The Orion Monitor

Issue #2

January, 1998

e-mail:editor@orionmonitor.com

www.OrionMonitor.com

'Tis the Season to Be Merging, Tra La La L.A. Central

L.A. Central Japanese Church Considers Merging with the Hacienda Heights Church

resurrecting...

The Orion Monitor is an unofficial, unauthorized, irregular publication of Los Angeles Central Japanese church. As the name implies, the Monitor was originally created to monitor the Orion Chronicles. Its mission is to provide a perspective on affairs affecting the members of the Los Angeles Central Japanese-American SDA Church that is missing from the Orion Chronicles. The Monitor is a supplement to, and has no intention of competing with, or replacing the Orion Chronicles.

In the present discussions concerning the most crucial decision the Japanese church has ever had to make since its founding half a century ago, that missing perspective is not at all hard to find, since the Orion Chronicles itself has been missing in action for more than a year. Since nature abhors a vacuum, and the Monitor is a faithful servant of nature, it will reluctantly fill the void until the return of the Orion Chronicles.

In its inaugural issue of June, 1996, the Monitor felt obligated to address the underlying issues of the proposed merger of the three Japanese churches in Gardena because what was perceived as extreme bias and superficiality in the Orion Chronicles.

There was also unfinished business. In the last paragraph of that issue, I wrote,

"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."

That time has now come. It has become increasingly evident in the present discussions that some members are confused and even apologetic about the fact that this is a Japanese church. Until that question is settled, the merger process will be muddled and confused, because some will be content to discount or discard what others think is vital to our raison d'etre.

In this issue there are two independent but related pieces:

1. Why Have a Japanese Church?: an answer to the March-April' 1996 Orion Chronicles editorial that questioned the validity of a Japanese church

2. The Merger Chronicles: a brief chronology of the three recent attempts by L.A. Central to relocate itself, and a description and analysis of the present state of affairs in the ongoing merger negotiations with Hacienda Heights church.

Why Have a Japanese Church is placed first because The Merger Chronicles assumes one understands the underlying issues of an ethnic church.

Orion Monitor Staff: Editor, Dennis Hokama; Assistant editor, Dennis Hokama; Managing Editor, Dennis Hokama; Political Correctness Consultant, Dennis Hokama; Chief Financial Officer, Dennis Hokama; Circulation Manager, Dennis Hokama; field reporter, Dennis Hokama.

Why Have a Japanese Church?

Now is the time to come to terms with the raison d'etre of the Los Angeles Japanese SDA church. If the editorial in the March-April 1996 issue of the Orion Chronicles cannot be challenged, then the fact that we serve a Japanese language/ethnic subculture is irrelevant in God's eyes.

Since we have invested so heavily in preserving that which God thinks irrelevant, then it would seem to follow that we are at best guilty of being bad stewards of God's resources. W e are in the same category as people who live a lavish, wasteful, lifestyle. We should have simply joined a local SDA church and put the extra driving time and gas money to a better use than burning it on the freeway.

But perhaps we are also guilty of some form of subtle racism in showing such a preference for serving and meeting with people just like us rather than dispensing our service without regard to the race of the person. If God doesn't care about the race of a person, then why should we? It then follows that ethnic churches are sinful on both accounts, should be abolished as soon as possible, and we should feel ashamed of ourselves in the meantime.

Judging from some of the comments that have been made during the recent town hall meetings, some in this church share the opinion of the former O. C. editor. If our own members do not understand the justification for having a Japanese church, then how can we expect members of the Hacienda Heights church to have sympathy for it?

But is this analysis and the resulting conclusion valid? If not, then where did it go wrong? For lack of a better place, let us start at the beginning. Before we can hope to understand what the purpose of a Japanese church is, we must first establish what an ethnic church is, for a Japanese church is a particular example, or a subset of all ethnic churches.

Ethnicity

According to Webster, "ethnic" literally refers to "racial" groupings of people rather than cultural distinctions. Racial distinctions are usually associated with characteristic cultural distinctions, and political correctness dictates that we ignore the racial component and deal with the cultural component as if it is the same as race. But the Monitor is not a politically correct paper, and if we submit to it, then we blind ourselves to one of the important underlying dynamics of the ethnic church.

One of the most obvious of all social phenomena is the tendency of people to sort themselves according to their genetic or racial groupings. This happens at parties, at schools, at churches, on playgrounds, and work places; everywhere there are people. People of the same race will tend to congregate. And people of the same race will tend to sort themselves according to the closeness of kin. The saying "blood is thicker than water" is an acknowledgment of this phenomenon.

This phenomenon is not restricted to humans; it is a characteristic of all living things. Dogs fi1ll with dogs, Fishes swim with fishes of their own species, etc. And within species, animals generally choose the company of close relatives to that of none related animals of the same species, everything else being equal.

In a 1980 (Wu, et at) experiment, for example, monkeys (Macaca nemestrina) were given a choice of sitting next to two companions that they had never seen before. In each case, one of the companions was a half sibling related through the father. The other monkey was an unrelated control. There was a statistically significant tendency for the monkey to choose the company of its half sibling.

In a 1979 experiment Waldman and Adler investigated whether tadpoles also preferred to associate with their siblings. Tadpoles from different egg clutches were colored differently and then allowed to swim together in the same tank. At a certain point, a grid which separated the tank into 16 compartments was lowered to trap the tadpoles in one of those 16 compartments. There was a statistically significant tendency for siblings to be closer to each other than non-siblings.

This is not the place to discuss why this phenomenon occurs. But it is important that we recognize that it does occur, and that it is a phenomenon that transcends (subscends?) our rationalizations for why we behave that way. A tadpole, after all, does not rationalize, but does it anyway.

The fact that a phenomenon is natural does not make it "right" or "wrong". But man has a choice as to whether to acknowledge the phenomenon and use it constructively, suppress it, or deny and ignore it. The creation of ethnic churches represents a decision to acknowledge it and use it constructively.

Culture

It is the cultural component rather than the racial component that is politically correct to acknowledge as being the rationale for "ethnic churches." Webster defines culture as:

"a particular human groups mastery of the art of living. Various phases of culture are language, religion, customs, industries, all of which are the general social inheritance of the group . . . "

Culture is needed to simplify the infinite complexities and uncertainties of life for any given individual. It is an algorithm (a formula making short cuts possible)that enables us to build upon the achievements of four thousand years of human history rather than being condemned to reinvent the wheel every generation.

The achievements of culture are fantastic. It got us from the stone age to the computer age. But the laws of nature dictate that a price be exacted for every shortcut; the greater the shortcut, the greater the price. In return for giving us focus, every culture also comes with a corresponding set of blinders or filters that narrows our conception of reality, just as a microscope narrows our focus in proportion to its power of magnification.

That is the way it must be, because our minds can only hold as much information as it could five thousand years ago, and we still have only 70 years to gather it before we start to forget more than we learn. This is another way of saying that culture is as biasing as it is powerful. This "narrowing" of focus does not necessarily mean that we literally do not see something. It does mean we instinctively judge something as "bad" or "good" with the confidence that our judgement is endorsed by God and/or the laws of the universe.

The culture we live in, for example, treats democracy, equality, and monogamy as nonnegotiable. This creates a stable society wherein we can concentrate on doing our homework or going to work rather than spending our time inciting a theocratic revolution or gathering harems (O.K., in the case of women, campaigning to be included in someone's harem). But it also biases us against the Old Testament in which monarchy, theocracy, polygamy, and slavery are all condoned (accepted). Even Jesus and Paul in the New Testament never condemn slavery, but instead use the institution positively as an appropriate analogy describing our relationship to God.

The point is that one's culture has a lot to do with one's ability to accept or reject a particular religious belief or practice. With culture, we are unrepentant Chauvinist pigs; without it, we would be virtually subhuman savages. We cannot be human without being culture bound, because the very language we use to think and talk with, is part of our culture, and without our language and thinking skills, we are not human. Therefore every man must carry his culture around with him like a second skin, much like a hermit crab carries around a shell as part of its own body.

The Ethnic Church

So what is an ethnic church? It seems like such an obvious question, but I ask it because behind this glib phrase, usually lurks a benign but patronizing attitude. Political correctness forbids admitting it, but for many, ethnic churches seem analogous to the government's affirmative action program for minorities. You know, the "we have to put up with ethnic churches because those insecure minorities can't compete with regular folks" attitude.

In a literal sense, all churches are ethnic churches because there can be no such thing as a church that does not use the framework of a particular culture as its intellectual foundation. But to use it in that way would be a redundancy meaning absolutely nothing, and we might as well expunge the phrase from our vocabulary .

The term ethnic church can only have meaning if we restrict its use to a relativistic one. W e commonly use it to refer to a church that specializes in serving those of an ethnic! cultural background different from the dominant culture of that particular religion. But the dominant culture and language of a religion can change over time. A language that might be dominant in one generation, might theoretically become "ethnic" after the "revolution". This means that the term" ethnic church" is dynamic rather than static; relative rather than absolute.

When seen in this light, the phenomenon of the ethnic church is not a peripheral issue of Christianity, but goes to the very heart and soul of what Christianity is all about. For the Christianity of today is NOT a descendant of the dominant Mother Church in Jerusalem headed by James the Just, and the Apostles of Jesus. Quite surprisingly, it must trace its spiritual-theological ancestry instead, to the ethnic church started by Paul, the Apostle to ethnic peoples, also known as Gentiles.

The raging issue in the first century, as recorded in the book of Acts and the Pauline epistles, concerns the legitimacy and nature of ethnic churches. The dominant cultural milieu within which Christianity was born, was Judaism. All of the original Apostles were thoroughly Jewish in their culture, and found it impossible to separate their Jewishness from their belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

An analysis of the book of Acts reveals that the Mother church in Jerusalem had merely tacked a belief in Jesus onto Judaism. As Acts 21 shows, they continued to worship in the temple as before, and expected good "Christians" to continue making all the traditional Jewish animal sacrifices.

It was Paul, the Outsider Apostle (because unlike the others, he had never known the historical Jesus), who first realized the serious consequences of not having ethnic churches to eliminate cultural barriers to salvation. He made the isolation of gospel from culture his life mission. That is the inner logic of ethnic churches:

When I am with the Jews, I seem as one of them so that they will listen to the Gospel and can win them to Christ. When I am with the Gentiles, who follow Jewish customs and ceremonies, I don't argue even though I don't agree because I want to help them. When with the heathen I agree with them as much as I can, except of course that I must do what is right as a Christian. And so by agreeing, I can win their confidence and help them too.

When I am with those whose consciences bother them easily, I don't act as though I know it all and don't say they are foolish; the result is that they are willing to let me help them. Yes, whatever a person is like, I try to find common ground with him so that he will let me tell him about Jesus and let Christ save him. I do this to get the gospel to them and also for the blessing I myself receive when I see them come to Christ. (I Cor. 9:20,21).

But not everybody can be comfortable as a cultural chameleon. The Apostles at headquarters and the mainstream conservatives were troubled with Paul's relativistic attitude toward that which many saw as absolute. The first General Conference, the so-called Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15, was convened specifically to address the problem of ethnic churches. Were they legitimate in God's eyes? If so, where should one draw the line between being Jewish and just being Christian without being Jewish?

The Council accepted the legitimacy of ethnic conversions in God's eyes because of testimony that the ethnic converts had experienced the same outpouring of the Holy Spirit that Jews had experienced, despite the fact that they were not keeping Jewish ceremonies. What did this imply in terms of God's will? Did the Gentiles now have to start keeping Jewish ceremonies, or did it mean that Jewish Christians could stop troubling themselves with Jewish ceremonies?

They evaded that theological issue by settling upon an intellectually embarrassing double standard for Jewish and Gentile Christians that ultimately satisfied no one (certainly not Adventists!). The Jewish Christians were to go on keeping the law of Moses as before, but the ethnic converts were exempted from all Jewish requirements except for food offered to idols, meat of strangled animals, and fornication. And so a great gulf was fixed between the Mother church in Jerusalem, and the ethnic churches.

But there was no question at the time as to which of the two kinds of believers had priority in God’s eyes. Paul, writing toward the end of his career, proclaimed:

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Ro. 1:16).

The Greeks were the ethnic people of Paul's day from the Jewish perspective. Today when preachers quote this text in their sermons, they have a tendency to mumble the last two phrases of it because it betrays our humble spiritual ancestry: The mighty modern Christian church sprang from just an "also"; Ishmael rather than Isaac.

The dominance of the Jerusalem church and Jewish culture was forever eclipsed after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul's orphaned and beleaguered ethnic churches grew up to become the dominant model for modern Christianity, rather than the church of the Apostles in Jerusalem. The last had become first and the first had become last.

The disappearance of the Jerusalem church has allowed the Gentile church to represent their practice as universal and monolithic, but the record of Acts 15 and 21 shows that this is simply another case of the winners writing history. So even as Conference officials speak, sometimes patronizingly, about the "problem of the ethnic church," the world church, and the Christian world itself, stands on the shoulders of Christianity's first ethnic churches.

The process that brought about that great transformation has not stopped. Paul did not and could not eradicate cultural barriers to salvation for all peoples for all time, because cultures are always evolving, and true believers of every time and place must relate to the gospel from their own cultural perspective in order to make it their own.

Missionaries find it hard if not impossible to separate the essentials of salvation from their own unique environment or culture. This inevitably results in the direct or indirect preaching and teaching of their own culture along with the gospel. This mixing of culture with gospel, results in the creation of additional barriers to salvation for those of a different culture than the missionary, at the same time that it lowers the barriers to salvation for others of the same (or similar) culture.

So what is the solution? Stripping salvation of all its cultural adornments is not a solution. For religion would then become a lifeless, artificial, inhuman thing. We must, after all, speak in SOME language, follow SOME customs, and celebrate or commiserate each other's joys or sorrows in SOME ritual!

If God is neutral with respect to culture, then salvation must not only be possible within one's own culture, but preferable. It is preferable, because the God of Culture is also the God of economy. Why throw away something only to be forced to reacquire the equivalent thing at a great cost of time and effort? This inefficiency is magnified by many fold because such a convert also loses credibility within his own culture when trying to evangelize the people of his/her former culture.

A few people may feel alienated enough from their own culture that they may be happy to abandon theirs and start over all again. Too often, perhaps, such alienated beings are praised and idealized as model converts. But being in such an alienated state of self loathing can hardly be considered normative, let alone praiseworthy, even for a heathen.

The historical solution has been to encourage each people to celebrate their salvation in their own culturally unique ways by making sure that there is a church serving as many unique cultures as is practically possible within each geographic area. Many who strongly believe in ethnic churches consider it significant that the first recorded miracle after Jesus' departure was the miracle of "tongues" at Pentecost (Acts 2). The miracle of tongues enabled the disciples to preach the gospel in the language of "every nation under heaven." The presence of ethnic churches representing "every nation under heaven" can be seen as our way of re-enacting the miracle of Pentecost today in the same way that the SDA church's commitment to the medical ministry is a re-enactment of Jesus' healing ministry.

Those who would argue against ethnic churches overlook the obvious fact that while God may be culture free, people are not, cannot, and I would argue, should not. Ethnic churches must exist to offset (not neutralize) human biases; not to placate God's lust for kim chee, chow mein, sushi, refried beans, or collard greens. If God is unprejudiced and desires salvation for all, then He cannot be satisfied as long as there are environmental/ cultural barriers to salvation for ANY group. Ethnic churches are justified because God is not willing that any should perish, merely because they refract life through the prism of any particular culture.

The Ethnic Church and the Incarnation

The phenomenon of the ethnic church can be seen as an extension of God's never ending outreach toward man that is epitomized in the Incarnation itself. God revealed himself as human, rather than a Martian, because we are humans, rather than Martians or Saturnians. But even the ethnic church (in the absolute sense) cannot break down all barriers. In the final analysis, it is the function of each member within each church to break down that final barrier to salvation by customizing it to meet the needs of each individual we befriend.

As SDA’s of Japanese culture or descent in the greater Los Angeles area, it is our unique mission to destroy cultural barriers against the gospel for people identifying with the Japanese culture. It is a mission for which the Los Angeles Central Japanese Church is uniquely qualified. As the only full service Japanese SDA church in the greater Los Angeles area, we need not apologize to anybody for feeling a burden to maintain it.

recapping...

The Merger Chronicles

Before attempting to dissect the current state of affairs, it may be useful to review events of the past two years for those who have not followed these events closely.

The Gardena Merger

In the Monitor's inaugural issue in June of 1996, it analyzed the Orion Chronicle's handling of the proposed merger of all three Japanese Churches with the Gardena American church. The Central church board voted to pursue it in January of 1996. Although the same action was subsequently approved by all three Japanese church boards, it never even went as far as formally approaching the Gardena American church with it, nor carne to a vote in Central Japanese Church.

But the grapevine made it apparent that there would be stiff opposition by significant groups within the Gardena American church as well as Central church. The great distance of Gardena from the church's present location in Los Angeles alone, was almost enough to guarantee defeat. Most Central Japanese church members live in the San Gabriel Valley, and the drive to Gardena would take about 40 minutes.

In light of the current negotiations with Hacienda Heights, it is ironic to recall the justification used by church leaders who encouraged the move, despite this great inconvenience to a majority of our members: that as a Japanese church, it was consistent with our mission that we move to a location with a high concentration of Japanese.

Those opposed to the move typically expressed a cavalier attitude regarding the importance of maintaining a Japanese church. Without the commitment to the Japanese work, there remained no rational justification for moving the church 40 minutes away from most members homes.

During the height of the debate surrounding the relocation to Gardena, the Orion Chronicles, which had heretofore chosen to omit any reference to the merger discussions, made its first oblique reference to it in its March- April editorial:

What is church? Is it a structure or a body of believers -its people? In some areas, church is held in homes, in the out-of-doors, and even in cars. Does it matter to God whether a church is costly or modest, situated in inner-cities or suburbia, serves a culturally diverse or mono-ethnic, congregation, large or small? (Italics mine)

The editor's eventual answer to her own rhetorical question was effectively "no"; the clear implication being that the proposal to move the church to Gardena had no justification in God's eyes.

Throughout the merger discussions, there were constant accusations that the ministers and the church board were proceeding without proper authorization, and were trying to railroad the merger through without giving members a chance to voice their opinions. These accusations were voiced even in town meetings devoted to giving members a chance to speak up.

Having been present at every one of the known merger meetings, it was my assessment that all such accusations were based on a faulty understanding of what representative democracy is. Their accusations amounted to no more than accusing duly appointed representatives of doing their job. Mistakes may have been made, but no action was ever taken by boards or individuals other than to try to make the Gardena option available to the congregation, if it desired to take it.

The Alhambra Friends Church

By October of 1996, Central church leadership given up on Gardena, and now had a new target in sight: the Alhambra Friends (Quakers) Church. It was geographically convenient, but unlike the Gardena American church, would have to be purchased. The Quakers were anxious to sell, flexible, and offered excellent terms. But citing lack of parking, room for expansion, and a less than ideal location, the church eventually voted in April not to even make an offer on the property.

The Hacienda Heights SDA Church

The Hacienda Heights SDA church came to the attention of church members shortly after the April rejection of the Alhambra church. It is a Caucasian church in an Asian suburban community in the San Gabriel Valley with a shrinking membership. They are open to merger ideas, and had two acres of undeveloped land on which to build. But they were at the time in the midst of negotiations with the L.A. Chinese SDA church, so no effort was made to contact them until late August. By then, plans with the Chinese church had fallen through, and the Hacienda church was again looking for new options.

By that time, Dr. Harvey Yamamoto was attending Hacienda Heights church regularly, and openly campaigning in both churches for a merger. Dr. Harvey Yamamoto, a long time member and financial backer of Central church who had been a prime mover in the attempt to move the church to Gardena and Alhambra, had wandered into the Hacienda Heights church by accident shortly after the negative vote on the Alhambra church. He was intrigued by the possibilities there, because it seemed to have everything that the two previous locations had been criticized for lacking; a congregation happy to merge (making purchase unnecessary), a safe location in the San Gabriel Valley, room for expansion, and plenty of parking.

Shindo Matsuda shared Harvey's enthusiasm. Shindo, a real estate agent and a member of the church's property search committee, had played a significant role in convincing others to vote against the Alhambra proposal, much to Harvey's frustration and disappointment. Shindo envisioned the Hacienda Heights location as a great meeting place for the successful Total Life Seminar outreach program for Japanese mothers.

Adding to the intriguing chemistry at Hacienda Heights was the coincidence that their new half time Pastor was Albert Frederico, a tall, aggressive Spanish-Mexican-American, and his wife Linda, formerly Linda Ludden, daughter of Harvey and Sophia Ludden, veteran missionaries to Japan. The Luddens had served on the Japan Missionary College campus for many years, and many current members of the Japanese church, including myself, Cindy Yamamoto, (Harvey Yamamoto's wife), the (Shindo) Matsudas, and the Tamuras had known her as a child in Japan. Linda's parents attended the first joint worship, and were the occasion for many a joyful reunion of old friends.

Pastor Frederico, a graduate of San Gabriel Academy and La Sierra, eagerly embraced the idea of merger as salvation for the Hacienda Heights church, and entered into an alliance with Harvey Yamamoto to bring about the merger.

The November 1 Business Meeting

The joint discussions soon led to an agreement to try six consecutive joint worships beginning on October 4. The hospitality and friendliness shown by the Hacienda Heights members on those occasions were quite remarkable, and exceeded most expectations.

On the afternoon of the fifth joint service (Nov. 1), separate church business meetings for each church were conducted on the afternoon for both churches. The purpose of the meetings were to evaluate the success of the joint worships, and to decide on the next step.

The Central Church business meeting (at Hacienda Heights church) was chaired by Senior Pastor Chris Ishii. The congregation was presented with an ambiguously worded printed agenda that made it look as if the congregation may have already committed to more than they previously agreed to, and was structured to encourage the congregation to extend the six week joint services indefinitely.

It is a document whose sloppy, over committal wording makes me cringe. Two years ago, it probably would have gotten the chairman crucified in a business meeting. But this time the response is more restrained.

Craig Chow makes the motion to extend, using language provided by the document that implies the merger is already taking place.

The chairman tries to restrict questions to those pertaining to the motion.

Dr. Iwata asks if there is any physical reason preventing the church from returning to their church and continuing to worship as before.

Dr. Tamura responds with words to the effect that the city would not permit any more additions because there was not enough parking, etc, etc.

"That is a lie!" exclaims Harold Kusuhara. Dr. Tamura rephrases his response. The uncalled for sharpness of Harold's words gives evidence of the strong emotions that lie just beneath the surface.

Judging from the question and comments from the congregation that follow, some members apparently feel that they are being manipulated into a merger without being given a chance to voice their objections, or even being allowed to bid farewell to their old church.

I raise my hand to take issue with the wording of the motion. It should not be worded as a "continuation of the merger" (or words to that effect), I say, since there has been no vote to merge. That unfortunate wording, I contend, may provoke a negative vote that otherwise would be positive. The point is acknowledged.

Others question why the agreement is now being changed from six weeks to indefinite. The implication is that the congregation is being tricked with bait and switch tactics. David Suzumura follows up those questions by insisting (in his broken English) that the church be allowed to return home, since they only agreed to come on a trial basis for six weeks. Joe Furukawa supports David’s sentiment, saying, "It is not right" to try to change the agreement now that we are here. It is apparent that many feel the same way.

In the end, they vote to authorize the "study of the merger", but also to return home after the sixth Sabbath, as was implied in the original agreement. It is apparent that the outcome is not everything the pastors had planned.

It is also agreed that committees from both churches will be picked to begin working out the details of how a merger will actually work. Only when these committees finish their work will there be a definite proposal for the congregation to vote on.

In discussing the outcome with Dennis Imai, the head elder who has been a key player in negotiating the past three merger attempts, we agree that it is logical and strategically advantageous that we return to our home church while we negotiate the details of the merger.

Our mutual concern is that the terms of the merger be structured to guarantee the preservation of the unique mission of the Japanese church. It would be a pyrrhic victory for the church to move to a great location, only to lose its own soul (raison d'etre).

On November 15, members return to Central Church. The various merger committees meet, but there is no general meeting for all members to discuss the merger until December 6.

The December 6 Business Meeting

The business meeting was convened immediately after the sermon hour at about 12:30, with Pastor Patrick Lew as chairman and Pastor Toru Nakamura as translator. It was the first opportunity for the congregation to voice their feelings concerning the merger since returning to their church.

Elder Lew promises that it will be a short meeting as he opens the proceedings. He reads the list of names that have been appointed to the various merger committees. Harold Kusuhara announces that he has withdrawn his name as treasurer, and the correction is noted. A little later, someone notices that Steve Fajita is listed as Merger Committee Member by mistake.

As soon as it is announced that we will be deciding on if and when to return to the Hacienda Heights church, Dr. Tamura immediately moves that we return to the Hacienda Heights church on the first Sabbath in January. Shindo Matsuda seconds the motion. The chairman then asks if there is discussion pertaining to the motion. He makes it apparent that there is only time for a few questions. (He will try unsuccessfully to limit the number of speakers throughout the meeting on the basis that he needs to make good on his promise to keep the meeting short.)

Mickey Haman asks if this means the merger is a "done deal". All the events and agendas, she says, seem to treat this as if it has already been decided. Yet there has been no opportunity for discussion. Those who live in the immediate area and have restricted mobility will suffer.

She is reassured that there has been no decision to move. The purpose for this move, says Pastor Lew, is to see what the actual problems will be, rather than merely hypothesizing about what problems might theoretically be encountered.

I raise my hand to ask for a clarification on the motion. Is the motion actually saying that we return on January and stay there indefinitely??

"Yes", Elder Lew tells me. I am frankly puzzled as to why there is this rush to return to Hacienda Heights before we have even had a chance to do what I thought we had returned to do: negotiate the terms of the merger while on our own turf, and handle the objections and reservations expressed by members. None of that has been done in the three weeks we have been home, and we are to head back with no guarantee that such things will ever be done.

Harold Kusuhara asks why not wait until after we have taken the vote for or against merging on February 21 before returning? (No answer is given)

Dee Imai pleads against moving back so soon on the grounds that we have not yet had the discussion that the church family is entitled to, and asks why we have to rush? (No answer is given)

Mrs. Kono asks if we know what eventual impact this merger will have on the pastoral staff. Even if we get assurances for two or three years, she says, what about after that'? If it means that we lose pastors, then perhaps getting better buildings is not worth it.

Elder Lew's answer is that after the three years, how many pastors we get will depend on our growth we experience during those years. If we get no growth, then we will lose pastors.

If my own reaction is any indication of how others react, it comes across as more of a veiled threat than any kind of reassurance. After all, the Japanese church hasn't had any growth to speak of for perhaps 30 years or more, and have been reduced to two Conference pastors to be shared between three churches. If we move and don't start doing what we haven't been able to do in thirty years, we will be cut still further?

Harold Kusuhara suggests that we have a committee compile all the pros and cons of merger; not just the good effects; so that we can really compare the alternatives honestly. (No response)

The chairman calls for a vote and requests that people stand up to be counted. On its merits, I should vote against it, because it is strategically foolish to move back without an agreement, and I am not happy with the way this has been attempted before any church dialogue has been allowed. But at the last minute I decide to show support for leadership.

The vote is 42 to 19 in favor of returning to Hacienda Heights on January 3 with or without having had any meeting to discuss it.

Pastor Lew wants to close the meeting, but people keep raising their hand to make comments. He reassures the congregation that the board will schedule a meeting in which they can voice their concerns.

Mrs. Oshita comments that it is important to let everybody get a chance to speak, and repeats Harold Kusuhara's comment that we need to look at the negative factors of merger as well.

Shindo Matsuda relates how he opposed the Alhambra deal because he thought it was not good enough. But the Hacienda Heights property has everything that people have been asking for, he says. He also wants to hear out those who are opposed to the move right now! In fact, he says, let's have town hall meetings every week after church until we return to Hacienda Heights!

The chairman thanks him and says that there are now two options for the board to consider; scheduling a meeting every week, or having one meeting.

"We don't need to ask the board," says Craig Chow. "This is a business meeting that supersedes the authority of the board, so we can decide that right here."

The chairman states that the meeting has gone on too long already, and his integrity is now at stake because he promised a short meeting.

Craig Chow asks the chairman if keeping the meeting short is as important as letting people have their say on a very important issue.

"OK, I'm going to be honest with you." said the chairman, adjusting his glasses and taking a deep breath. "I am not feeling very well, and I don't think I can continue much longer. I probably should not have even come in today."

Dr. Tamura and others hastily speak up to corroborate the pastor's statement and pleaded for the congregation to be considerate of him.

Craig Chow suggested that we could have someone else take over the chairmanship to allow us to finish the meeting.

The chairman responded with words to the effect that he did not look favorably on that idea.

Masao Kobashigawa moved to adjourn and Dr. Tamura seconded.

Takashi Yonezawa asks for confirmation that this is a business meeting. Upon being assured that it was, he stated that we then had no need to go back to the board, but could schedule the meetings right now, and let someone else chair the remainder of the meeting.

The chairman then insisted that we address the motion on the floor, citing the fact that we had gone on too long already.

Craig Chow suggests that those interested in asking more questions be allowed to stay after the meeting to ask questions. (There was no positive response.}

The vote is taken and the motion to adjourn is passed. I abstain. Until this meeting I had assumed that things were proceeding smoothly according to the priorities that had been agreed upon all along. But the strange way in which the meeting has been orchestrated and the attempt to get us back to Hacienda Heights prematurely, made me wonder if something had gone wrong.

Dennis Imai' s Resignation

Immediately after the meeting, I spoke to a dejected looking Dennis' Imai and ask him about the uncharacteristic behavior of Pastor Lew and Dr. Tamura. He says that the board had decided to recommend that the church rejoin Hacienda Heights, and that Dr. Tamura had only moved what the board had decided.

He then disclosed that he had just resigned from all the merger committees. Although time constraints and physical and emotional exhaustion were the primary factors, he conceded that strategic considerations were a factor in his thinking. Since he was unsuccessful with every suggestion he had offered to protect the identity of the Japanese church, he felt he could be of greater service by resigning.

Ethically, he would have felt bound by it once the committee had rendered its decision. But as a member at large, he said he would feel to continue to advocate his concerns at a later stage in the process.

As far as he was concerned, the process was out of control, and he feared that the Japanese church might lose their identity and unique mission, becoming just another generic SDA church as a result.

There were several developments that led him to feel that way. They had rejected any inclusion of this unique mission in the mission statement, and the proposed mission statement was going to be a generic spiritual sounding platitude (my phrase, not Dennis Imai's) making no mention of the Japanese work.

Chris Ishii would be an associate pastor under Albert Frederico. While Pastor Frederico's obvious fine leadership qualities would make him the obvious candidate for senior pastor in the merged church, Dennis felt that it was helpful symbolically to have a Japanese senior pastor. This would give assurance to the Japanese that a merger didn't mean they had lost control of their destiny. The pastors could divide up the actual tasks among each other according to their individual strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, he dismisses the relative leadership abilities of the two main candidates as an insufficient basis for determining who should be the senior pastor.

Another issue that concerned him was that church leadership seemed to be proceeding on the assumption that the various committees need not seek to get their final work reviewed by the various church boards or congregations. Instead, the plan is to present it all to the congregation as a "take it or leave it" package that would be voted on as a whole.

This is how the congregation votes in a new slate of officers with one vote. The apparent rationale behind this, is that it will prevent people from nitpicking various items to death. If they are in favor of the merger, then they will be forced to accept the package as is or allow the merger to fail.

This further increases the power of the various committees, because the congregation will not be allowed to second guess them unless they are willing to vote against the whole merger idea.

This is analogous to the dilemma of a President of the United States without a line item veto on the federal budget. If he votes against it, the federal employees don't get paid and federal government comes to a screeching halt. If he passes it, then items that he absolutely detests, get passed.

It was Imai' s concern that the tactic was being misapplied when used to pass issues as complex and sensitive as a church merger. It was unnecessarily confrontational, and could turn that business meeting into a nightmarish marathon. On the other hand, if the congregation had already pre-approved the key planks, then actual final vote would be routine.

The irony, he said, was that he was getting little support from our pastors or from our delegates on the Merger Committee in trying to preserve the uniqueness of our church's mission.

Pastor Ishii was of the opinion that the Japanese side doesn't care about having anything unique in the mission statement. Mrs. Oshita, another delegate on the committee composing the mission statement, also has been opposed to putting anything in referring to the Japanese work. He saw no alternative other than to resign, because his committee ethics would have prevented him from criticizing the committees decision after the fact as long as he was on the committee.

I have not attended church board meetings for more than a year because they have become too boring. So I questioned my wife about how the board came to the decision it move back to Hacienda Heights so soon. She tells me that she herself supported the move back to Hacienda Heights church because we could not initiate any programs in the meantime, if we are lame duck residents. She also did not want the church to forget about the good times we shared at Hacienda Heights by the time the vote came up. But she had assumed that the December 6 meeting would be an opportunity for open church dialogue, rather than an attempted slam dunk. She admits to feeling that the merger has taken on a mysterious life of its own, and that the church board itself is being swept along in a strong current that our church board itself cannot seem to control or fully understand. Individual members who are on the various merger committees see bits and pieces of the picture, but are not in control of the overall process.

She points to the agenda for the November 1 business meeting as an example. Our church board, she says, was handed the printed agenda for our own business meeting just minutes before the meeting itself. It had been translated into Japanese, but had been written by Pastor Frederico. So both congregations had been working from Pastor Frederico's agenda and perspective.

There is nothing wrong with trying to save labor by avoiding duplication of effort, and Pastor Frederico's energy and initiative are to be applauded. But the fact remains that our church's perspective with respect to the merger simply cannot be the same as Pastor Frederico’s or Hacienda Heights’.

For all their many virtues, our three Pastors do not have a history of prolific writing. With the resignation of Dennis Imai from the merger committees, even more of the writing will be delegated to the Hacienda Heights side from this point forward. That means even less control of the process by Central church.

The votes that have been won on behalf of continuing to explore the merger process by this method may be a little misleading. Discussion has been suppressed at every turn, and the votes have not yet meant anything other than a willingness to be open minded. Such results may have little or nothing to do with a vote that actually burns our bridges behind us.

After the meeting, a number of active members, some of whom are merger committee members, or former or present board members, linger at the back of the church to discuss the turn of events. The consensus among us seems to be that too low a priority has been placed on giving church members a chance to voice their questions or objections.

After the conversation with Dennis lmai and my wife later that evening, I conclude that the current merger is now more accurately described as something that is happening to Central church, rather than something that Central church is bringing about.

I have no doubts about the good intentions of all the individuals involved trying to move this process forward. Judging from our sorry history of "out of control" business meetings in our recent history, perhaps some church leaders remain skeptical of our congregation's ability to conduct a debate on a sensitive issue responsibly. If that be the case, we are reaping what we have sowed.

On the other hand, certain rights are inalienable. A congregation does not forfeit its right to an open hearing, no matter how badly it has behaved in the past.

Since that day of reckorring must come, then why let tensions build unnecessarily in the meantime, forcing those genuinely concerned about the process, to unite with those who would oppose any change on general principles?

I ponder that question all week, and find it incredulous that we get no word of a town hall meeting scheduled for Sabbath afternoon.

The L.A. Central Japanese Church telephone tree is not set in motion until Friday night. We get our call on Saturday morning at about 8:00 a.m. The lateness of the decision adds to the list of symptoms indicating indecision or extreme reluctance to allow discussion.

On Sabbath morning, I find a stack of Dennis Imai's official letter of resignation on the rear pew. It reaffirms his support for the merger, and the only specifically mentioned reason is that his time commitments exceed his available time. His last sentence says he is resigning for "these and other" reasons.

His resignation combined with his negative vote on moving back to Hacienda Heights on January 3 results in a flurry of e-mail activity and phone calls by those trying to coordinate the merger. Has Dennis Imai become an opponent of the merger?? In his e-mail replies, Dennis repeatedly reassures them that he is still" 125 %" in favor of the merger. (Judging from their replies they are apparently relieved to know that his support has not dropped to a marginal 100%, but concerned that it is not 200 % .)

The December 13 Town Hall Meeting

The meeting begins in the social hall after pot luck at about 1 :30. Pastor Ishii is flanked on both sides by the merger committee. On his right is Mrs. Oshita, Dr. Tamura, Reijin Fujita, and Shindo Matsuda. On his left is Mrs. Furukawa. Dennis Imai is sitting in the wings as a reserve. It is an impressive array of political clout representing every faction in the church, and they all have their game faces on.

Pastor Ishii opens the meeting by explaining why it was decided to have a town hall meeting, but not why it was called at such a late date. (I am told privately by a usually reliable source that it was an oversight.) He announces that the meeting will last until 3:30 at the latest, and then begins to give a report from a sheath of papers in front of him. After a few minutes of this, I start to become concerned that this will turn into a filibuster to run valuable minutes off the clock.

But during one of his pauses, Jane Kusuhara raises her hand and asks why there was such a rush to get us back to Hacienda Heights. When asked to explain herself, she points out that Dr. Tamura made the motion as soon as the meeting was opened and that it was seconded immediately by Shindo Matsuda without any discussion.

Dr. Tamura and a number of others retort that no discussion is allowed unless there is a second.⁽¹⁾

Then Shindo stands up solemnly to make his reply. In his pre-amble, he reminds us that he has not stood before this congregation for about eight years. That statement immediately evoked painful memories of the tumultuous events that led Shindo to decline active roles in church since that time. The implication is that it took an event of this magnitude to convince him to take a leading role in church affairs again.

It was his zeal for missionary work that led him to his unhesitating second of Dr. Tamura’s motion, he says. His house is getting too crowded to hold the meetings for his wife's total life seminars. Actually, he jokes, he just wants to get them out of his house.

Reijin then stands up to give a spirited but long and rambling defense of his support of the motion. He begins by citing the dangers of the present location, and ends with the incredible friendliness of the Hacienda Heights members.

It is quite an intimidating display of fire power that sets the tone of the meeting and puts "nay" sayers on notice that pro-merger forces are in charge. In my opinion, they have been overly defensive and intimidating.

The three speakers make valid points, but all have evaded the substance of Jane's question. Her question was a valid one, but because it was worded incorrectly, Dr. Tamura attacked it on a technicality without having to address its substance.

The problem is that the meeting of November 1 was misrepresented as a meeting in which there would be a discussion/decision about going back to Hacienda Heights. Instead, it was a meeting to approve the board's decision to go back to Hacienda Heights. But somebody forgot to tell the congregation that, from the chairman's point of view, the purpose of the meeting was simply to get the congregation to ratify the board's decision.

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as there had been proper disclosure and explanation. Judging from my own reaction and the reaction of others who did not already know of the board's prior decision, this disclosure was lacking with regard to the December 6 business meeting. Given that lack of explanation, Jane Kusuhara' s objection to the way in which the motion and second was made at the beginning of the meeting without any pre-amble or explanation, was entirely reasonable.

The failure of anyone on the panel or the chairman to admit that there was a valid basis for Jane's question only compounds the mistake that was made on December 6. Such defensiveness only makes matters worse.

Jane Kusuhara is sitting near the front (relatively speaking) right side of the hall flanked by Mickey Himeno on her right and her daughter Karey Kusuhara on her left. The three are known to be critical of the move, and the panelists frequently face them when defending themselves even when someone else has asked the question. Reijin makes a comment to the effect that he often has to deal with angry faces concerning this issue, and he gestures to these three as he makes that comment.

Pastor Ishii regains the floor and proposes to begin reading from the thick report. I don't want the meeting to be taken up by report reading if that means we are going to run out of time to let people speak, so I raise my hand.

Upon being recognized, I question the format he is proposing and. suggest that we let people immediately begin asking their questions and objections. We can then go to the report if it is relevant to their concerns.

A vote is held, and the congregation votes to listen to Dennis Imai give a brief summary of the nine issues that the merger committees will have to address. That is fine with me, because it is now the congregation that has voted to listen to a report.

The nine issues that have to be settled by the merger committee are as follows:

1. Composing A mission statement.

2. Choosing Regional alignment (Asian/South Pacific vs. L.A. Metro)

3. Deciding on School constituency (San Gabriel Elem. vs. Whittier Elem)

4. Agreement on Pastoral staff roles

5. Merging church officers

6. Agreeing on Asset distribution

7. Setting New church budget

8. Deciding on new church name

9. Making church master calendar

Pastor Ishii explains that those on our merger committees will bring their specific proposal on each of these issues to get congregational approval. I raise my hand to have him specifically state that every plank of the nine issues will be individually considered and approved by the congregation prior to their adoption by this church. Both he had Dr. Tamura affirm that this will be the procedure. Dr. Tamura adds that attempting to have all these issues voted on as a package deal would be too complicated and therefore undesirable.

A question is raised about the name of the new church. Dr. Tamura states that it is not an issue because we can write the name of the church in Japanese "katagana" anyway.

Steve Furukawa asks if there is a model for what we are attempting to create. Someone proposes Westminster as a possible model.

Mr. Tomita, who has spent much time at Westminster, stands to say that Westminster is not an appropriate model for us to emulate.

Joe Furukawa says that the way we have voted to move back before even discussing the merger as a church is not right; the sequence should have been reversed.

Mickey Himeno also raises an objection (pertaining to geographic hardship I think:) and gets brushed aside by the chairman who says words to the effect that we cannot make progress if we dwell on negatives.

That upsets me and I raise my hand to defend the value of the negative comments made by "these ladies" . I say the notion that criticism and negative comments are incompatible with progress, is wrong. We need criticism to test whether our ideas are sound.

Karey Kusuhara states that the way we have structured these meetings is not conducive to honest discussion, because anybody who expresses reservations gets blasted from the front.

She receives aggressively worded denials from the panel that only confirm what she has just said.

She is asked what she has in mind, and is not specific but what she says sounds like a private meeting with committee members. The committee members say something to the effect that they are wi1ling to discuss things any time.

Brent Kusuhara, standing in the back, points to the committee members and says they have been negligent by not taking the initiative in seeking out members to inform them of the ongoing negotiations. This is necessary, he says, because Japanese members are not aggressive or confrontational.

Steve Furukawa reminds Brent that these committee members are not politicians running for office, or merger lobbyists, but were elected by the church to do time consuming committee work on our behalf. We should be grateful for their work rather than criticizing them for not doing even more than they were asked to do, to make up for our lack of initiative.

Brent accepts Steve's comments graciously and concedes that he had not been thinking of it from the perspective of the committee members. He expresses his appreciation for the work they have done.

Shindo adds that he did not campaign for the job and was not even present at the meeting when he was drafted.

Dennis Imai comments that there should be a commitment to the Japanese language work in the mission statement.

Harvey Yamamoto, who has been listening in the back, speaks up to say that he of course agrees with Dennis Imai' s concerns, but that we should have no worries on that account because we will have the control necessary to insure that will happen. In any case, he says, the Hacienda Heights church is most cooperative and sympathetic to our concerns.

In that case, asks Dennis, why can't we have it in writing?

Harvey responds by saying that it is academic, because there is no chance that we could lose the Japanese language pastor.

James Matsuda, playing the Devil' s advocate, tests Harvey's claim by asking if the Japanese language pastor would stil1 be there even if there were only one Japanese member left.

Harvey retorts that if we failed that miserably, given al1 the opportunities we would have there, we wouldn't deserve to have a pastor!

He also gave reassurances that Pastor Albert Frederico had no personal ambition to control the Japanese church, but was a team player willing to play whatever role the merger committee decided was best for the church.

Shindo, responding to yet another question about why there had been such an apparent rush to get back to Hacienda Heights, replies that the mothers attending his wife's "Total Life Seminars" needed a bigger place to meet immediately. He asks the congregation to consider the needs of these Japanese mothers.

But Jane is puzzled by his logic and asks what that has to do with having to move the church over there. Why couldn't he just move the Total Life Seminar meetings over there, regardless of where we met as a church?

Shindo replies that they have already done that.

If that is the case, asks Jane, then what is the problem? Shindo' s answer sounds like a non-sequitur to me as well.

Shindo misunderstands her question and responds defensively at first. Jane throws up her hands and turns away in frustration as the meeting ends.

By the time Shindo finally gets around to explaining his reasoning, Jane has already walked away shaking her head. What Shindo had been trying to explain was that once they had switched the meeting place, he wanted to be able to invite them to return for church services at the same location. That was why he wanted our church services to be held there. So there was logic to his answer after all.

I want to chase down Jane and explain this to her, but ...

I also have to catch Harvey before he leaves. So far I have only heard Dennis Imai' s side of the story concerning the merger committees.

The head Pastor issue? The mission statement? Harvey first reminds me of his roots and heritage. "Don't you think I want a Japanese head pastor? Don't you think I am concerned about the Japanese work as much as Dennis Imai?" he asks me. "That is why I am doing all of this!"

He reminds me that he left Central church many years ago to join the German West Los Angeles SDA church which is now known as a Japanese church. They didn't need to demand a mission statement or a name change as a pre-requisite. They just moved there and went about their business. Every church becomes what it deserves to become according to the demographics and the commitment of its members.

The Hacienda Heights church members are fully aware of, and supportive of our Japanese work, he tells me. Pastor Frederico is supportive of it, and only accepted the head pastor position reluctantly, at the request of Pastor Ishii himself.

Finally, I speak with Dennis Imai again before I leave. "West Los Angeles? Well, what about Fresno?" he asks. "Dr. Nozaki started it as a Japanese church, and now it has become an Asian church with no Japanese pastor. So we can't take the survival of the Japanese church for granted, and our church is the last viable one on the whole American continent."

He thinks the differences between him and Harvey are somewhat analogous to that of a typical bride and groom with respect to a wedding that both want. Harvey, however, utterly rejects the applicability of that analogy, saying in effect, that the artificial injection of sexual innuendo where it does not belong, destroys the analogy's usefulness.

Dennis also warned that while Harvey's characterization of the eagerness of the Hacienda Heights church to accommodate our mission may be true at the leadership level, it does not appear to be as well accepted at the member or actual working committee level.

The December 27 Town Hall Meeting

I enter the social hall a few minutes after it begins because I am engaged in a conversation outside. The format for the town hall meeting is the same as the one on the 13th, but the atmosphere is quite different. There is much less tension this time. Frank and Harriet Miyashiro, and Darryl Kobashigawa are visiting. Joan Avery, Jane Kusuhara, and Mickey Himeno are here, but Karey is absent. Dr. and Mrs. Iwata are present.

Those on the panel include Mrs. O, Reijin Fujita, Dr. Tamura, Jean Furukawa. Patrick Lew and Toru Nakamura walk in later. Shindo Matsuda is absent.When I enter, the congregation is discussing six proposed temporary mission statements that the committee has submitted for consideration so far:

1. The Hacienda Heights and LA Central Japanese American SDA churches will work together in unity, following Jesus, to continue and enhance their present projects, to sustain and nurture all, and by following Christ's method of helping people.

2. The Hacienda Heights and LA Central Japanese American SDA churches will work in unity to follow Christ, to continue and enhance their present projects, to sustain and nurture all, and copy Christ’s method of helping people.

3. The Hacienda Heights and Los Angeles Central Japanese Seventh-day Adventist churches will work in unison, continue and enhance their soul-winning projects, sustain and nurture its members as Jesus did. (WO⁽²⁾)

4. The Hacienda Heights and Los Angeles Central Japanese Seventh-day Adventist churches vote to share the gospel of Jesus; to provide members the opportunity to interrelate at a comfortable church building that will sustain one and all; to work together to examine/ explore the proposed merging of the two churches and to study its impact with sensitivity, the emotional and physical/logistic needs of the displacement/invasion. (Mickey Haman)

5. The Hacienda Heights and LAJC Seventh-day Adventist churches will work in Christlike harmony to continue and enhance their soul-winning projects, sustain and nurture their members. (WO)

6. The Hacienda Heights and LACJ Seventhday Adventist churches will work in Christlike harmony to win souls, to be an (sic) united church of loving Christians who will witness in the community and win disciples for Christ. (WO)

As I enter, Mrs. Naoe Matsuda says that she feels it is important to put something in the statement that mentions the Japanese work.

Joan Avery questions why these are all temporary statements, and wonders why we have to do this once more after we merge.

Mrs. O's response is something to the effect that after we have worked together for awhile we may think of something better, but they don't want to hold things up just for this.

Elder Fuchita complains that the statements make it sound like any other church, such that we might as well go to the White Memorial or any other church. (He repeats the statement again later.)

Joe Furukawa comments that it did not seem right that we should be so concerned with a specific ethnic race to the exclusion of others, because we are all the same in God’s eyes.⁽³⁾

Takashi Yonezawa speaks up to voice his endorsement of the idea that the Japanese work should be mentioned in the mission statement.

Mrs. O replies that they will have that mentioned in the goals and programs under the mission statement.

Joan Avery says that the goals and programs can be changed, but the mission statement remains constant. (I assume Joan's point was that temporary goals and programs are no substitute for a well articulated mission statement.)

I state that the goals and programs are not supposed to guide the mission statement, but that the mission statement should guide the goals and programs. If the mission is not capable of doing that, then we might as well not have one.

Mrs. Oshita agrees, but then appears to contradict herself when she also tries to avoid putting the Japanese work in the mission statement on the rationalization that it can be mentioned in the goals and programs. Finally, she says that we want to avoid looking like we are trying to take over their church. Judging from the quiet way she says it, this is apparently a very sensitive subject with the Hacienda Heights committee members.

I agree with her concerns about looking too pushy, but remind her that we have to balance that concern with looking like we are down-playing the importance of our mission just to accommodate our hosts. We are stewards of equity that has built up over fifty years by those who sacrificed on behalf of the Japanese work. We owe it to them to make sure that it is used for that purpose. Finally, I ask, on what basis do we assume that the mission statement problem will be easier to satisfactorily later, rather than now.

She then asked me what I have in mind and requests that I submit a mission statement that incorporates what I think should be in it. She reiterates her position that she is a representative of the congregation and will submit anything that she receives. I agree to submit one.

Stanley Matsuda asks why the mission statement committee had not used the already existing mission statement of the Japanese church as a point of departure for their attempts to write a new one for the merged church. (He did not read it but he has a copy of it in hand.)

That statement reads,

Our purpose as God'sfaith community at Los Angeles Central Japanese American Seventh-day Adventist Church is to carry out, through the power of His Holy Spirit, the gospel commission to go forth and make and nurture disciples for Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20) and to proclaim, to all humanity, Jesus' soon coming.

We commit ourselves to Biblically based life-shaping principles; to the testimony of God's redemptive love which embraces all people, serves the community in which we find ourselves, and brings growth to His Church in expectation of His restored kingdom; and to discipleship which nurtures each member's Godgiven talents to take our unique place in our multicultural, multi-lingual faith community of Japanese and Asian-American heritage.

Mrs. O replied that it was too lengthy. (She stressed the importance of brevity again and again during the course of the afternoon, as if it was the primary factor in an acceptable mission statement.)

At about 2:30, Harvey Yamamoto enters with Mike Noyes and Joe Olmos of the Hacienda Heights church. Mike has come with a set of blue prints to answer questions that Harold Kusuhara raised about the legality of the physical plant. Mike goes to the front to make his presentation. He is very respectful and polite. In the end, he asks for questions.

Harold asks if they have the occupancy permit. Mike says "no"; that it was taken down and hasn't been put up yet, but they expect to find it soon. When he is finished, he gets an applause. The three leave after Mike's presentation.

Someone asks what will become of this church building. Pastor Ishii responds that they discussed that question, but had decided that setting up a committee to work that out would be premature until the merger is finalized. Such a committee would be set up if and when the church votes to merge. In the meantime, the Head Start program is occupying the church during the week and giving us rental income.

Dr. Tamura raises his hand to elaborate on this issue. He says that when the time comes to dispose of the church, a committee consisting only of (former) LACJ members will work on the problem, and its disposition will be entirely up to the Japanese members.

Pastor Ishii looks uncomfortable with what is being said, and feels compelled to make a few more comments when Dr. Tamura is finished:

"When we joined the Hacienda Heights church, all of their assets are going to become ours just as much as it is theirs. Are we then going to then tell them, 'but what is ours is not yours'? That is not going sound right, so we may have to think some more about that."

Dr. Tamura expresses surprise that there is a difference of opinion about this.

This difference of opinion also surprises me, because prior to this, I had been given information that coincided with Dr. Tamura's understanding.⁽⁴⁾ I remind the chairman that in the last meeting, we were given a list of nine issues that had to be settled BEFORE the merger. Asset distribution was one of those issues. The church building is obviously one of our assets. So is it not tme that the way in which this asset wilJ be distributed must be settled PRIOR to the merger, even though the actual liquidation of it may not happen until after the merger occurs? (There is no response to this question.)

Pastor Ishii asks for more questions but the group looks content. So I raise my hand to remind them that there were those who were troubled by the distance they would have to drive to the new church. Were there any plans to help with transportation so that those in that category would not feel ignored?

Pastor Ishii passes that question to Dr. Tamura, who responds that they are considering making the church van available for those who need a ride.

Speaking in Japanese, Hiromi stands up to say she is worried that when we move to the Hacienda Heights church, the Japanese speaking people will become a minority that is gradually marginalized. Because of Japanese "enryo", our members have a hard time resisting such trends. Even though she can understand English with some effort, she enjoys the feeling of coming to a place where she feels like she can relax and be reminded of home. Isn't there a danger that this atmosphere will be lost over time after we move there? Is there a plan to ensure that this will not happen? She is specifically interested in the plans they have in regards to the frequency of translated sermons.

Dr. Tamura replies that they are defmitely sensitive to that issue, and are definitely committed to making sure that that will not happen. The frequency of translated sermons should be not much different than they have been doing up to now.

Mickey Haman comments that we can improve the way we communicate information. She mentions the Rafu Shimpo, and other media. Her tone and attitude is entirely constructive, and I notice that she submitted one the six mission statements.

Harold Kusuhara asks if we can improve translated sermons by providing more earphones and simultaneous translation.

Dr. Tamura says that doing simultaneous translation is difficult and that he does not have confidence in doing it unless he has a text several days in advance. But that is seldom available.

The meeting is closed peacefully a little after three o'clock. By the time the meeting was closed, nobody seemed to have anything left unsaid.

analyzing...

Breaking The Mission Statement Stalemate

In this meeting, the mission statement is emerging as a major hurdle in the merger process. The absence of any mention of the Japanese work in all six statements submitted for consideration, would seem to indicate that there has been a conscious attempt to exclude it by members of the committee. I had been told previously that the Japanese don't care about it, but this meeting indicates otherwise.

The dilemma of the merger committee is that they have to satisfy two opposing concerns which appear to be mutually exclusive. On the one hand, Japanese church members are concerned about putting themselves into a position where their unique ministry may become merely a point of negotiation or debate in the future. On the other hand, (judging from the comments of Mrs. Oshita), Hacienda Heights members are apparently becoming afraid of being "taken over" by the Japanese.

Their inability to confront this problem squarely has not only prevented them from making any headway on an articulate mission statement itself, but has in turn, apparently led to an inability to make any progress on a name for the merged church (as is indicated by their calling this "temporary" and retaining the full names of the respective churches).

Obviously the two issues (the merged church name and its mission statement) are related, because they are both logical places to express the church's commitment to continue the Japanese work. If that commitment is not expressed in one, then the pressure to express it in the other will intensify. The work of the committee thus far reflects an attempt to prevent its expression in either place. But its absence in both places, together with the senior pastorship role going to the pastor of the Hacienda Heights Church.

The difference between the Japanese work having a "permanent home" and merely the opportunity to "argue its case" on a year to year basis is important, because the Japanese work is not as economically efficient as a community based program. If forced to compete on a results per dollar against a community based outreach program, the Japanese ministry will inevitably lose ground. So this question is not merely a technicality.