently, the managing directors' personality is so strong, whether from a reign of political manipulation or simply an overwhelming "preaching" personality, that the ministry supporters view the person as annointed or messianic. Self annointed messiahs will eventually shipwreck themselves and the ministry as they ignore Biblical Principals and adopt the premise of the "divine right of kings" and assume that everything they do is above reproach and none of the supporters or donors business. The "zero accountability" syndrome.

These self appointed ministries will frequently promote themselves as "self supporting" ministries, when in fact they are virtually dependent upon the perpetual gifts of donor support. Examples are Hartland and Weimar that really never developed "self supporting" status for whatever reason. With large parcels of land at their disposal, they have failed to exploit the value of the gift of land for agriculture or development, but held in tax exempt status. The visionaries have never successfully moved beyond donor dependency despite both having "sanitarium style" health centers and in an era where healthful living, lifestyle and cardiac rehab are much sought after by a decaying world. Why?

Their educational systems were deemed "schools of the prophets" with purported adherence to Spirit of Prophecy guidelines and designed to be alternatives to the conference schools that had compromised their missions and supposedly had a conservative constituency that would send their young men and women to be educated in the tradition of the pioneers. Yet their educational institutions are dead or dying.
Why?

Yet there are examples of self supporting institutions that have largely acheived self suf-supporting status. What was the difference?

I would argue it was largely the the result of poorly structured governance that allows a managing directorate to pursue its own agenda with no accountability to a constituency that will require accountability for their stewardship, or lack of it.

As much as we frequently object to SDA denominational structure and governance, there is a built-in accountability and a representative form of government. Some constantly would press for less accountability and smaller committees, the counsel of many deemed too cumbersome, but it has kept the administrative teams largely on the straight and narrow, compared to alternatives. Others would simply argue that accountability is missing and far too many dollars are wasted on travel budgets and faulty planning. Some complain that far too many officers are selected by executive committees rather than constituencies as constituency meetings have gone from annual to every three and four years, and more frequently every five years as conferences adopt the prototypical General Conference constitutions.

While I personally feel every five years is far too long to seriously believe there is good accountability to the constituency, it is the constituencies that adopt these rule changes and then wonder why they do not know what is going on??? Go figure...and so the source of information regarding issues more and more frequently is the fourth column of ecclesiastical newsletters rather than the denominational papers at the GC, Union conference levels as they have taken up the role of psoitive public relations rather than a serious discussion of the issues. Thus, the rise of Hope International and Our Firm Foundation, Pilgrims Rest, Atlantic Union Reporter and a host of others in various forms.

The rise of online forums such as Maritime, BlackSDA, Club Adventist and a host of others, including Advent Talk, seem to fill some of this void resulting from a dirth of real discussion of the issues and a frank and open confession of the errors within the Camp of Modern Israel.

The issue of Governance is worth studying, and quickly, as we are running out of time to prepare a generation that will be able to accept the challenge of the tribulation just ahead.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[appletree]

Gailon Arthur Joy

Johann, why do you feel the need to come here with posts from GJ? Of course that is your perogative but you act as if you bringing quotes from some important source. The "sources" opinion isn't even important enough to read over at his own playground, much less trying to "pass it around."

[LaurenceD]

Johann, why do you feel the need to come here with posts from GJ? Of course that is your perogative but you act as if you bringing quotes from some important source. The "sources" opinion isn't even important enough to read over at his own playground, much less trying to "pass it around."

Same MO for his Gilley post. Does it stand to reason that out of 140 employees that some may like Gilley's administration better than Danny's? Of course. That is a persons perogative. Gailon knows he isn't risking much to make that stab. Where he makes his mistake is then to go on with unrealistic embellishments and lies that Danny was terrifying employees, people were quaking in their boots....etc....All ridiculous. All untrue. I'm there...he isn't...

here! here!

perogative? You must mean prerogative. It's pronounced different too...as in prĭ-rŏg'ə-tĭv

You're welcome.

You 3abn hillbillies really have a way with words.

[princessdi]

.....and you posted on this piece without reading it?

Johann, why do you feel the need to come here with posts from GJ? Of course that is your perogative but you act as if you bringing quotes from some important source. The "sources" opinion isn't even important enough to read over at his own playground, much less trying to "pass it around."

[Johann]

Johann, why do you feel the need to come here with posts from GJ? Of course that is your perogative but you act as if you bringing quotes from some important source. The "sources" opinion isn't even important enough to read over at his own playground, much less trying to "pass it around."

I also took a post by Appletree to Advent Talk. Does the same principle apply to you? Are you a non-important source? Remember that with the standards you judge others. . .

[Johann]

Johann, why do you feel the need to come here with posts from GJ? Of course that is your perogative but you act as if you bringing quotes from some important source. The "sources" opinion isn't even important enough to read over at his own playground, much less trying to "pass it around."

A friend sent me this story. A commentary on your remarks?

As a trucker stops for a red light, a blonde catches up. She jumps out of her car, runs up to his truck, and knocks on the door.

The trucker lowers the window, and she says "Hi, my name is Heather and you are losing some of your load."

The trucker ignores her and proceeds down the street.

When the truck stops for another red light, the girl catches up again. She jumps out of her car, runs up and knocks on the door.

Again, the trucker lowers the window. As if they've never spoken, the blonde says brightly, "Hi my name is Heather, and you are losing some of your load!"

Shaking his head, the trucker ignores her again and continues down the street.

At the third red light, the same thing happens again.

All out of breath, the blonde gets out of her car, runs up, knocks on the truck door. The trucker rolls down the window. Again she says "Hi, my name is Heather, and you are losing some of your load!"

When the light turns green the trucker revs up and races to the next light.

When he stops this time, he hurriedly gets out of the truck, and runs back to the blonde.

He knocks on her window, and after she lowers it, he says...

"Hi, my name is George, it's winter in Indiana and I'm driving the SALT TRUCK!"