An Open Letter to the Orion Chronicles Editor
January 9, 1996
Happy New Year, Xenia.(1)
I hope 1996 is a good year for you. I wasn't planning to write you again so soon, but your increasingly bold throwing down of the gauntlet in the Orion Chronicles changed my mind. Even though I have talked to many members in preparing my answers to your challenges, the opinions and conclusions I express are strictly my own. since I do not expect that you will accept this letter, and it is in response to your public editorial comments, this will be an open letter.
Thank you for reviving the Orion Chronicles. I congratulate you for choosing beautiful stationary, exciting fonts, a compact and pleasing layout, coverage of board actions, using good English, and an ambitious monthly publishing schedule. Your profiling of church saints is a good idea that I hope you can continue, though I gather from your comments that the supply of saints in this church may be somewhat limited. Even your willingness to use the Orion to criticize and challenge the ethics, judgement, morality, and Christianity of the current pastor, the former pastor, the church board, and all those who disagree with you is wonderful. You have obviously spent time and thought in putting this together. I appreciate it and hope that you will continue to do so, because it keeps me interested.
Anyone who donates their time for this church, as you have done, deserves more credit than criticism, because it is in our best interest that people be rewarded rather than punished for giving their time. Everything else that I say in this letter should be understood in the context of my previous sentence.
There are also some things about your new Orion Chronicles that I feel compelled to take issue with of course. But before articulating those issues, I should say first, that you have the right, and even an obligation to take the positions I object to, for the same reason that I must criticize them. I am convinced that you are a sincere Christian and that you speak the "truth" from your perspective.
But when it comes to truth, we are like the seven blind people who think they know an elephant because they have touched a part of it with their own hands. My contention is that the "truth" that is your guiding light, is only the elephants tail. Since this "elephant's tail" theology, as applied by you and your "select group", is destroying the spirit and morale of this church, I feel obligated to try once again to expose you to the rest of the animal. It goes without saying that you must think the same about my viewpoint. So let our dispute be settled in the marketplace of ideas.
The Rationalists Vs. the Irrationalists
My early versions of this letter dealt with the specifics of your words in the Orion Chronicles first, and dealt with the philosophical questions last. But in reading it over, I realized that this letter could never be read constructively while in that order. People would simply read from their respective world views and be further polarized. In looking over your comments, it is apparent that what we come from such fundamentally different views of reality that I could not do justice to you unless I first made an attempt to put it in a philosophical context. This difference in perceived realities is so great that it makes truth appear to be lies, and vice versa. You might call it theological super-Cochranization.
I suspect that the underlying cause for you and your select group's frustration and unceasing agitation of this church is ultimately your magical, or irrational view of Christianity in a church whose leadership is becoming increasingly rational. "Irrational" is not a pejorative statement but merely descriptive. If it appears insulting, it just shows the degree to which rational thought dominates our culture. It didn't used to be that way.
The Irrational View
The Church Fathers used to insist that Christianity be irrational, on grounds that unless it were so, faith would not be required by God. Since faith does seem to be a demanded by God, what must be believed, must be irrational. Therefore, a miracle by Holy spirit is necessary to convert us to this irrational belief. Otherwise, we could fall into Christianity merely by being logical. God is constantly intervening in our affairs with miracles because he loves us. Because Truth is irrational, we cannot trust reasoning and must simply obey. Something is truth because God says so. God wants us to come to church because we love Him and are committed to Him; not because it is a "good deal". Those suspected of being "good deal" ("rice") Christians are seen as opportunistic and thought of as being selfish. It is the duty of church leaders to discipline, wean and sift the "rice" Christians, lest the church go broke catering to them. The preferred form of government is a theocracy. Their strength is that they can resist relativism and nihilism. Their weakness is that they tend to be judgmental, and work harder rather than smarter.
The Rational View
The rationalists, however, see things as being just the opposite. God is never arbitrary and His Economy is so efficient that it is not necessary for Him to keep intervening with trivial miracles. Because God is never arbitrary and he desires intellectual companionship, blind obedience is a poor substitute for understanding His way. God calls something true because it already is so. God requires faith, not because the beliefs are irrational, but because we are not yet rational enough. The Holy Spirit's function is to free us from biases that obscure what is reasonable. God wants us to learn to love and commit to Him because He is the ultimate "good deal", and the church is an extension of Him. Those who come because they recognize that church is a "good deal" are coming for the only valid reason. It is the duty of church leaders to make sure that church programs are always a "good deal" in terms of what the community needs. Because some people need to give and sacrifice as much as others need to receive their help, the church will always prosper so long as it remains committed to being the occasion where those diverse human needs are brokered. The preferred form of government is democracy. Their strength is that they are quick to adapt and non-judgmental. Their weaknesses is that they may fall prey to relativism.
Many people are caught in the middle and want to have it both ways at one time or another. Ministers on both sides of the issue are forced to use cliches from both sides, sometimes without understanding the issues. But we are ultimately rationalists or irrationalists in our approach to church dynamics. The irrational view you and your select group subscribe to, used to rule this church. Ever since Glacier View, (which coincided with Dean's coming), the rationalists have been visibly on the rise not only in this church, but in the world church as a whole.
We are such a rational, democratically oriented society that the language and the approved thought processes favor the rationalists. You and your select group are irrationalists at heart, but are stuck with the rationalist vocabulary and a rationalist standard of proof. This leaves you tongue tied and frustrated, because it does not allow you to express or justify what you think is demanded by God without sounding silly or autocratic. But God's will is unnegotiable. I imagine that you resolve this unresolvable tension by allowing yourselves to imagine or twist the evidence you think you need in order to manufacture the rationalistic sounding arguments that you know are expected of you. And you are forced to latch onto and exaggerate any possible misdeed committed by those whose agenda you cannot refute on its merits. This is the only way you can see to justify the irrationalist agenda demanded of you by God. You may or may not even consciously realize that this is what you are doing.
From the rationalists standpoint, it just looks like intellectual dishonesty, malevolence, and defective thinking on your part. But from your viewpoint, it must be just fighting against apostasy, evil and worldliness. Admittedly, this is speculation, but I prefer it to the conclusion I would reach if I were to judge you as a rationalist. The chart at the end shows how this relates to our budget wars.
Philosophical, not Personal
Despite the fact that we seem to have a very different perspective of things, I want you to know that as far as I am concerned, these differences are ideological, and need have nothing to do with personal relationships. I don't know you socially very well, but from what I know, it appears that you and I have a lot in common. There are few people whose company I enjoy as much as Gordon's. I have no doubt that you are all good people. Some of my closest friends are those with whom I have great ideological differences. Some of my church friends with whom I share the view that your agenda is destructive, find it harder to separate friendship from ideology than I do. Some people are not philosophical enough to separate personalities from the issues being debated and others can. I can and do, though I am sensitive to the fact that many, including you, may find the distinction between persons and issues impossible to make.
Being philosophical does not mean that I am not passionate. I play sports passionately and aggressively, and I argue and write the same way. Passion means being angry, joyful, and sorrowful along with the laughing, yelling, and joking that comes with it. I don't apologize for it; in fact, it may be one of the few virtues of which I am guilty. A show of passion should not be equated with hostility, contempt, or denigration.
I say this because this way of relating to the world seems alien to you and worry that you are therefore not interpreting people or events correctly. I cannot remember seeing you laugh, and seldom see you smile. You never seem to show your anger overtly either, although judging from your testimony and your comments in the Orion Chronicles, you obviously feel you have much to be righteously indignant about.
Passive Aggression Is still Aggression
People who are angry but are afraid to express it directly inevitably express it indirectly in "passive aggressive" words and actions. Passive aggression is just as hostile as active aggression, but it is harder to detect because it involves acts (mental or physical) of omission rather than commission. I know that game well, Xenia, because I used it the army where direct expressions of anger or frustration against the system would have resulted in discipline. I would ask seemingly innocent but provocative questions, or deliberately misunderstand information or instructions in order to justify conclusions or mischief that would provoke the officers into misconduct. Then I would plead innocence on grounds of stupidity, and it was the officer who was in trouble for acting unchristian and denigrating trainees; not me.
Passive aggression is an especially effective tactic in church because of the taboo against expressed anger and a weakness for those who plead ignorance. I don't think it is possible to understand the dynamics of what is happening in this church without an understanding of passive aggression. It seems clear to me that this is the tactic you and your select group has been using, unconsciously or subconsciously. I know of no other way to account for such bright people being so conveniently ignorant, forgetful, or confused about facts which would have preempted most of the nonsense that has been going on in this church for almost ten years.
Now lets get on to the Orion Chronicles.
1. How About a Disclaimer for Your Comments
From your first three issues, it is apparent that you intend to use the Orion Chronicles as a weapon to settle scores with those who have opposed the agenda of your select group. Any editor has an agenda, or they would not put up with the headache of putting out a paper. And any agenda worth having, deserves to be promoted in the paper you edit free of charge.
But this paper represents the Central Japanese Church, and you were not appointed as its spokesperson. Journalistic ethics require you to make clear disclaimers for your editorial comments. You correctly demanded that of Sandra when she was editor, and it seems that you should hold yourself to the same standard.
2. Responsibility and the Law of Sowing and Reaping
With the proper disclaimer, as far as I am concerned, you can say what you want, no matter how outrageous or biased your comments are. (Other church members generally would not take such a libertarian position.) If you take provocative stances, however, you must be willing to accept the consequences that come to you as the result of the universal law of action and reaction, or in biblical terms, the law of sowing and reaping.
And yet this is precisely the law whose unavoidable consequences you seem unable to understand or accept. From the pulpit you told us how "some"(I assume you include me in that group) in this church wounded and offended you so grievously. I was moved by your account, and hope that you never experience that again.
As painful as your experience must have been to you, however, it still needs to be put in perspective. I have also seen the tears, the pain, and the deep anguish and despair your actions and words have brought to so many others who were trying their best to do God's will. They probably will never preach from our pulpit about the pain and suffering you inflicted upon them in this church, but I hear them crying out from under the altar nevertheless.
That is why I cannot say in good conscience that I would choose to have done much differently than I did. You see, Xenia, from a third party's perspective at least, the pain and anguish of others, counts just as much as yours. Not one jot or tittle of the law of sowing and reaping shall ever be repealed, so if you don't like what you are reaping, you might consider changing what you sow.
3. Comments, November, 1995 Issue
Your comments make it apparent that your perceived reality is so different from mine and everybody else I have talked to, that we must live in parallel universes. For instance, when the November issue came out, I was puzzled by your reference to a "recent" board meeting in which there was all this "unchristian!! hostility directed at you (or someone you identified with). I asked four board member who had been to "recent board meetings".
They too were mystified as to what you were talking about. They thought recent board meetings had been fairly tranquil, and they could recall no denigrating comments having been made. To the extent that there was tension or hostility present, those I asked felt that it was coming from you and your "select group." That coincides with my experience in the board meetings I have been to in the last five or six years.
So I came to the conclusion that you must either be referring back to board meetings held more than six months ago, or that you simply felt denigrated because your comments or your perspective was opposed or rejected. But even if the "denigration" was in your mind rather than in the words that were said, I would be the last person to deny that many on the board feel somewhat indignant about the attitude and pattern of conduct represented by you and your "select group".
Here are your comments from your November issue:
Christ mingled with people, ministering to their needs and taught them to love God and one another. Are we doing similarly? As professing Christians, are we loving, tender and encouraging? Is the grace of God full and present in our lives?
A picture is worth a thousand words. Envision yourself in a meeting where it has become noticeably acceptable to denigrate people who may not agree with a select groups purposes. The harsh words and its tenor are destructive and unchristian. That was the scene at a recent church board meeting. This behavior, however, is not exclusively isolated to the board. Unfortunately, it has occurred too often at other meetings.
"The question arises, why, then, are there so many claiming to believe God's word in whom there is not seen a reformation in words, in spirit, and in character? Why are there so many who cannot bear opposition to their purposes, and plans, who manifest an unholy temper, and whose words are
"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such 'wisdom' does not come from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice." James 3:13-16
harsh, overbearing and passionate? There is seen in their lives the same love of self, the same selfish indulgence, the same temper and hasty speech, that is seen in the life of the worldling." (COL p.99)
Today, we need Christians genuinely committed to Jesus Christ. Leaders willing to pursue God's purposes, not theirs. Spiritual leaders guided by the Holy Spirit and who minister and speak accordingly.
Now, Xenia, really. Don't you think this is a bit too sanctimonious? From the tone of your earlier comments, your last paragraph is a less than subtle way of accusing the leaders of this church of pursuing their own purposes; NOT Gods, and NOT ministering or acting as if they are guided by the Holy Spirit.
We can all wholeheartedly agree with you that the church is not as heavily populated with saints or sages as we might wish. But your self righteous attitude toward the conduct of others you oppose is the essence of the Phariseeism that Jesus condemned with harsher, more passionate words than were ever spoken to you in any church board or business meeting:
How can you say to your friend, "Let me take the sliver out of your eye"when there is that timber in your own. You phony, first take the timber out of your own eye and then you'll see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye.
Damn you!
...You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the
cup and the then the outside will be clean too! (Matt. 7:4,5; 23:25,26, Annotated Scholars Version)
While I would never say such harsh "unchristian" words as Jesus used, His example does show that there is such a thing as righteous indignation that is not necessarily unchristian. Most of us felt it over the way you and the Oshita's conducted your incomprehensible year long campaign against the church's gift to Masao. I documented it in a 52 page paper which you then refused to even accept, much less refute, explain or apologize for.
I and many others also felt it over your publicly displayed contempt for church leadership and the wishes of the congregation in the last several annual business meetings. We felt it during your select group's insistence on regurgitating disproved false accusations against the Sansei Day Camp operating board. We felt it when you and your select group spread false rumors about Pastor Ishii's embezzling or converting of church donations, then refused to apologize or even take responsibility when those charges were disproved.
Going back a little further, we felt it when you and your group's destructive campaign drove Dean and Cathy out of this church five years ago, and almost made them despair of the ministry itself. The board meetings during the last year or so until he decided to leave, were sadistic nightmares due to you and your group's behavior. You and your group were also a significant factor in him deciding to choose Loma Linda rather than accepting our invitation to return. I already know what you and your select group will say in self justification, but your self perception is not to be trusted.
Pastor Brent tried to control you and your select group by restricting discussion on the object of your obsession. For that you accused him of being a dictator (December, 1995 Orion Chronicles). He chose to leave unexpectedly, and we are now having trouble finding someone willing to replace him.
Given this troubling history, your being the one to publicly criticize everybody else's lack of Christianity for the negative responses you feel, seems self destructive and lacking in insight.
We can all agree that the atmosphere during many board meetings is deplorable. But why aren't you concerned about this culture of irresponsible charges that created it? Gordon did it again in the December board meeting by stating as fact that the Japanese Language School diverted funds for unauthorized purposes. I know it was not true because I was there when those changes were discussed and approved by the board. The last time I attended a board meeting, he was making false accusations against Sansei Day camp.
When one accusation is refuted, instead of apologies or retractions, we get denials of responsibility, silence, and then new accusations about something else. This never ending stream of irresponsible accusations, distortions, insinuations from you and your select group, directed against those that are working the hardest for the church, is what fuels the unpleasant atmosphere that you are rightly concerned about.
Your magical view of Christianity that leads you to expect that the Holy Spirit should arbitrarily make conflict cease, goes to the heart of the conflict in this church. Christianity, in my view, is not a magic bullet that can be conveniently invoked to enable you or anyone else to set aside the law of sowing and reaping. Rather, it should teach us to be wiser sowers.
4. Udon Note, December, 1995 Issue
Udon lunch sold on non-potluck Sabbaths to be discontinued with appreciation extended to all those who serviced this project. (Editors note: where did the collected monies go?)
This editorial comment of yours typifies the spirit you and your select group inject into this church. You are a very resourceful person when you want to be. But instead, you used ignorance as an excuse to tweak the nose of the pastor (who was not able to give you an answer on the spot during the November board meeting), and simultaneously irritate the udon servers. This is another example of your passive aggressive behavior, Xenia. Of course you may deny it. The beauty of passive aggressive behavior is that it always comes with plausible deniability.
5. The $17,780 Deficit, December, 1995
For reasons apparently known only to board members, the church's expenditures this year are greater than its receipts. Through September the deficit reached $17,780.
Many questions arise: (l)Why are board members allowing expenses to be greater than receipts? (2)Were all these expenditures warranted? (3)Have church members been informed of the churches finances? (4)Why is the treasurer's report no longer posted on the bulletin board? (5)What steps have been taken to correct this deficit? (6)Is there sufficient understanding of the treasurer's report? (7)Why did previous board members allow the former board chairman to dictate that financial reports be reviewed only on alternating months while disallowing any discussion of finances?
Before addressing each of your seven questions pertaining to the $17,780 "deficit", let me first address your hysterical "the sky is falling because we have a deficit!" attitude implicit in your whole commentary. This is not like the federal deficit where they spend money they don't have, and aren't likely to have. We did not have to borrow any money, and our aggregate cash on hand is still about $110,000, which is $110,000 more than was strictly necessary. Everything else being equal, that is not as good as having $130,000 in the bank, but everything else is NOT equal. The tail is not the whole elephant, although everything else being equal, a perfumed tail would be nice.
That our cash balance is 20% below where we were last year is neither good nor bad. It is entirely beside the point. What matters is whether we find a purpose and mission that our members can identify with. If we do, then our members will contribute enough money to pay the bills and carry out that mission. If not, then church becomes irrelevant, and our members will take their money and seek fulfillment elsewhere, as they well should. The church budget is a tiny fraction or the church members' total earning capacity and equity.
The only issue is whether the church's vision is worthy of their money and loyalty. That is why church leaders keep telling you again and again that the church board must spend a majority of their time seeking and finding ways to implement that vision rather than mucking around with the treasurer's report until midnight every month.
In looking at the 1995 reports, and in talking with the treasurer, there are three big non-routine expenditures which explain most of the shortfall:
The copy machine: $5,867.10
Sansei Day Camp: $5,000.00 (approx. balance)
Harvey Yamamoto $2,700.00
Total: $13,567.10
The copy machine was a capital expenditure that we will be benefiting from for many years to come, though we paid for it in February because we had the cash to do it. We are better off for having it.
Sansei Day Camp still has an outstanding balance of around $5,000, in the October treasurer's report. I am no longer on that operating board and cannot tell you any more than that. But this was not just an expenditure; and even if we do not get it back, it was an investment that this church should be proud and happy about. The church is much better off for having run it this year than having another $5,000 sitting in the checking account.
If you ask me for proof that the church has benefited, I will just say that I have presented my case many times in writing, read it in your presence, and you have never refuted it. I can assure you that when compared to proving the existence of God, the inspiration of the Scriptures or Ellen White, or the sanctuary doctrine, proving the value or Sansei Day Camp is a snap.
The circumstances that made it necessary to write the $2,700 check to Harvey Yamamoto, however, is a different story. Not only was that a complete waste of church money, it cost the church a lot of good will, the source from which church donations flow. And you, along with Gordon and Naomi Oshita must take full responsibility for that fiasco. Your mean spirited agitation of that issue, your willful distortion of a board action, and your feigned ignorance caused that to happen. The documentation for this (including proof that you knew better) is in the letter you refused to accept from me, so I will not repeat it here.
I thought this matter was finished and never intended to bring it up again. But now you point accusing fingers at the pastor and other board members for the evils of deficit spending and demand an explanation and justification. Here it is. As the prophet Nathan declared, Xenia, "Thou art the man".
6. The Seven Deadly Questions, December, 1995
Now lets look at each of your seven questions:
(1) Why are board members allowing expenses to be greater than receipts?
1. Many do not believe that posting a "profit" each month or every year is how God keeps score.
2. Many feel that the church bank account balance is the effect rather than the cause of board actions, and therefore try not to let the tail wag the elephant.
3. It is impossible to know in advance of making a commitment, whether offerings and donations will completely cover the expenditures for a program. This sometimes makes it necessary to commit the sin of venturing out in faith.
4. Many feel that becoming irrelevant is a greater threat to the church's future than a dip in its equity.
(2)Were all these expenditures warranted?
No. The $2,700 payment was made necessary only because of mean spirited stupidity that passeth understanding.
(3)Have church members been informed of the church's finances?
Those interested in knowing have a chance to become informed. But there is a big difference between knowing how to do arithmetic and understanding the dynamics of church finance. Some people are
incapable of ever understanding that.
(4)Why is the treasurer's report no longer posted on the bulletin board?
Xenia, you just got yourself another duty. I asked Pastor Ishii, Stanley, Masao and Pat about it. They are for it; but think it as a trivial matter, since anybody who wants one can get one. They probably will do it now that you have made an issue of it.
(5)What steps have been taken to correct this deficit?
1. Sansei Day Camp has been requested to make a status report to the board.
2. I have tried by writing several letters to you, Gordon and Naomi Oshita informing you of the fact that you cost the church $2,700 because of your ill advised campaign. So far no apology or reimbursement, but I will continue voicing my opinion courageously and conscientiously.
3. The board members supported the former board chairman in trying elevate the level of board meeting discussions to inspiring ideas and future directions by cutting back all night budget mud wrestling sessions from every month to every other month.
(6)Is there sufficient understanding of the treasurer's report?
Probably not. But what is even more important is to understand the difference between belonging to a church and being a stock holder in profit motivated corporation.
(7)Why did previous board members allow the former board chairman to dictate that financial reports be reviewed only on alternating months while disallowing any discussion of finances?
They probably agreed with the former board chairman that certain budget cranks were preventing church board discussions from ever rising above the level of small minded nitpicking.
7. Corollas, correlations, Corollated, and Coronaries
The superficiality of your understanding of church finance is shown by the statement you make in the last paragraph. Just what do you mean by
"The church's financial health is corollated to: 1) Understanding the treasurer's report, 2) Timely receipt and review of reports, 3) Communicating with board and church board members".?
Let us start with the word corollated. The dictionary says it means having a corolla, which is a whorl of petals surrounding a receptacle of a flower between the calyx and stamens. Since that does not appear to make sense in this context, perhaps you meant to use the phrase correlated to, but also had in mind corollary, meaning "a proposition which can be inferred from one already proved as self evidently true". You then perhaps amalgamated the two words, perhaps unconsciously, and felt that you had combined the essence of both words. It doesn't always work out that way in English husbandry.
I submit that neither of these alternative words adequately state the relationship between the church's financial health and the three things you mention. Let us consider them in turn.
Corollary cannot be correct, since neither "The church's financial health", nor the three things mentioned are propositions, proven or otherwise. They cannot therefore be a "corollary to", or of, each other.
Is a church's financial health correlated to 1) Understanding the treasurer's report, 2) Timely receipt and review of reports, 3) Communicating with board and church board members"? Correlation does not imply cause and effect, of course. Knowing the true state of the church's finances does not in itself cause it to become healthy.
Presumably you had in mind a positive (as opposed to a negative) correlation. Is this self evident? No. How do you even know that there is a positive correlation, when by definition, you cannot know the data you need to calculate a correlation coefficient? The simple fact is that you simply do not know a church's financial health without a knowledge and understanding of an accurate treasurer's report. But that ignorance does not necessarily correlate inversely with a church's financial health.
It could be creditably argued that people or institutions that beg for a living might better their financial health by hiding their financial reports and pleading poverty. Issuing a factual treasurer's report which shows that the church has a budget surplus just raises people's expectations of getting handouts. (If there is anything more annoying than a beggar, it is a beggar getting rich begging.)
Your statement begins to make sense only if you assume that those who are in charge of a church's finances are corrupt and less wise than members who do not have that responsibility, such as yourself and Gordon Oshita. Everything you say and do leads me to conclude that you believe this with all your heart. But the truth of that belief is not self evident. From what I have seen, while you and Gordon have a near coronary over every dollar spent, you would strangle a church if given a free hand.
The reason for the necessity of financial disclosure to the membership is more fundamental than a church's "financial health". It is that these church funds do not belong to those who administer it, but to all who are members of the church. Members have a right to see how their money is used, and to change their representatives if it is not being used in a way that is an extension of their own vision of God's will.
8. A Church's "Financial Health"
Your diatribe against those you think responsible for allowing deficit spending is only justifiable if you equate "financial health" with posting a monthly and annual surplus, and equate a church's general health with its "financial health". Why aren't you as concerned about the church's health as a whole? Isn't that the real issue?
The church is in the fight of its life for a greater market share. Not only the market share in numbers of people, but more importantly, the market share in terms of the percentage of a person's life problems it can service. Over the years, the forces of the enlightenment and industrialization has largely stripped the church of its former monopoly of the whole man. What is left is a thin slice dealing with the after life and the 24 hours between sunset Friday and sunset on Saturday.
Sansei Day Camp and the Japanese Language School are programs based on a market share strategy. You oppose them using superficial profit margin arguments, then supplement them with malevolently twisted and distorted "facts". The resulting atmosphere of distrust and discouragement is killing the spirit of this church and angering the volunteers and donors even as you proclaim your concern for the church's "financial health".
9. Suppressing Information
Finally, let us deal with your closing pronouncement and appeal:
The board, led by its chairman, Pastor Ishii, must act responsibly to curb a trend--deficit spending and suppressing information. Board members, think independently, act courageously, voice your opinion and vote your conscience!
I have already spent enough time discussing the deficit spending. Suppression and cover-up is a charge you have been making for a long time. What are you talking about? As recently as December 19, after the last board meeting, I asked Pastor Ishii what you were talking about when it comes to suppressed information. He shrugged his shoulders and said the things you seem to be talking about have already been discussed in board meetings. My wife, Craig Chow, Dennis Imai, and Pastor Brent Kimura all are in the dark about these deep dark secrets that you seem to be alluding to.
Please tell us. Don’t tell me that you don't know because it has been suppressed. If it has been successfully suppressed, then how to you know of its existence?? If the suppression was not successful, then you must know. Put it all in the Orion Chronicles and back it up with documentation. If there is nothing, then let's not hear any more talk about suppression.
False Analogies
In the past, you have used false analogies to justify your budgetary concerns, so I want to dispose of them. It is not appropriate to use the government, a household, or a corporation as an analogy. A government's income comes from involuntary taxation, whereas a church's does not. This means that, unlike the government, a church cannot become "financially healthy" merely by cutting back on spending, because offering, unlike taxes, is not guaranteed.
A household is maintained as an unavoidable necessity, whereas a church is dispensable. An abused child must still stay home. But abused members can leave. Therefore, a church that costs more than it delivers, will simply be abandoned.
A corporation exists for the purpose of making a monetary profit, whereas a church has a non-monetary objective. Therefore, a church may have a successful year without showing a bigger bank account balance at year's end. (Even a corporation is not so shallow as to measure their success merely in terms of the size of checking account balance.)
All of these differences have implications that make the evaluation of the health of a church a little less crass than counting the beans in the church's bank account at the end of each month, or year, as you seem inclined to do.
The Health of a Church
A church exists because people believe it to be an instrument in God's plan of "salvation", spiritual and otherwise, with an increasing emphasis on the "otherwise". The health of a church is the degree to which people see the church as the most efficient means of realizing and dispensing this salvation. But this health cannot be measured simply by the size of a church's bank account, because even committed people do not just donate so that the church can have a bigger and bigger pile of money left over every month.
The only financial requirement a church has to meet is to pay its bills in the process of giving its members a sense that they were able to participate in Gods work through the church. Having a pile of money left over above and beyond paying the bills, however, does not necessarily make it more successful than the church that can barely pay its bills. A surplus created by anal retentive means has no vision and no plans except the negative one of not spending money. But a church cannot be defined or justified by what it does not do.
The Garage or the Crystal Cathedral
A church can always manage to pay its bills in the long run, whether it is frugal or wasteful, stupid or wise, rich or poor. Worrying about whether a church can pay its bills is like worrying if a person's legs will be long enough to reach the ground. Trust me; they always are, though the person may be a midget, a dwarf, a giant, or something in between.
Church spending is a self correcting problem. The only question is whether equilibrium will be attained by meeting in somebody's garage, or by owning and operating the Crystal Cathedral. Both churches pay the bills, but the bean counters in the group meeting in the garage would have a lot less to grumble about than those in the Crystal Cathedral.
Your thinking takes us in the direction of the garage. Now I'd just as soon meet in a garage as the Crystal Cathedral, because in the garage, I could get out of wearing a tie. But the point is that the difference between the garage and the Crystal Cathedral has nothing to do with making bean counters happy, and everything to do with a church's vision of what God's plan is. A church's financial reserves are as vast as its vision is captivating.
Having said that, I would be the last person to pronounce this church, the SDA church, or Christian churches in general to be in robust health. They are not. The apocalyptic visions of the apostles and our 19th century pioneers gave us only a short term plan, and have left us bewildered and confused as we have struggled to be loyal to our past and yet relevant and credible in the present as we await the dawn of the 21st century.
This church has coped with this unresolvable tension as well as can be expected. But a better day may be coming. with the world teetering on the brink of chaos and nihilism, I believe the church still has the answers to questions that matter the most. The challenge of the church is to translate those answers into programs that will strike a responsive chord in our own members and from there, radiate into the community at large. That can never happen as long as our church board meetings consist of nitpicking the treasurer's report and flogging volunteers till midnight every month.
I don't expect that you will even read this, much less agree. Nevertheless, it has been a pleasure responding. So long until your next Orion Chronicles. Thank you for your hard work.
As Always,
Dennis Hokama
End Note
1. This is a pseudonym, although those who have read the Orion Monitor will have no trouble in figuring out the actual name. It is not my desire to make this a personal confrontation, nor a mere rehashing of historical trivia, but to articulate a confrontation of ideas that are still in tension within the church as of 2004.
Back to beginning of document
Unanswered letter, part B
Back to Homepage