Q. It's easy to get the impression in the, present situation that we have a church filled with dishonest or financially inept administrators. Is this really the, case? How many individuals are we talking about, and what kind of problems are, we really discussing?
A. I believe that most individuals who have been recommended for discipline in connection with the loans made to Dr. Davenport felt at the time that they were doing what was best for the church. They wanted to maximize assets, of course. They saw an opportunity for an above-average investment. In so doing, they were not as particular as they should have been in following prudent business practices and policies adopted by the church to safeguard our finances.
On the other hand, I think there have been a few who could be considered to be a bit personally grasping, a very few, perhaps, that we might consider to be greedy. But, by and large, those who have been involved in the Davenport loans have been individuals who, apart from this situation, have a rather long record of faithful service to the church and whose track record is an enviable one.
Q. If we had not lost the money we have, would we still be concerned that some individuals disregarded, church policies and prudent business practices?
A. Yes. To do otherwise would not be a responsible approach. In fact, that is one lesson we ought to learn from this situation. Simply because things seem to be going well at a given time is no reason for the church to close its eyes to violation of policy and say nothing. I think that would be a very dangerous course for the church to pursue.
However, our concern in this situation is greater than finance. True, we've lost money, and much of it we'll never recover, but our greatest concern is the possible loss of confidence and trust on the part of our people in the faithfulness, integrity, and carefulness of administrative leadership. One can be willing to risk the loss of his own money, but he must not take that attitude when he is managing that which members have entrusted to the church. When a person has a fiduciary responsibility, it is incumbent upon him to check out every last point, so that at no time can he be charged with having been derelict in his responsibility.
Q. You mentioned the importance of the intangible qualities that are at stake here, even more than the financial loss. Do you feel that confidence in the administration of this church has been irreparably compromised?
A. I do feel that there have been many questions in the minds of our people. Most have been hoping that those questions could be dismissed, wanting to believe the best, waiting for some indication that would reassure them. It's my hope that the course we are taking in dealing with this problem will reassure people that they can trust leadership. I hope that the majority of our people will realize that individuals have made mistakes, but that these mistakes have been dealt with thoroughly and fairly and that much greater care will be taken in the future. I wouldn't want to minimize the fact that damage has been done to credibility. But I also believe in our people, and I've seen over and over again qualities in them that, I believe, hold promise for the future. I think we have a chance to redeem ourselves.
Q. What are the categories of discipline that have been recommended and the approximate number of individuals involved in each?
A. Let me start with the most severe category of discipline. In this group are those individuals who have been more concerned about themselves than about the church. They have been derelict in their financial responsibilities and have had a conflict of interest in terms of their own personal financial involvement with Dr. Davenport. We are recommending that they be terminated permanently from church employment and that their credentials be withdrawn. Those recommendations will go to the proper committees. There are three persons in this category.
The next level of discipline is made up of individuals whom we feel have been derelict in their fiduciary responsibility to the extent that we would recommend to their controlling committees or employing bodies that they be reassigned to responsibilities other than that of chief executive officer or chief financial officer. There are six persons in this group.
The third level of discipline is also composed of those whom we feel have been derelict in their financial responsibilities, but not to the extent that they should necessarily be transferred from their present post of duty. In some instances, their committees may feel that they should be transferred. But we are recommending that the committee register clearly its disapproval of the individual's actions and put him on notice that leaders who fail to work in harmony with the financial policies of this church will no longer be continued in any kind of administrative responsibility. We don't want to denigrate or destroy their influence, but we would certainly hope that individuals who are disciplined by this kind of a public reprimand from their controlling bodies and groups would understand that if they stumble into similar problems again, our feeling is that they ought to be removed from office. There are twenty-five in this group.
The fourth category involves a letter of disapproval and caution from my office to individuals who were involved but not sufficiently to bring their involvement to public attention. There are forty-six of these.
In these last two groups there are a number of retirees. We're not recommending that they be publicly disciplined. They will, however, receive a special letter from my office indicating that had they still been actively employed, they would have been eligible either for a public reprimand for dereliction of fiduciary responsibility, or a private letter of disapproval and caution.
Q. Recently you indicated that the. General Conference officers have. changed their original decision to publish in the Adventist Review the names of those who are being recommended for discipline.. What caused this chance mind?
A. I have both a long answer and a short answer, and I'm going to attempt a short one! Our preliminary reaction to this recommendation from the president's review commission to publish names was favorable. I stated in the Adventist Review our tentative intention to do so. But the more we studied the theological aspects, the historical back grounds of the church, how a church functions as opposed to government or business, the practical aspects of implementation, and also some emotional aspects, many questions arose as to whether it was wise to publish names.
We looked at many things in Scripture. One was the direct action Jesus took in driving the money changers from the Temple, showing that there are certain things that are holy and must not be desecrated. We weighed, on the other hand, the fact that He lived with Judas for a number of years and knew exactly what he was doing and contemplating, yet never exposed him. He didn't attach names when He wrote the sins of those who wanted to stone the woman accused of adultery.
Then, too, we realized that there were individuals, including quite a number on the president's review commission, who felt that the actual publication of names was itself a form of discipline. This made us even more hesitant, because we were not at all convinced that publicly humiliating an individual was a good form of discipline to initiate. When we realized that the publishing of names was being seen as a form of discipline, we felt we ought to be very cautious. In a sense, this would take away the responsibility for discipline that should rest upon employing organizations and bodies. We would have already made a decision, a published decision, and we felt that we should be in a position of making recommendations, rather than making decisions.
I have stated clearly that I wish I had been more perceptive, more cautious, at the outset, so that I would not have made that statement in the Adventist Review. I would have been far wiser to have waited until all the facts were in, and the officers could have looked at the whole picture, including all testimony, and have been in a position to make not just tentative, but final, recommendations.
Q. Some have suggested that the General Conference officers were under a great deal of pressure not to disclose publicly the, names of persons being recommended for discipline. Is this a fair assessment? ff so, did this pressure come from those who were being recommended for discipline or from those not directly involved with the Davenport situation?
A. Obviously, in a situation such as this, pressure groups develop. One usu ally likes to listen, but we have to be very careful about yielding to pressure groups. Frankly, I would have to say that there was pressure not to publish names. I wouldn't say it was irresistible pressure, or "a great deal" of pressure, but there was pressure in the sense that people were concerned and worried, both for the good name of the church as well as for individuals. For instance, innocent family members would bear the stigma of a relative having been publicly disciplined. This might become a source of discouragement. But what pressure there was did not come primarily from those who were recommended for discipline. These persons stated categorically that they hoped this would not have to be done, but they didn't express this in any demanding or harsh way. It was in the way of fervent appeals from individuals who naturally preferred their names not to be published. But the largest number of individuals who interceded on this point were not those who were recommended for discipline, but rather lay persons, pastors, and administrators who were not up for discipline.
Q. Did the review commission agree with the decision not to publish names?
A. Quite frankly, no. The commission would have preferred us to stay by their original recommendation. We have expressed repeated appreciation for the magnificent job they did, but in the final analysis, those of us who have certain constitutional responsibilities and who are ultimately answerable to the constituency of the church have taken a look at the larger picture, and built upon what the commission did, but have varied from their recommendations in this particular area.
Q. Does the decision not to publish the names in the Adventist Review mean that the names will not he disclosed?
A. We feel that our people deserve to have some clarification. If there are constituents of a given conference or union who wonder whether their leaders were among those recommended for discipline, I believe that they have a right to know. They would like to know whether their leaders' names have been cleared, whether they have been disciplined, whether they can safely trust in them, and so forth. I think they deserve that. The procedure that we have suggested requires that those names that are to be disciplined publicly would be taken to official organizations, be dis cussed openly, and become a matter of public record entered into the minutes. The minutes of our organizations and bodies are not something that cannot be available to people.
But I have also indicated in the Adventist Review that I would like to go beyond that. If there is no other satisfactory source of answers, I have invited individuals to phone either my office or Elder Bradford's office. If we are not available, one of our associates will assist them. Now, I am not suggesting that if somebody phones us and says, "I'd like to have the whole list read to me," we will feel that is fair. But if a person phones from a particular conference or from a particular union and wants to know about a particular individual or individuals in that conference or union, I think he ought to have the information. And if he has not been able to get it in any other way that seems to satisfy him, I've told them we'll personally make it available.
Q. Given the assumption that there will he attempts tn compile a complete list for publication, wouldn't it be best to disclose the entire list in some redemptive way in order to avoid any implication that we are withhold information?
A.. One could argue that it could be possible. But weighing that possibility against what we feel is in the best interest of the church and of individuals, I have to say clearly that we have no intention of publishing such a list.
At first I favored publishing such a list by the church, rather than having somebody else do it. I get very tired of hearing some people say, "You can never get the whole story from the official reports of the church; you have to go to some other source." But I have to weigh my dislike of that criticism against other factors and simply make the decision that seems warranted. If somebody decides to compile a list and publish names, he will have to take the responsibility of possible legal repercussions. Individuals may think they have a complete picture and yet make a mistake that could make them liable for slander or defamation of character. Certainly anyone who would attempt to publish a list of names would be destroying the redemptive aspect of our decision not to publish an official list.
Q. Do you feel that the church member ship as a whole has the need or right to see the entire picture of what the church has done to discipline in this situation, rather than only in their own union or local conference?
A. Even if we gave the list of names out to everybody—published it—that in itself would not necessarily indicate that justice had been done or that individuals had been disciplined. It would only say that we're publishing the names of individuals whom we think ought to fall into certain categories of discipline. Unless a person feels that the publishing of those names is, in itself, discipline, I see no great purpose in publishing such a list. It seems that at times there are those who are breathlessly waiting for names, more concerned about that than they are about what may happen to souls and individuals in a sensitive situation such as we face.
Leaders have been elected in order to carry out administrative and management responsibilities, and this area that we're talking about is basically administrative and management. It is not the business of every church member. It is not essential that every member know the name of every person who is to be disciplined. In fact, most of them they don't even know. I believe that the vast majority of our people worldwide, when they read our reports and look at the situation, will perceive that justice has been done.
Q. How do the General Conference officers see discipline occurring in these cases? Could you outline what they have in mind?
A. It is our belief that the NAD and/or General Conference officers need to make their presence known and felt in the official committees and boards of the various employing organizations. They need to present the recommendations for discipline that they have arrived at, with the help of the president's review com mission, and require that those employing bodies honestly face their responsibility and carry out that discipline. The reasons for making such recommendations, the background, the involvement, the extent, the violations of policy, et cetera, will be given. The individual under consideration should have an opportunity to make a defense by' presenting corrections or factors overlooked either by the officers or the commission. Incidentally, Elder Brad ford and I have personally interviewed many individuals, and there are very few instances in which the facts are at variance with what the individuals themselves recognize to be their past involvement.
If the employing committee is willing to recognize its authority to take appropriate action, I believe normalcy will be restored in a relatively short time. If they refuse or feel that General Conference leadership is interfering with their jurisdiction, then we would feel under obligation to request and expect a special constituency session where we could present the situation and allow that body to make a determination. It is the constituency that has ultimate and final responsibility in a given jurisdictional area. So we intend to carefully, calmly, pursue this matter to those lengths.
Q. Who will chair the various committees when recommendations for discipline are brought? Is it realistic to expect such committees to administer discipline to their colleagues or chief officers when many of those on these committees will love personal and career loyalty to the person they are being asked tn discipline?
A. I am one who believes that there needs to be loyalty to individuals. I believe that when a constituency has voted a certain person into office, we need to show loyalty to that individual. But I think there is a higher loyalty than simply to individuals, loyalty to principles. I would hope that those would always be compatible. But should a difference develop, I think our mandate is clear. We cannot blindly give loyalty to individuals.
On chairing these committees, it is our recommendation that if the chief executive officer, who normally chairs the committee, is the one being recommended for discipline, the ethical course would be to relinquish his chair to the president of the North American Division. It is my belief that most committees will be willing to face their honest responsibilities and, if given adequate information, will not be afraid to vote censure or discipline with respect to their leader within that organization. If not, then we have reached a very sad point. If individuals are unwilling to vote that which their conscience indicates simply because they are afraid of repercussions or because they don't want to show disloyalty to an individual, they no longer deserve to be members of those committees.
Q. Many of our readers in MINISTRY, of course, are local pastors. Many of these men sit on local conference committees. Even administrators, perhaps, are not always sure of their own responsibilities and the ethical implications of their actions. What are the ethical responsibilities of a pastor who sits on such a committee in speaking up against conference leadership when he feels that there is a problem?
A. There has to be a renewed emphasis upon the sacredness of responsibility within the church. We're not a business, even though we have to enter into a lot of business transactions. I think we need to recognize the sacredness of the call to leadership—and all that it implies. And I think that needs to be on all levels of the church, starting with the individual. We have been called to certain sacred responsibilities, of representing our Lord and message wherever we are. Any time it breaks down, even with the individual, the whole church suffers. That is especially true of the pastor, in his very sensitive responsibility as a shepherd of the flock. We are a spiritual body. We really cannot do anything in isolation, because the whole body suffers when someone along the line fails to recognize that sacred responsibility.
I also think there needs to be a renewed emphasis and understanding of what stewardship really means. And I'm not speaking of stewardship only in the sense of financial stewardship, though that is a very important area. I'm speaking of stewardship in terms of the message we have, the talents we have, our bodies. Particularly ministers have been called to that kind of responsibility of stewardship.
We must also realize that we cannot take unwarranted chances in this church. We cannot afford to speculate when we are the sacred guardians and stewards of other lives. I'm speaking spiritually and also financially. We need to recognize anew that policies, which are developed over a long period of time and based on adequate experience, with a world view, are for our protection, for the integrity of the whole body, and they need to be respected much more than they have been in the past. I think we need to be more sensitive to the work of auditors and not consider them to be a nuisance.
All of us need to understand much better what the words "conflict of interest" mean. I dare say that many of us, if we carefully examined everything we do, might find some conflicts of interest in our lives. These things can become a stumbling block and can ultimately lead to disaster for the church.
I think the church must also learn to take more immediate and deliberate action when we see something is wrong somewhere, and not let it go on and on. The immediacy and the deliberateness with which we act will safeguard us against these problems.
I think our pastors who are called to sit on committees and boards must realize the moral, ethical, the legal responsibility of serving. It's really a rather awesome thing, because we can all be held accountable in those areas. I think that committee members have a right to demand information, to expect information. Not simply to be told what to do, but to be given the reasons why we are recommending a particular course of action. Leadership owes that to commit tee members. Our pastors who sit on these committees ought to be kind and polite in requesting information. But if they don't get it, if it seems inadequate, or if the information leads them to be uneasy, then I think they have a responsibility to indicate that by their vote. It's not sufficient simply to abstain from voting, since it is presumed that one agrees unless he votes against.
Q. What counsel would you give the readers of MINISTRY, in putting this episode behind us and moving forward?
A. I'd like to emphasize the Thousand Days of Reaping. I like to get that phrase in every time I can. I see the fields white with the harvest, and realize that there are so many out there who are hurting physically, spiritually, emotionally, and that there are so many in the church who have the capacity to bring healing. I would hope that the Holy Spirit would help us to forget some things, but learn from them, and now unitedly press on to hasten the coming of our Lord.
