Los Angeles Central Japanese Church Debates the Merger

introducing. . .

The Orion Monitor is an unofficial, unauthorized publication of Los Angeles Central Japanese church. As the name implies, the Monitor will monitor the Orion Chronicles. As editor, my objective will be to provide a perspective on affairs affecting the members of the Los Angeles American SDA Church that is missing from the Orion Chronicles. In the present controversy, the missing perspective is that of those sympathetic to the pastor, the church elders, and the church board. However, it does not represent the pastor nor the board, and will not shrink from making critical assessments whenever appropriate.

The Monitor is a supplement to, and has no intention of competing with, or replacing the Orion Chronicles. Collectively perhaps, the two publications will begin to fulfill the stated ideals of the inaugural issue of the Orion Chronicles under its current editor. There will be no poetry, no onion cough medicine recipes, no platitudes, and no colored stationary. It will specialize in news and analysis. This issue will focus on the article submitted by Harold Kusuhara dealing with the merger and relocation issue. Somehow, it did not seem that an issue of this importance could be reduced to one page.

praising...

It congratulates Joan Avery on another aesthetically pleasing edition of the Orion Chronicles. Her dedication to her cause and consistency in viewpoint and length are an inspiration to most of us.

criticizing...

In its May-June issue, the Orion Chronicles finally got around to acknowledging the proposed church merger with Harold Kusuhara's "To Merge or Not."  His reservations are perfectly reasonable, given his perspective. Furthermore, given the limited space he had, it is hard to imagine how he could have expressed it much more effectively than he did. It is something that had to be written, and he is to be commended for it.

It is unfortunate, however, that the only piece in the last two Orion Chronicles that deals openly with the prospect of the church merger and relocation, is one that is essentially critical of the church board's actions.

I will be the first to defend church criticism as essential and healthy in a church paper. Furthermore, some of the actions taken in regards to the proposed merger deserve, in my opinion, to be criticized. But fundamental editorial ethics and rules of fair play would seem to obligate a church paper to make it a rule that such criticism be balanced with the best explanation or defense of the actions being criticized.

This lack of journalistic ethics is an the more puzzling when the present editor's inaugural October issue had such a high moral tone:

As editor this year, I will communicate vital information emanating from all sectors of our church. The Chronicles will endeavor to be a conduit for communication. As a family, it is essential that all members be informed openly and accurately on all issues affecting them. In an effort to avert information that is gained simply by virtue of "insider" knowledge, the Chronicles will attempt to clearly and candidly communicate issues with all. Manipulating and/or concealing salient information affecting members is self serving and divisive. As Christians, it is incumbent upon us to dispel mistrust and instead foster dialogue, openness, exchange of information, and above all else, truthfulness.

. .. the Chronicles will report significant issues, ... and engage your comments.

It appears from the first five issues (October, November, December, March-April, May-July), however, that the only position allowed in the paper is the anti-official, anti-administrative one. The March-April issue acknowledged that the letters received were all critical, but merely acknowledging that they were received is a far cry from "engaging" them. The editor also presumes to characterize the contents of a 14-page letter⁽¹⁾ as "rambling" in the same sentence she denies having read it. Just how this editorial policy is to "dispel mistrust, ... foster dialogue, openness, exchange of information, and . .. truthfulness" is not yet apparent. A second church paper appears to be the only solution.

With respect to the merger, the Chronicles could have, and logically should have, first dealt with it in the March-April issue, since the church board voted to take the relocation/merger initiative in their January meeting. But that, evidently, was judged to be an issue not "affecting" church members.

Instead, there was an editorial that not so subtly challenged the legitimacy of the ethnic church concept itself, which, if accepted, would have invalidated not only the relocation effort, but the notion that we should have a Japanese church at all. That subject (ethnic churches) is a delicious philosophical/theological subject of debate in itself, but it can hardly be settled or even adequately addressed in a 200-word monologue that uses comments by the Sabbath School Quarterly author for authority.

The debate over relocation cannot be conducted responsibly until both parties understand and accept the concept of the ethnic church as valid. This is because the idea of relocation to Gardena⁽²⁾ makes no sense unless one first assumes the validity of the ethnic church concept. This church was founded on the assumption that it is valid; the conference supports ethnic churches on the assumption that it is valid; local church leadership operates on the assumption that it is valid.

It is irresponsible, therefore, for the church paper to open the discussion from the perspective that the ethnic church is NOT valid, and not even give church members or leadership a chance to defend the right for their kind of church to exist.

Nobody in this church is more willing to challenge and debunk established beliefs or doctrines than I am. When I do so, however, I willingly accept the full burden of proof and go out of my way to solicit responsible opposing points of view. That is the ethic of responsible criticism. The current editor of the Orion Chronicles turns this ethic on its head, thus making it necessary for a defense of orthodoxy to be done in an underground paper.

As much as Mr. Kusuhara's perspective is valid, and is to be respected, it lacks a certain perspective that is necessary to understand this event in its larger context. That, however is not Mr. Kusuhara's responsibility, but the editor's.

Because the perspective he expresses is representative of a certain group in church, I think it useful to outline his main contentions, assumptions, and reservations. Then I will comment on those portions where a different perspective might lead to different interpretations and conclusions.

disclosing...

Before doing that, however, I perhaps should disclose the basis of my perspective and thus lay my cards on the table. I am not a spokesperson for Central Japanese church leadership, never have been, and do not hope to be in the future. I speak for myself and am not an agent for anybody else. Nobody knew in advance that I was going to write this. Although I am supportive of the merger, I also have some reservations and sympathize with some of the points made by Mr. Kusuhara.

My Central Church Perspective

My wife and I transferred here from West Los Angeles in 1974. Having been in small Japanese churches and companies all my life, Central church is the first and only one that knows how to nurture its children and youth. With all its problems, it has won my love and loyalty, though I reserve empathy for the neglected children and youth of other struggling Japanese churches.

My English vs. Japanese Perspective

Much of the heated dispute over the merger in Gardena has pitted the English speaking against the Japanese speaking. The English speaking opposition party seems to view it as a complete capitulation to the interests of the Japanese speaking members, with whom they cannot identify. Although my primary language is English and I identify with American culture, at the age of 13, I felt equally at home in Japanese, due to the six years I spent at San-iku in Chiba, Japan. For most of that time, I went to Japanese elementary school with the children of the Japanese faculty of that school. All three of my brothers have married women from Japan, two of whom attended San-iku. I know Japanese church leaders in every Japanese church or company in California, from my years in Japan.

Although I can speak their language, I am often miles apart from them in world view, and have virtually given up hope of ever seeing eye to eye. But I have come to accept that our destinies are irrevocably linked, like Siamese twins, so long as we believe that there is value in preserving the trans-generational nuclear family. The reason why we we attach value to that is apparent to me each week, as I see my mother-in-law worshiping happily in the same church as her English speaking teenage granddaughters. Only in a bilingual ethnic church, with all its problems, is that possible.

My Gardena- Tozai-Nakamura Perspective

My family lived for a while in Gardena in the late 1960's and I regularly attended the Gardena American church (not necessarily their worship service) for many years. I knew the Nakamuras very well in Japan. Mr. Nakamura was an avid fisherman in those days, and we often would encounter each other fishing the rice paddies and ponds around San-iku. He had a fish pond which we would help him stock with the fish we caught. When they started the Japanese language school, they lived with us for awhile, and my brothers and I helped them in Gardena with the Japanese school (mostly menial labor) and attended the branch Sabbath school there that eventually became the Gardena Japanese church. My niece and nephew have attended Tozai for many years, and I am well aware of the problems and criticisms associated with it over its history.

My West Los Angeles Perspective

I was also a member of the West Los Angeles Japanese church from 1967-1974 and was a Sabbath School teacher the whole time. During that time, we commuted from Alhambra.

My Gardena American Church Perspective

My father was at one time the minister of the West Los Angeles Japanese church as well as the Gardena Japanese church. He is currently acting as the associate pastor of the Gardena American church, and has been attending there regularly for about the last three years. We communicate regularly about developments in our respective churches. I have also attended the Gardena American church since the merger relocation talks began.

My SG Valley Perspective

I live within a mile of San Gabriel Academy and Melissa⁽³⁾ went to school there for 12 years, and Krissy, who is a seventh grader, has been going there since pre-school. My wife is an active school board member, and I have taught as a substitute teacher there. I have a cousin who has been teaching there for over 20 years.

My Church Board Perspective

Even though I am not a church board member, I attended the board meetings in which the merger was discussed and the joint church board meetings were set up. My wife is an elder and attended the elders meetings in which the merger was discussed before it was brought up in the board meeting. I also attended all of the joint church board meetings in Gardena, including the one attended by Conference representatives.

The church board's intelligence on the current status of the Gardena American church was very defective when it met in January. It was apparently based on information from a second-hand source that portrayed the Gardena American church as being in a more desperate situation than it actually was. This mistaken belief contributed to an underestimation of the complexities involved, and resulted in much confusion and misunderstanding.

My Oshita Perspective

Like many people in this church, I have been blessed by the ministry of Mrs. Oshita, who tutored my daughter for several years on a voluntary basis. In the thirty- some years the Oshita's have been here, Mrs. O has been a "mother of Israel" to us all. As a former principal of San Gabriel Academy, she identifies with it, almost as much as her beloved Central church. I have always enjoyed a good relationship with Elder O, and some of his sermons from nearly a quarter of a century ago still ring in my ears. Gordon Oshita has been my dentist all along, and we have maintained a very friendly personal relationship, though we have differed rather sharply on church related issues. Roy was my favorite youth leader whenever we used to come down from Seattle for Japanese camp meetings.

On a political level, the Oshita's represent a formidable force in Central church that eclipses that of any of the ministers that have succeeded him. Their policy and sentiment has always been strictly isolationist. Unlike any other ministerial family, they seldom if ever have visited or spoken at any other Japanese church in the thirty years they have been here. They have never attended, nor shown any interest in the five church council.

They also represent a high and narrow view of church and the ministry which has not been shared by any of the ministers that have succeeded Elder O. Over the past thirty years, these two views have generally obligated them to oppose or shun any project which was seen as a challenge to the hegemony of Central Church, or required a minister to wear a T-shirt rather than a coat and tie.

My Church Leader Perspective

I also count it a privilege to count as close personal friends, those who have been most active in the relocation effort. Harvey Yamamoto and I have worked together on church related projects for over 25 years. I have known Dennis Imai since the 60's, and we discuss and debate church, philosophy and life regularly. I have known Pastor Ishii only since 1988, but we had daughters in the same graduating class at San Gabriel Academy, and having been camp meeting coordinator for the last two years, have had the chance to work closely with him. We have on occasions stayed up until the wee hours of the morning in a Fresno motel room talking about life and church. I even share the same bed with the daughter of this church's founding minister.

While we do not always agree, I think I understand their respective positions. If there was a nefarious conspiracy involving these people, I think I would know about it. There is nothing that interesting going on.

However, the merger-relocation idea is very complicated and the learning curve was very steep. It is very apparent to me that many mistakes were made and false assumptions were held and discarded along the way. Their final position as articulated by Dennis Imai at the town hall meeting was one they "grew into" rather than one that they had at the beginning. That is the one that I am comfortable with, whereas I was less comfortable with some earlier understandings.⁽⁴⁾

My Church Programs. Perspective

Our daughter has attended this church's Japanese language school, and no family has been more blessed by Sansei Day Camp than ours. My wife and I have been, and continue to be supportive of these programs and the leaders who have managed to keep them alive so far. These are the programs that will be most directly affected by a relocation.

My Senior Citizens Perspective

My mother-in-law is the surviving wife of the founder of this particular church. She epitomizes the elderly members of this church who have built a life around this church and are concerned about what will happen when the church moves across town. We will take her to Gardena, or where ever the church goes.

My Church Founder Perspective

As a son-in-law, I had the privilege of knowing and working with Elder Okohira in the 1960's and 70's before he had his strokes. He was a progressive and financially astute man who bought and sold properties at the right time, his whole life. He was a founding member of East-West Outreach, Inc. which bought and built the Better Living Center.⁽⁵⁾ In his last few good years, those who knew him best, say he was getting concerned about the location of the church and talked about the need to relocate.

All of this is mentioned only to provide the basis for my belief that I have a broader perspective than some, and that those who object, often do so on the basis of faulty assumptions and without an appreciation of the bigger picture.

The "Kusuhara" Perspective

As I critically analyze Mr. Kusuhara’s essay, several things must be kept in mind. The first is that Mr. Kusuhara lives in the San Fernando Valley, whereas it is quite apparent that he is writing from the view point of a certain group in the San Gabriel Valley, who are unable, or unwilling to speak for themselves. Thus, he is not necessarily advocating views that he personally holds, or are convenient for him (For instance, it is not in his interest that the church move to the SGV, nor does he appear to have any special emotional stake in SG Academy). In writing this letter, he is carrying out his duty as a responsible board member, rather than merely promoting his own interests. None of my criticism, therefore, is directed at him in any way. The "he" that I respond to is a literary device, and is not to be understood as a reference to Mr. Kusuhara. He has only my gratitude and appreciation. As someone who is commuting from the other Valley (the wrong one), he has a long drive every week, which will only get longer if the position he champions is adopted (Gardena is reportedly about the same commuting distance).

The second is that if Mr. Kusuhara had as much space as I had, he might have provided much more explanations or qualifications to his statements. I apologize if I have unfairly exploited the briefness of his essay in my response.

1. "...in the case of the West Los Angeles and Gardena churches, perhaps their efforts at evangelism have been unsuccessful because various parts of the church body were missing. If that is the case, it is long overdue to either supply the missing parts or regroup and merge."

He correctly acknowledges the deficiency that makes the other two churches to want to merge, but his diagnosis of the cause amounts to a circular explanation with no explanatory power at all; that they can't attract the youth because they don't already have youth. As a result, part of his solution to their problem is faulty. That defective solution enables him to let Central church slide off the hook of responsibility, freeing them to find a location in complete disregard for what happens to Gardena or West Los Angeles.

What these churches chronically have lacked for 30 years are the children and youth. Many children and youth have gone through their doors every year, but all of them run away. I know why they run away. I used to be a member of the West Los Angeles church as a youth and young adult, and I also ran away after my office expired the year my father was transferred out, and I have not gone back. I genuinely love them all, and have no personal dislike for anyone there. They can't help being who they are. But the atmosphere they created reminded me of being in a funeral parlor all day.

Since they inadvertently chase away all their children and youth, merely "supplying the missing parts" is no solution at all. Merging with each other is also no solution at all. Only a merger with Central church can correct their situation. (At Central church, adults may be mean to each other, but usually manage to take care of the children and youth.)

Having thus muddied the waters, he proceeds to push the idea that church leaders having the overall interest of the Japanese churches, would logically do better to move Central church even further away from both of these churches. It has long been typical of this group to be unable to see themselves as part of the family of Japanese churches.

2. Despite being cautioned by Conference officials against specifying the Gardena American church as a location in its decision to merge, church members promoting the merger are doing just that.

The Conference representatives did caution us against specifying Gardena as the site of any relocation or merger. But he apparently misinterprets it and thus reaches the unwarranted conclusion that those who speak of the Gardena American church as the site of the proposed relocation are ignoring or defying Conference orders.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason why those instructions had to be given is that the Gardena American church has not even been officially approached about this subject, and has the full right to decline it. (Furthermore, they cannot be approached until the Japanese churches have decided that they want to do it.) It would therefore be presumptuous and insulting to the Gardena American church to speak of our relocation to their church as if it were a decision that the Japanese churches could make unilaterally.

To give out that impression would have been politically disastrous and could have poisoned the well. The Gardena American church is very sensitive to that, because such an attempt was made in the not too distant past, and was alluded to by Elder Paytee when he said, "History shall not repeat itself. " Both the head pastor of the Gardena American church and my father were in attendance at that meeting. Those words were said in their presence so that they could reassure their membership that no hostile take-over was intended.

They also advised a waiting period of about a month during which the matter would be carefully "studied" by the Conference. However, the Conference doesn't have an independent staff qualified to do a real study, so in reality they just have to rely on the advice of the Japanese churches who made the request in the first place. Nevertheless, that "decent interval" is necessary to transform the church's request into a "conference approved" idea. Any less time would make it appear that the Conference is merely rubber stamping church requests. That is also why they had to show proper restraint at the meeting, even though they were enthusiastic about the possibility. In any case, that waiting period is long past.

That having been clarified publicly, conference officials fully expected and hoped that our church leaders would promote the idea such that it would eventually win approval in official church business meetings.

In order to promote the idea, it is of course necessary to mention Gardena as the site. It would be utterly ridiculous to expect that people could responsibly vote to relocate without knowing where the new site would be, nor how much it would cost them. So those who mentioned Gardena as the site of the relocation were doing just as the Conference expects, so long as it is understood that it cannot actually happen unless the Gardena American church also agrees to it.

3 - The joint church board meetings held to discuss the merger were orchestrated (implied) to guarantee that Gardena would be selected as the site of the relocation. The San Gabriel Valley never was considered even though it seems to be a logical candidate.

This objection presupposes that the relocation-merger talks could or should have begun tabula rasa; and that each church should be just as willing to consider moving as Central Japanese church. These presuppositions only apply to artificial game situations. In real life, there are always pre-existing factors which may make options asymmetrical.

This seemingly "fair" approach is actually an attempt to project L.A. Central's perspective onto all three churches. But L.A. Central Japanese church is the only one with the bad location and bad facilities problem. The Gardena Japanese church is ideally located geographically, with great facilities and room enough for all three churches, with room to expand. Why should we demand that they be equally willing to move to a new location as L.A. Central??

They operate a big language school on the Gardena American Church property that was custom built specifically for them. Central Japanese church helped them pay for it. In addition to custom built facilities, it owes a great deal of its success to the fact that it is located in a high concentration of Japanese people.  It would make no sense for them to abandon those facilities. Thus, it was understood from the beginning, (I thought by everybody) that any merger of three churches could ONLY take place at the Gardena American church.

Any talk of San Gabriel automatically eliminates the Gardena Japanese church from the merger. Why lose one church before we even start to talk merger? Merging only two churches loses much of the advantages of merging, since we would then continue to seriously under-utilize the facility with the greatest potential and dilute our financial resources as well as put an extra strain on the pastors. This extra strain on them will probably make this assignment less desirable and burn them out sooner. In the old days, each church had their own pastor, and Central church had two of its own. That is a luxury that we no longer have, and if we do not take into consideration the extra burden they now have to carry, we will suffer serious consequences.

Furthermore, the same geographical and physical advantages that makes it ideal for Tozai Gakuen to remain there, should also make sense for the Japanese churches, since they have the same target group. We would also have a large captive audience to start with before we even begin to reach out to the community. (Notice that I have so far said nothing about "saving money"?)

That is why the merger talks began with Gardena as the presumed location. It would have been sheer folly to have begun otherwise, although the reasons could have been better articulated. The burden of proof lies with those who think that there is a more logical and efficient solution. None has been forthcoming.

4. When major decisions such as relocation or mergers are being considered, the members should be given a voice.

This is like complaining that we should have freedom in America. Who is arguing against this? Those who think this is an issue misunderstand the process and/or the meaning of representative democracy. I will address these misunderstandings in order.

In the first place, the church's formal process requires that such a decision be discussed and voted upon in a church business meeting, where every member's vote counts equally. Everybody will be given a chance to speak, subject to the church body's willingness to prolong the discussion. Doesn't this qualify as giving the members "a voice"??

Apparently not, in the minds of some, because they know by now that it will come to public debate and a popular vote. What they apparently object to is the fact that the church board had the audacity to take the initiative to the point where such a proposal could even be brought to a vote at all. This sentiment was made evident from comments made by certain church leaders at the church town hall meeting.

Such objections betray a profound ignorance of the concept of government by representative democracy, which has been formally institutionalized by the Seventh-day Adventist church, at least in part. It is a system that was formally and deliberately chosen by our nation's leaders at the constitutional convention of 1787 after much debate, as a refinement and improvement over the direct democracy of the ancient city-state of Athens, Greece.

In the direct democracy of Athens, all citizens voted on all decisions, and nobody was allowed to represent anybody other than himself. Oratory skill was valued as a practical skill because lawyers were not allowed to represent a person accused of a crime. The system was incredibly unwieldy, inefficient, and degenerated into a kind of glorified mob rule. Because of this, it was eventually overthrown and destroyed by undemocratic, but disciplined Sparta. I presume that our church leaders rejected direct democracy for the same reasons as our nation's founders.

In a representative democracy, elected or appointed representatives have the right to act according to their conscience, regardless of what they think the outcome of a popular vote on the issue might be. When their actions are unpopular and or unwise, there are a number of legitimate and responsible remedies available:

1. Criticize them for making unwise decisions and enlighten them with the factors they have overlooked, or their poor sense of priorities.

2. Speak and vote against the measure when it comes up for popular vote.

3. Recall them from office, or see to it that they are removed from office when their term expires.

What is NOT legitimate, is to berate them for daring to act without first conducting a vote to determine if their decision wil1 be popular. That would be berating them for doing their job. It is legitimate to protest representative democracy being used in church government, but it is NOT legitimate to appoint officers according to standard procedure; then blame them for acting like a representative when their actions do not please us. There has been entirely too much of the latter kind of protest in this church by people who should know better.

The irony is that I have never seen the church more democratic and open to membership in my 22 years here. Board meetings used to be closed as a rule. (I ought to know, since I remember being excluded on more than one occasion and being given the cold shoulder and ignored when I insisted on staying.) Since about 1987 they have all been open, with few, if any, exceptions.

The frequency of church business meetings is one crude index of commitment to the principles of democracy in church leadership, because it is run as a direct democracy where all have a vote. Where a church is paternalistic, there is no need for business meetings except when the actions that need to be taken require a business meeting. In order to get some perspective on the trend in this church, I looked through the clerk reports going back to 1961.

Since about 1989 or '90 (I could not find the records between 1987-1990), we have had at least one business meeting a year on principle rather than necessity, and nearly all of them have been very disorderly and raucous, with the old guard claiming that the present administration has repented of democracy.

From 1979-to 1987 I found evidence for three business meetings. From 1964-1978 I found no evidence for any business meetings.

Whether my check of the records is exactly accurate, is not the point. I think the trend is clear. Each successive administration has moved consistently in the direction of less paternalism and more democracy. So if the old guard that used to run the church paternalistically wishes now to become converts to radical Athenian democracy, let them confess their recent conversion to a "new" doctrine. But they should not be allowed to commit historical revisionism by pretending that is the way they used to do it in the old days.

Beneath all this sudden infatuation with Athenian democracy, seems to be a resentment over the loss of political control that could not find a legitimate expression in any other way. These are people who are accustomed to controlling church boards. In retrospect, I conclude that those who initiated this project were politically and procedurally naive in the way they went about executing their plan.

While opposition could not have been avoided in any case, additional fuel was added to the fire by ignoring rather than dealing with the faction absent⁽⁶⁾ from the board meetings.

5. A large percentage of Central church's members live in the San Gabriel Valley and have an interest in maintaining close ties with San Gabriel Academy.

Since I live in the San Gabriel Valley and have close ties to SGA, I can identify with this objection. We used to drive to the West LA church every week for many years. It was a great relief to cut our drive in less than half when we transferred to Central church.

Since members are not being asked to move away from SGA, the close ties with the academy does not seem to be the major problem. Although it is true that the church may draw some of its membership from families that move close to the school, I think it is a weak argument which ultimately boomerangs to support the Gardena location. Basically, this is a convenience of location argument. But if it is true that living near the church makes it easier to get that person to church, then moving right into the heart of the Japanese community puts thousands of Japanese at the church's doorstep; not just the few that come from the San Gabriel Valley.

Furthermore, in Gardena, we would have hundreds of children coming to study Japanese on OUR church premises every weekday. That is a much more direct connection with the families of hundreds of children compared to the relatively few that might come to San Gabriel Academy, which is about five to seven miles away from our church. Finally, the odds are that those Japanese or Asians going to San Gabriel are children of parents that already attend the SDA church somewhere. Therefore, it would mostly be a case of "sheep stealing" rather than evangelism per se.

It is the long drive to church several times a week that looms as a burden. This is my most serious concern, and I consider it quite formidable. It boils down to an argument of geographic inconvenience, and self interest, which are the most serious kind of obstacles to overcome. People seldom do what is inconvenient over a long period of time. It is almost expecting water to flow uphill.

But geographic inconvenience is inherent in the ethnic (vs. local) church concept. If convenience was the main consideration, we would only have local churches. People have been driving a long distance over many years to get to our church. What changes now is that the people in the San Gabriel Valley now have to do the driving rather than the Craig Chows, the Furukawas, and the Monmas. Is turn-about fair play?

Nevertheless, it is still a hard thing to ask members who have bought houses in the Valley and paid their dues over the years to drive 20 minutes longer to a new church location. It would hardly be comforting for them to hear that the average driving distance per member will drop, as we pick up new members in the community, and as members begin to choose to relocate near Gardena rather than in the SGV as they have in the past.

The most compelling argument of this type, in my opinion, is not that the relocation will make SGV residents drive further, or loosen ties with San Gabriel Academy, but that it will have the most impact on those SGV members whose close involvement with, and commitment to church activities make it necessary for them to drive to church many times a week. The increased driving distance for those members is not 40 minutes per week (per round trip), but potentially up to 240 minutes per week (during Sansei Day Camp for instance).

That difference in cost, time, energy, and risk for those members is so great that it can no longer be called a mere "inconvenience."  It may be more like a backbreaking, heartbreaking, budget breaking difference. For them to continue their present level of church involvement in Gardena may not be possible, or prudent.

That is a sobering price to pay, and for that reason I will shed no tears if the move does not happen. However, strategically speaking, we cannot allow such immediate consequences, no matter how painful, to necessarily decide the issue. If we do, then the status quo will always prevail.

The Exodus, for example, is thought by some to have been a wise relocation decision, despite the fact that most, including Moses, died en route to Canaan. Gardena is not necessarily Canaan, and nobody is claiming to have received their marching orders from within the burning bush. The only point to be drawn from this analogy is that location can have an importance transcending particular personalities.

The difficult task at hand for us, is to decide where Canaan is for us, given our mission to specialize in reaching the Japanese community, and given the resources available to us.

6. The main (if not sole) justification for choosing Gardena is that it will save a lot of money, whereas people and their feelings should be more important.

I was there at the same meeting. The board member who claims he heard only this reason must have been listening very selectively. I remember that some people talked that way, to be sure, but that was not all that was said. I assumed that people who talked that way were simplifying the issue for the benefit of this church's legion of fiscal conservatives who love to destroy proposals that will cost money.

But regardless of what that board member may or may not have heard, five months have now passed since that board meeting. Since then, there was two joint church board meetings in Gardena so that members could see their facilities, and we have had a Town Hall meeting to answer any questions. We should be far beyond depending on second-hand information concerning what was said in that January meeting for our understanding of why Gardena was seen as by far the most logical choice for a three church merger. (Please see my comments on point #3).

That having been said, the responsible stewardship of assets God has entrusted the church with, is not necessarily to be regarded as cow dung when compared to people's "feelings."  The more money one pours into overhead, the less money there is left over to carry on the mission, and the less efficient an organization is judged to be. Most of us believe in a God of efficiency. If He is, then He might be severely disappointed in us if we were to leave a great facility in a great location seriously underutilized while pouring millions of His dollars into the ground unnecessarily, just to satisfy people's "feelings."

Having said that, peoples feelings are important, because those feelings ultimately determine whether they will support a church financially. But feelings change quickly when they see the price tag that will come from "following their feelings".

Consider the history of this "feeling."  The records show that Elder Kono held a business meeting on 4/1 of 1979 to discuss a possible church relocation. That was probably the first time someone attempted to move this church since it was bought. (I did not check beyond 1961, but it is unlikely that it would have been attempted before that time.) The entire church property at that time was valued at $261,800. That effort died because nobody wanted to pay for their "feelings."

Pastor Dean Horinouchi also made a serious attempt to relocate the church in the early 1980's. I went on many trips to inspect church properties, and we finally put in a low ball bid in on one property in San Gabriel. I could sense the fear in many members eyes that they might actually win it and therefore have to really pay. When we lost the bid (about $400,000 for raw land), everyone seemed relieved. Since then, one member has confessed to me that my reading of him was correct. (I of course, felt the same way that he did.) Pastor Dean must have sensed the same thing as I did, for he never brought the subject up again. However, about in 1987, I helped design a questionnaire that had a few questions pertaining to relocation. Although the results were never officially discussed, the results made it obvious to me that nobody was seriously interested in paying for a new church.

Pastors Ishii and Brent Kimura raised the question of relocation again in 1994. I again helped design the questionnaire. Of the 33 people who took the questionnaire, 15 reported giving $1,000 or more per year in offering. Of these 15 people, 11 said that they did not want to move (and therefore pay). On that basis, I reported to the board in 1995 that there was little sentiment in favor of a move among those who could afford to finance it.

With that history in mind, Pastor Ishii came up with a plan whereby we may be able to move to a good location and good facilities in Gardena without having to pay for it. Now these same people who for 16 years have refused to support leadership that wanted to move them to a new San Gabriel Valley location and quibble viciously over deficit spending every month, are singing a very different tune. Suddenly, they are insulted that saving them about four million dollars in financing was even a significant factor in the board's considerations. Feelings are more important, they say.

The interest on a $4,000,000 loan at 7%, amortized over 30 years is $26,612.10 per month. On top of that there are the "points" in loan commission, higher cost of insurance, and utilities, in addition to what we already moan and groan about having to pay. I say that the $26,642.10 per month extra may hurt even more feelings than the small amounts they abuse people over at the present time. Hurt feelings can be fixed the next day. The $26,612.10 per month hurt will last for 30 years.

I feel quite confident that all this enthusiastic feeling for paying millions of dollars to move the church to the San Gabriel Valley is insincere and unrealistic. It will quietly evaporate if and when the Gardena initiative can be made to go away.

7. The decision to try to get the church moved to Gardena has been a hasty one based upon human understanding, whereas it should be based upon much more prayer on ones knees and the Holy Spirit's leading.

The suddenness with which this plan came up and the unanimity with which such a radical proposal was approved by such conservatives was a shock to me also. The audaciousness and boldness of the plan no doubt sounded radical and unthinkable to many.

However, in retrospect, all they decided to do, all they were authorized to do, was to lay the groundwork which will make that option available for the church body to approve or disapprove. They committed the church to nothing, other than making a decision. Before they took action, there was no option. Now there is. Is this sufficient cause for all the weeping and gnashing of teeth that has been going on? There is still plenty of time to spend on one's knees before the vote, so what is the problem?

I don't pretend to know which side has done more praying (on their knees), or whether it is the merger advocates or the foot draggers that are the ones being led by the Holy Spirit rather than human wisdom. I'm not even sure that the wisdom of one's decision is directly related to the length of time one spends praying on one's knees. If so, I suspect that the monks in the cloistered monasteries might have a hammer-lock on wisdom.

Some General Comments

There is an underlying but unstated conflict that explains much of the tension in this dispute. When Galileo announced that the earth was not flat, nor at the center of the universe, but a round sphere that spun while it rotated around the sun, along with a number of other sister planets, it shocked and enraged church leaders. They attempted to refute him with a number of hysterical or circular arguments.

But it would have been a mistake to think that their resistance to the heliocentric model of the universe was based on their defective logic. Their defective logic was but a symptom of their wounded egos. They refused to accept their dethronement from the center of the universe which reduced them to just another satellite of the sun.

The same dynamics seem to be operating here. The old guard at Central church has always virtually ignored the other Japanese churches, and only dealt with them on their own terms. They expected their ministers to look out for their interests, at the expense of the other two churches, and they did. They were always at the center of the universe, and they were always in charge of every major development. The last few years have brought drastic changes in their cosmos. The fact that they now had to share pastors with two other churches immediately changed the outlook of pastors, who now looked at them as one of three siblings, rather than as the only child. They have reacted like one would expect an only child to react, who suddenly acquires siblings.

When the merger initiative was discussed and passed by the board, it was infuriating to them on two accounts: the board dared to initiate something major in their absence; and Central church was being asked to move in with one of the Japanese churches they had ignored until now.

The tumult this has caused must be seen in this context, rather than merely in the actual merits of the particular objections they raise.

Additional Objections

Besides the objections raised by Mr. Kusuhara, here are additional ones that I have heard.

8. A church is morally obligated to act in the best interests of its present membership. The majority of its present membership lives in the San Gabriel Valley. Their best interest cannot be served by moving to Gardena. It is illegitimate to subordinate their interest to the interests of hypothetical future members that might come in as a result of the move to Gardena.

(This is similar enough to the argument that we should seek the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of members, that I shall treat them as one.)

What I love about this argument is its lack of pretense.  It does not pretend to be other than a purely political one based on self interest.

The argument is undeniably valid if democracy has any meaning. It is present membership that has the right to vote; not hypothetical members who may or may not ever exist. And I believe it is unavoidable that every member will vote in their own self interest, whether they admit it or not.

I subscribe to David Hume's position that there is no necessity for supposing that people are capable of something other than love of self. Therefore I reject the notion that "good people" can (much less "should") act against their self interest.

The difference between "good" people and "bad" people is not that one is "unselfish," whereas the other is not. The difference lies in how broadly or narrowly they define "self."  A typical mother will unhesitatingly lay down her life to save her child. Is that an unselfish act? Not really, because for that mother, the fate worse than death would have been to live on with the memory of her child's death, knowing that she could have prevented it. That close identification with her child is most natural for a mother because the baby issues forth from her own body.

Sociopaths feel alienated from society and identify with nothing but themselves. Socialized human beings also come to identify closely with many of their fellow human beings other than their own children. Enlightened human beings can also come to identify with the plight of many hypothetical human beings and sometimes choose policies to protect them at the expense of the a few real humans in the present.

This happens, for instance, when the President declares he will not negotiate with terrorist kidnappers on the basis that it will encourage terrorists to kidnap more people in the future. The relatives of those who have been kidnapped may protest that such a policy is immoral in that it places a higher value on hypothetical future kidnapping victims than those flesh and blood people now being held captive. Those hypothetical victims are not tax payers or voters nor even actual citizens (since they do not yet actually exist), whereas the present victims are. Therefore the President is morally obligated to them more than these non-existent humans.

This same kind of thinking was followed in all the Japanese churches that are now no longer in existence. Those old Japanese speaking members continually voted against the interests of a youth department that they did not yet have but wished to have. Then they grew older, got discouraged, and the church died (I have in mind a church I belonged to).  Those members undoubtedly got what they voted for. But did they vote in their true self interest, or was it just a short-sighted self interest that tasted sweet in their mouths but turned bitter in their stomach?

The point is that the church fell into a death trap by not giving consideration to the interests of hypothetical members they would need in order to have a future.

What is the goal that members identify with? Is it merely to have a church that is located close to one's home and school? That thinking is in the vast majority, and there is nothing wrong with wanting that.

But members who think that way while belonging to an ethnic church, are like people who try to sign up their daughters up for Boy Scouts, thinking of it as an organization that plans neat learning experiences for all children. They argue self righteously that the Boy Scouts should admit their daughters also, since girls are worth just as much in God's eye as boys. But their argument is a non-sequitur. The issue is not equality, but serving the needs that are unique to a particular population. Her parents should have enrolled their daughter in Girl Scout or coed Pathfinders rather than naively attempt to abolish the Boy Scouts. The idea of ethnic churches is somewhat analogous.

To the extent that church members identify with the goal having of a thriving Japanese church, a relocation to an area closer to an area with a high concentration of Japanese seems mandatory, sooner or later. This is indicated by the fact that every minister since Elder Oshita (1964-1978) has felt obligated to make an effort to get the church relocated.

The cost of such a property in a desirable location will cost millions of dollars that we do not have at the present time. If we do not take action now, is it going to be easier to relocate later than now, financially or otherwise?

If, in the future, the church is obligated to raise $26,000 per month for 30 years, just to pay interest, will we look back and be able to say that we have been good stewards of God's money or that we voted in our best interest? Will we have as much money left for church programs?

It must be remembered that by contrast a consolidation will free up a tremendous amount of capital for programming that will otherwise remain buried in the ground.

9. It is presumptuous to assume that the program of Central church that the other churches need can simply be moved to Gardena. The move will be so traumatic and the attrition rate so high, that it may kill the very thing that the other churches hope to get from Central church.

The relocation of a church is a traumatic event in any case. But we need not reserve our concerns over attrition and decline only in the event of relocation. It is an issue that deserves our serious attention even if we stay. Let us not pretend that these tensions were created by talks of relocation, or will go away if we decide to stay.   Before we were debating relocation, we were just as contentious in a most silly debate over a computer that cost the church nothing. Consider the other controversies that preceded it over the past few years. Note that the alignment of main personalities has been essentially the same for all recent church disputes, despite the fact that on the surface, those were all independent issues.

This is an indication that some underlying divisive dynamic is at work. I see no villains here. Only sincere people on both sides that have incompatible philosophies about the nature of church, who both seek the moral high ground. (For a more detailed description and analysis of this struggle, see "An open Letter to the Orion Chronicle Editor" of January 9, 1996).

As a result, our church has become a nightmare for ministers to pastor, and the situation has every indication of getting worse, if nothing changes. That is the truth we might as well face.

Once we accept that reality, we must then ask ourselves how the relocation might affect this struggle within the church. Relocating will lose the most hard core opposition members. While membership will decrease, there will be more unity of vision and purpose among those that are left. The church will also have freed up capital with which to carry on programs.

If the church stays, the opposition party will be strengthened and emboldened. The church will be cash strapped, and all of those who supported or were cooperative with the relocation probably will find themselves ensnarled in a deepening crisis that will further balkanize the church. Most will be convinced that the church is never moving anywhere, and that the internal crisis will never end. It is difficult say how long any pastor would be able put up with such continual stress, and what pastor would jump at the chance to to join him here, given this church's record.

In the mean time, the Loma Linda church will be growing under the leadership of Pastor Dean Horinouchi, who just returned from a five-year term in Japan. He has a strong following among the young adults and their families in Central church due to his ten year ministry here. It is not hard to foresee that some in the East San Gabriel valley will find it tempting to drive East rather than West.

It may be argued that the Loma Linda factor would be a constant, regardless of whether the church relocates or stays. I would concede that it will be factor in any case, but think it wil1 be a greater factor when people give up hope in the future of Central church.

soliciting. . .

I have no doubt that there are many who wish to take issue with, or add to what I have written. If so, please write or speak to the editor of the Chronicles. If your reactions, comments or suggestions are not "engaged" by the Chronicles, I will "engage" them in the Monitor, no matter how critical. However, since the Monitor has no desire nor intention to compete with the Chronicles, it will my policy not to accept any item unless it has first been rejected or ignored by the Chronicles.

reconsidering...

It was my original intention to reconsider the theological and sociological justification for the ethnic church concept in this issue. But enough is enough. That must wait until another time.

. .. On second thought, where are those onion cough medicine recipes and poems when you really need them??

End Notes

1. The Orion Chronicle's refusal to respond responsibly to this this 14 page letter was in retrospect the reason why the Orion Monitor was launched.