2. The Merger Chronicles: a brief chronology of the three recent attempts by LAJC to relocate itself, and a description and analysis of the current state of affairs in the then ongoing merger negotiations with the HH church. Few can read this today without shedding a few tears over the faithful members that were thrashed by the relentless merger threshing machine, and experience a haunting sense of deja vu. All of the complaints that the Japanese Language Ministry have today were already evident in 1998.

In the third issue, the Monitor tackled the Tony Ing-Harvey Yamamoto affair in an issue entitled, Is This the Season to Be Unmerging? Tony Ing, a would-be prophet who claims to be receiving visions from God, and a self proclaimed mega millionaire, promised the Japanese church a new church if they would follow him out of the HH church. Most of the Japanese church leadership, including the Japanese assistant pastor, agree to do so, but are left looking foolish when the status quo was not acceptable.

Tony's promises prove to be as fickle as his financial credentials prove shaky. The Monitor is not making any of this up! However, that issue is still being edited, and has not yet been published.

previewing...

In the current issue, entitled Can a Leopard Change Its Spots? the Monitor covers the latest attempt by the beleaguered Japanese Language Ministry Council to put their finger on the cause of their downward spiral since the merger.

There are four related pieces:

1. The Elephant in the Room That Nobody Was Allowed to Mention. An account of a meeting that took place in preparation for a critical church board meeting that was to follow a few days later. The theme of this meeting was a unanimous conviction that the status quo was not acceptable.

2. After All the Huffing and Puffing, The Status Quo Wins: An account of the board meeting called to address the question of region membership and how it turned into a justification for maintaining the status quo. Issues that were left unsettled in the board meeting are followed up to their logical conclusion.

3. Evidence for a Merger That Never Was: An annotated interview with Pastor Albert Frederico in which he tells his view of the board meeting and gives the answers to the questions he was unable to answer during the board meeting. The answers he gives implies that he is working from a theory of the merger that the Japanese language ministry would never have agreed upon had they known this is in advance.

4. Pastor Albert's Sudden Request for Secrecy: An account of the sudden change in Pastor Albert's attitude toward open dialogue and documentation for my decision to decline his request to keep his spoken words a secret from the public.

The Elephant in the Room That Nobody Was Allowed to Mention

The Japanese Language Council Air Their Problems to Elder Caviness

By Dennis Hokama

September 22, 2004

recounting...

On Sunday afternoon, September 19, 2004, an informal delegation of the Hacienda Heights Japanese church members assembled for a 3:30 meeting with Elder Larry Caviness and Elder Chough in the Southern California Conference's main conference room on the first floor. The 3:30 meeting had been called by Elder Chough and Reijin Fujita. The presumed specific subject of the meeting was the sensitive issue of changing regional membership⁽³⁾ which would be addressed in an upcoming 9/23/04 Hacienda Heights board meeting, though to my knowledge none had been specifically announced.

When Pat, Melissa and I arrive at 3:20, Reijin is busy carrying in cartons of water bottles. I decide to take notes, so I borrow Pat's note pad and pen and sit in the back next to Shindo so I can see everyone. I don't have a tape recorder, so my quotes will not be verbatim. Dennis Imai is also taking notes near the front right side of the conference room relative to my position in the back.

By 3:41, 22 church members and Elder Chough were present, and Elder Caviness had called by cell phone to say that he would be on his way shortly. Chough asked Dennis Imai to open with prayer, and began preparing the attendees for their presentation to Caviness. He opened with the proposition that "There is no doubt that the Japanese work has suffered ever since the merger occurred six years ago." Then he proceeded to explain that we were going to get a little organized so that we would not get off the subject, contradict each other, or be redundant in our presentations. He asks for topics to discuss, and the following categories are suggested:

A. Nikkei ministry problems

B. The region issue (Concerns regarding which region/regions to which the church ought to belong.)

C. Leadership concerns (Pastor Albert's leadership "style" is the actual concern)

D. The building project.

Chough suggested that one representative ought to be selected to be the main presenter on each issue, although each spokesperson had to speak up for themselves. Melissa was appointed to address "A." Hiroko Matsumoto is appointed to address "B." Pat and Reijin are appointed to address "C." Shindo is appointed to address "D."

At this point, Caviness entered, and Chough turned over the chairmanship to him after suggesting that we follow the format of discussing one question at a time. Someone suggests that Nobu Hatanaka translate. Caviness invites Nobu to sit up front next to him. Nobu does that⁽⁴⁾.

The Conversation Begins

Caviness: I am a little tired. I just flew back from Denver, Colorado, (room gasps audibly) and took a bite to eat before my wife dropped me off here. But I'm happy to be here among friends, and I care about the Japanese work. The main purpose here today is for you to tell me what is on your heart. I am here to listen. Later, I might have some things to say, but not until after I have listened to you first. Elder Chough, why don't you continue to chair the meeting, and I'll just listen until it is appropriate for me to say something.

Toshiko: I think that the most important problem is the one concerning regions, so I think we should address that first.

Caviness, Chough: That's fine.

Hiroko Matsumoto⁽⁵⁾: If there is ever a vote in church on which region to belong to, I think Asian Pacific will lose. If we lose, then the Japanese work will go down hill.

Reijin: Pastor Frederico, he always win!

Caviness: I think we ought to keep this discussion about the regions rather than specific pastors.

Reijin: What I mean is we always fighting about money between Metro side and Asian Pacific side, and we're getting tire of it. We have been doing this for six years and nothing changes. We always lose.

Dennis H: I want to explain what I think Reijin and Hiroko are saying. While I don't often attend church at Hacienda these days, I am constantly in close touch with board members and understand how frustrated they are...

Chough: Excuse me, but I think we ought to identify ourselves and the positions you hold, so Elder Caviness knows who is speaking.

Dennis H: OK, my claim to fame here is that I sleep with the church organist. I think what Toshiko, Hiroko and Reijin are really saying is that the status quo of dual membership in two regions is not satisfactory because they are being worn down by the constant competition between the Metro and Asian Pacific regions for church funds, and they feel like they cannot win this battle. But if the matter is brought to a vote, then Asian Pacific will lose.

Pat: I am the daughter of Alfred Okohira, who founded this Japanese church, so I have an additional reason to be concerned about the future of this church. I attended the English language council meeting with Elder Kiemeney and the Hacienda members. He had us all comment on how things were going here. Except for Dee and I, all the members gave glowing reports about how things were going. So the English speaking side has no idea about the problems and frustrations on the Japanese side. From their perspective, they don't know anything about the regions, and I think they would just want to preserve the status quo. Why shouldn't they, since their children are being taken care of, and they have an English speaking pastor who shares their perspective. If there was a vote, the status quo would probably win.

But Dee and I have perspective from both the English and Japanese side, so we know the pain on the Japanese side. The problem is not about English and Japanese speaking or race, because even before the merger, we always have had a mixed congregation with people of all nationalities.

I am also the clerk for the church. From the church clerks perspective, an extra burden is imposed because we are in two regions. For example, I cannot use the Conference membership on-line software, so everything must be done manually.

I believe we should be in the Asian Pacific Region. That is where the Japanese work started by my father and Dennis Imai's father can best be carried on, and all the members of all races will continue to get the same services they are getting now.

Melissa: I am the daughter of the last two people who just spoke. I want to explain why things are frustrating even though I am not on the board. Because we are in two regions, we are facing an issue we never had to face before. There is now the English speaking Nikkei vs. the English speaking Anglo problem which did not exist before. In L.A. Central church days, we just ministered to the English speaking Japanese group which included many Anglos who were comfortable in the Japanese church. But now when we do the same thing, we are accused by some of the English speaking Anglos of being exclusive.

We have been organizing Sabbath afternoon activities for the church young people for about six months now and we have been getting good participation and having great results. And even though we do it for all the church young people regardless of whether they are Japanese or not, I see it as an extension of the Japanese ministry. The question becomes, to which side does the English speaking Japanese-American ministry belong?

I don't feel any support from the American side. In fact we feel hindered and we have to make our programs work in spite of the Anglo Pastor's opposition. We tried to make an announcement in church service, but were refused because we didn't go through the right channels.⁽⁶⁾ So we just do it by word of mouth.

The Anglo pastor believes and acts like he's in charge of the English-language Japanese Ministry, but we feel that Pastor Obara is our leader. Our afternoon program appeals to a broad range of ages, juniors to adults, and to all ethnic groups. We have Filipinos, Chinese, Thai, Mexicans, African/Caribean-Americans, Anglos, and others attending, but it is aimed at attending. We feel caught between the Japanese and English sides. But we identify more with the Japanese side.

Caviness: Do you have a youth pastor?

Melissa: Yes.

Dennis H: A nominal youth pastor.

Caviness: Are there competing youth programs going on?

Melissa: No. The youth pastor has no youth programs.

Dee, Darlene: There are no other youth programs.

David Suzumura: I think we need to be in Asian Pacific region, but we will be outnumbered if we vote on it. Dennis Imai said that the church cannot vote on it but that the conference must decide.

Caviness: Well, the decision to change regions can start at either end. It can be initiated by the Conference Executive Committee, or it can be initiated at the local church level. But in either case, the Executive Committee will have to approve it at some point.

Darlene: One of the difficult things that makes it so confusing is that people don't really know what it will actually mean to move from one region to another.

Sakae Fuchita: I am a retired minister, but my credentials are good until 2006. When we moved here six year ago, there were only about 60 people at Hacienda. The Hawaiians that came with us to merge were old and had no children coming to our church. The Japanese side had a lot of their children and grandchildren among our members. We lost a lot of people because the location was too far away. Tony Ing had a lot of people follow him because he was the head of a bank, and he was gentle. We also need a separate building dedicated to the Asian Pacific, for the Japanese.

Dee: I also attended the English Language Council meeting with Pat. But they don't understand our mission. Patty and I have the privilege of seeing things from both sides. For example, I have a mother who lives in Santa Maria, and she is truly Okinawan. When Chris Ishii was pastor here, he used to visit her often and she was baptized as a result. The SDA pastor there is nice, but she cannot really feel at home without any other Japanese there. So without that ethnic connection, such people cannot really be served well. So we are the only ones that can do it. But I'm afraid that without a change, or if we go to the Metro Region, the work will die.

Dennis Imai: There are really three groups that we are talking about at Hacienda Heights. There is the Japanese language group, the Japanese American English speaking group, and the English speaking with no ties the Asian community. That is why we are currently in two regions. There are three alternatives with regard to the region issue:

A. There is the status quo, which has proven to be bad for the Japanese group.

B. But trying to initiate a region change from below may be self defeating because the process will be extremely divisive. For example, if we had a vote and one region won by a margin of 51% to 49%, that would be a disaster if acted upon.

C. Having a region change initiated by the Conference Executive Committee.

Roy: There is no question that the Japanese ministry has been failing. We need a full time Japanese speaking pastor. Dee is right. The Japanese have been suffering with Albert's overbearing supervision, but replacing him would cause resentment from the Anglo members. The solution cannot be merely changing personnel, because we don't know who will be here 10 or 20 years from now. So I think we need to create permanent structural guarantees by creating two separate church boards, so the Japanese won't have to fight to survive. I mentioned this idea to Albert and he said it sounded like creating a "company."

Moving the church to one region would only be a temporary fix. It still depends on who becomes the Pastor in the future. But moving the church into the Metro Region would mean the immediate death of the Japanese group. The church needs some assurance of stability and support.

Caviness: Let's start with a given: We are not going to let the Japanese work fail. The only issue is how to best to prevent that from happening. The Japanese group is our only access to the Japanese in the community. Even the Japanese Americans are the best way to reach the Japanese American community. But changing regions won't necessarily solve things. The main problem is at the local church level; not the region. Moving to another region won't solve that problem. Can we co-exist in a healthy way? That would be the ideal. If we need to make changes in regional assignment, a number of factors need to be considered by the Executive Committee that makes the decision very complicated.

A. One consideration is that we can't split up the three Japanese churches into different regions. That would make their interaction more inconvenient, and they need all the synergy they can get from their interaction and mutual support. Right now, the three Japanese churches seem to be operating too independently.

B. Another issue is the complications involving the assignment of FTEs (full time equivalents).

C. Then there is the issue of the relative size of the regions. L.A. Metro now has 36 FTEs. Asian Pacific has 21. Am I going to want to move three FTEs from Asian Pacific so that the ratio will then become 39:18? I doubt that.

D. Finally, this appears to be less a region problem than a leadership definition problem. Maybe we need to realign the leadership.⁽⁸⁾ The church may vote to change regional membership, but the challenge of leadership roles remain. Some suggestions of a divorce have been raised, but others say that a divorce can't work, and may in itself cause the demise of the Japanese work.

So the region issue, whether it be status quo, L.A. Metro, Asian Pacific, and delegated to the Executive Committee, will be a very complex issue to analyze.

Nobody knows for sure what the effects of moving to one region will be. But in any event, the Executive committee will make the final decision.

Darlene: There are so many unknowns!

Caviness: There are a lot of things that will have to be considered.

Shindo: I need to tell you about something that happened last week that completely shocked me.⁽⁹⁾ I was called last week to a building committee meeting by Mike Noyes⁽¹⁰⁾, who was not the chairman of the boarding committee. The chairman is Dennis Imai⁽¹¹⁾, but I couldn't get ahold of him, so I attended⁽¹²⁾. When I got there, Mike Noyes and Albert were there. Mike asked me,

"Do you still want to build a separate building? We want to build a youth chapel."⁽¹³⁾

Ever since I was baptized in 1951, I have never had any doubts that I had joined the right church until that very moment! The head pastor and Mike Noyes had called a building committee meeting without the knowledge of the chairman, and were trying to wrest control of the building committee away from the duly appointed committee members to build whatever they wanted. Albert had already wasted many thousands⁽¹⁴⁾ of dollars on a previous building committee by paying architects to draw plans for a joint building instead of a separate building for the Japanese church and ignoring everything we had asked for⁽¹⁵⁾. When I complained about how things were being done, Albert told me, "I was appointed by Christ, so listen to me!" Now they were trying to do it again?? I was so angry and shocked that I almost didn't want to say anything!

Then there was the Amir mess where Albert hired Amir as a contractor to rebuild the two burnt down buildings on the old campus and kept paying out large sums of money despite the fact that he was doing nothing. I found out that Hiroko had to pay him another $60,000, so I went to inspect the next day, and discovered that we had paid more than $100,000 and we only had a foundation. So I had Amir come to board meeting to explain, but he didn't have any answers. How can this kind of mess keep happening⁽¹⁶⁾??

Caviness: Let's not go into that specific subject.

David: We have been expecting to build a church from six years ago. This must be a separate building.

Roy: I agree that we must build a facility that is dedicated to the worship of God; not just a multi-purpose room.

Chough: Because everyone seems preoccupied with the issue of regions and the more basic question of whether or not we can find a way to co-exist peacefully, it seems that the building project should be tabled for now. Do you agree? (I think there is consensus in the room on tabling this issue. I nod my head.)

Dee: Yes, (The Japanese group) moving away is an option, but a very painful one, because we (former LACJ members) staff all the Sabbath school children's classes, and at that level, we have become very close. It would be heart breaking to have to split up. What would happen to all these kids if their teachers all leave?

Chough: Now do we want to address the question of changing leadership⁽¹⁷⁾?

Caviness: No, I don't think we should talk publicly⁽¹⁸⁾ about Elder Frederico in his absence. That wouldn't be fair. He needs to be here to defend himself. Everybody deserves that chance. However, many of you have come to me privately to discuss that. Everybody begins by saying, "Pastor Frederico is a friend, and a good person, ....but I have a problem with his style⁽¹⁹⁾ of leadership..." We don't want to get into that now.

Roy: We do need to replace the old leadership. We need to provide new leadership for West Los Angeles for a campus ministry there. We need to have new leaders, elders, to replace the current elders. There has to be some young blood.

Chough: Young people, speak up!

Darlene: You know more than you are saying. You probably already know what you are going to do, but we are in the dark. Or maybe you know the real problem but can't do anything about it.

Caviness: Turns around and looks behind him) Are you talking to me? (Laughter) Sure, I have some ideas. But my job today is to listen. When I listen to the other side, they will have different ideas, so this dialogue is helpful to me. I don't want to voice my opinions today because I want to keep an open mind until I hear from everybody.

Darlene: But it's been so long!

Caviness: Yes, but it is rapidly approaching a decision point.

Jason: I just want to say that I think going to the Metro region would be bad for the Japanese church. Going to the Asian Pacific Region would at least give the Japanese work a chance.

Caviness: Well, I'm not going to go into the pros and cons until the board meeting.⁽²⁰⁾

Reijin: For six years, we've met in the social hall with cold floors, and these old ladies, like Mrs. Okohira who was over 90 had to put up with that. Visitors would say "Why are you meeting in a place like this?" Once I even saw cockroaches running around in the social hall! Different style leadership; possible or not??

Hiroko: I have been treasurer for four years. After every board meeting, when I come home near midnight, I am very depressed, because I don't think the board meetings are run fairly. (Reijin voices support.)

Reijin: It starts with treasurer problems. We bring money, but they take it away!

Gene: I am Darlene's driver.

Stevie: I agree with Dee about how difficult it would be if we were to split up because of how close the children are in the lower divisions. But if it came to that, I would have to leave with the Japanese group because I would want my daughter to have the same experience I had.

Reijin: That is my son. But sometimes I think he takes after my wife and doesn't speak up enough.

Dee: The board meetings always favor the American side. I think it is analogous to the relationship between husbands and wives. Even though it is supposed to be an equal partnership, the husband does what he wants and assumes that is OK, but the wife will ask permission for the same thing, and makes sure that it will cause no problems before she does it. That's the way it is in Hacienda Heights between the American side and the Japanese side. They do whatever they want, but we ask permission, so that gives some on the American side the impression that we are too demanding. One board member even said we are always "taking, taking," which was very upsetting. So we have to beg for things that they take for granted, and then they accuse us of asking for too much.

Caviness: So you don't feel it is an equal partnership?

Dee: No!

Pat: I think if we leave, both churches will die.

Caviness: Jesus' final prayer for the disciples was that "they would be one as You and I were one." I hope we can find a way to bring that about. Paul in Philippians and Ephesians wrote that he had heard about divisions in the early church, based upon ambitions of leaders and doctrinal differences. We have problems, but these are not just problems. It is also an opportunity. We must model the body of Christ. If we keep the faith and pray, then we will find a way out of this problem. We can't change each others' hearts, or solve our own problem. We need the Holy Spirit to unite. I have some ideas, but I will wait until I have listened to everybody before I take any position.

Elder Chough then wraps up the meeting, thanks the people who showed up, and asks Elder Caviness to give the closing prayer. Both Chough and Caviness take the time to linger and meet people after the meeting.

Attendance Roster

                                              1. Hiroko (Funada) Matsumoto                                                          13. Steve Fujita

                                              2. Toshiko Imura                                                                                  14. Nobu Hatanaka

                                              3. Teruko Kobayashi                                                                           15. Jason Stewart

                                              4. Naoe Matsuda                                                                                  16. Dennis Imai

                                              5. Shindo Matsuda                                                                               17. Dee Imai

                                  6. Reijin Fujita                                                                                      18. Darlene Mizumoto

                                             7. Sakae Fuchita                                                                                   19. Gene Mizumoto

                                             8. David Suzumura                                                                               20. Hiroko Matayoshi

                                             9. Dennis Hokama                                                                                21. Teiko Tasaki

                                           10. Pat Hokama                                                                                       22. Roy Matayoshi

                                           11. Melissa Hokama                                                                               23. Kwang Rim Chough

                                           12. Nozomu Obara                                                                                  24. Larry Caviness

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

After All the Huffing and Puffing, the Status Quo Apparently Prevails

The Much Anticipated Board Meeting of 9/23/04 Ends on a Whimper

by Dennis Hokama

10/01/04

The Background

This was a much anticipated board meeting because a potentially divisive issue was going to be discussed: the possible changing of the Hacienda Heights'status from a church simultaneously belonging to the L.A. Metro region and the Asian Pacific region, to one region. The catalyst for this was a motion made by Shindo Matsuda in the last board meeting. Frustrated and disgusted by the continual fighting between two factions in the church over funding and other issues, he had moved that the church move to one region. Head pastor Albert Frederico responded by requesting that the motion not be debated until he had a chance to consult with Conference officials. In the months that followed, there had been a meeting of the HH English Language Council with the Metro region director (Elder Kiemeny), and a corresponding one with the HH Japanese Language Council with the AP director (Elder Chough). Now the Conference President (Elder Caviness), as well as the two regional directors were scheduled to be present for this board meeting.

On 9/23, Pat and I arrived at church about 7:18. Seeing Mike Noyes and Rick Bridgeman in the parking lot, I approached Mike to ask him about the agenda, which Pat had never received. He did not have it, but we began talking about the region issue. Mike said that after talking it over with other members on the American⁽²¹⁾ side, they had realized that the process of voting to change the regional status would be so divisive that it would be self defeating. They had concluded therefore, that the status quo was the best plan. I agreed that trying to make that decision on a local level would be extremely divisive. He took that to mean that I too agreed that the status quo was the best plan.

I then decided to ask Mike about the building committee meeting that Shindo had complained about in the pre-meet. My recollection of our exchange went something like this:

DH: Mike, Shindo tells me that you called a meeting of the building committee recently.

Mike: Oh, yes! (Mike's eyes light up.) I called it, but we didn't actually have the meeting because not enough people showed up until I had to leave for another appointment. It had been such a long time since we had one, and nothing was being done, so I thought it would be a good idea. We need a youth chapel, so I thought we could both benefit by moving ahead with the building project.

DH: Isn't Dennis Imai the chairman of this committee?

Mike: Yes, but he's so busy doing so many things that he doesn't have time for this.

DH: Did you ask Shindo about whether the Japanese side still wanted to build a separate building?

Mike: Yes, because if that's what they want, then I wanted to help them get that started, so we can all benefit.

DH: Mike, I understand what you did, and it all seems logical, but you need to consider that what you did might look quite different from Shindo's perspective.

Mike: Well, we can build much more efficiently if we do several building project together. I don't know if you are a businessman, but I'm in business, and I know how contractors operate. We can get a better deal if we offer them several projects rather than one.

DH: Yes, that is logical and all that, but there are several levels of political considerations you are overlooking. You assume that the Japanese side is committed to building here, but they are not settled on that at the moment, so that is why Dennis has not been pushing for building committee meetings.

Mike: Oh, so you mean that he has been delaying things on purpose??

DH: Yes. There is no point in pushing for building plans when there isn't even a consensus that we should even be building here. He is hoping to get those fundamental issues resolved before investing much energy in another building committee.

Mike: Well, why didn't he tell me that! What's the problem?

DH: As I said, it's a matter of perception. From the Japanese perspective, they are getting very tired of having to do battle every board meeting with Pastor Albert in getting their views heard and getting their requests considered.

Mike: Oh, but it's just the other way around! He is bending over backward to keep them happy and satisfied!

DH: (Mentally, I am saying, "Oh, good grief!") Mike, were you on the previous building committees whose recommendations were never accepted?

Mike: No. I don't know about those committees. I am just on this third one.

DH: Well, until you study the history of those earlier committees, and why they failed, it will be difficult for you to understand what I am saying.

The Board Meeting Begins

By this time it was past 7:30, and we had to terminate our discussion to step inside the social hall where the meeting was being set up. The discussion I had with Mike turned out to be a harbinger of things to come. Since there will be an official secretary's report, it should be understood that I will focus mainly on that part of the meeting that dealt with the discussion pertaining to the regional issue, and will attempt to include the critical exchanges that took place.

Elders Caviness and Kiemeney enter together. Elder Chough, they say, had to fly to New York for a wedding and cannot attend. Pastor Albert notes the presence of several guests, and says that they are welcome to speak, but should be sensitive to the issue of speaking up to the point where board members might think that time to speak was being compromised as a result. He also announces that he has promised that he will give Elder Caviness an hour of board time to discuss the regional issue. He proposes that a few items on the agenda that were time sensitive be addressed before turning the time over to Caviness.

Caviness delivers the devotional. The key idea is that adversity is the best tool available for shaping individuals for meeting the demands of the future. When the floor is turned over to him, it begins as follows:

Caviness: I'm not sure where to begin this conversation. (Pause) There are two ways in which a decision to change regions can be initiated. It can be initiated by the Conference Executive Committee, or it can be initiated at the local church level. Your pastor called to say that this issue has been raised in your board meeting, so I am here to listen, and respond to questions.

Joe: I say we should just get rid of all the regions altogether!⁽²²⁾

Caviness: How many of you were at the last few constituency meetings? (A few raise their hands.) Good. Then you know that this question has been raised in the constituency meeting on more than one occasion, and the constituency has upheld the 5 region concept. On the plus side, I am very grateful for the help I have received from these regional directors. There is just no way that I could personally attend to the requests of so many churches unless they were assigned to the regional directors. On the other hand, by the tine the problems work their way up to me, they usually are quite intractable!

Diana: I understand Joe's point, because dividing the church up into regions seems divisive. But I think that there must be reasons why they are necessary even though we don't understand them.

Rick: Well, I'd like to know what those reasons are. For example, is there any evidence that the regional system increase membership?

Caviness: No, there is no good evidence for that. But there may be other good reasons.

Rick: What about church attendance?

Caviness: Well, accurate attendance records are difficult to come by...

Kiemeney: I can speak to that issue. Attendance seems to fluctuate according to how those statistics are going to be used. If high attendance will be beneficial to the church, then the numbers will probably be high; if low numbers will be of more benefit, then the numbers will be low. (There is laughter.) However, overall, the trend is down, and baptisms are flat.

Joe: What is the difference between regions as far as monetary requirements for getting a pastor?

Caviness: There is no difference as far as the formula for paying a pastor or FTE⁽²³⁾ is concerned. Each region has to pay their pastors exactly the same amount. We first determine how many FTEs each region will be assigned. When there are many small churches in a given region, then obviously each church cannot be given an FTE, so the regional director assigns the pastors to serve more than one church. Among the ethnic churches, many different languages are spoken, so there are many small churches. In the Asian Pacific region alone, there are 9 languages spoken. The figure you refer to is the average cost per church in a region.

Joe: But how is that formula determined?

Caviness: You take all the FTE's that are assigned to a region. Then you divide the number of FTEs by the number of churches in that region. That gives you the average cost of a pastor per church in a region.

Mike: When the subject of moving to one region first came up, it seemed like a good idea. But after we thought about it, we realized that the divisive debate over such a change would cause more trouble than any possible benefit from such a change. So on second thought, I don't think it is a good idea. It is much better that we remain where we are and learn to work together better.⁽²⁴⁾

Irene: I need more knowledge about how this region thing works. Each year we get a request from Metro for more money. Then this year, we got a request from the Asian Pacific for more money for salary. Will it be cheaper to be in one region? (She is looking at Kiemeney.)⁽²⁵⁾

Pat: I do know that belonging to a region does not determine the race of the pastor that is assigned. Asian Pacific is not required to hire an Asian pastor.

Rick: Regarding tithing allocation to the respective regions, it is currently fixed at 69% AP, and 31% Metro. Why is that? Many things can happen over time. Neighborhoods and membership can change over time. It seems that the local church should have something to say about that.

Caviness: Yes it is true that neighborhoods change. As I said, I was raised in the South Gate area. The ethnicity kept changing over time, and is now quite different. But in Southern California, it's always multi-ethnic.

Rick: (I didn't catch his words, but infer that it had to do with the idea he subsequently proceeds to explore.)

Diana: Rick, that can't work.

Rick: I didn't hear any answer to my question. Why can't members choose which region to give their tithe to? They can just mark their preference on the tithing envelop.

Dee: Well, wait a minute. There are three churches in our district: Besides Hacienda, there is West Los Angeles and Gardena. Shouldn't they get a voice in this decision also?

Caviness: Let me give you an idea of what I have to deal with. There is a Vietnamese couple who went out and bought some printing equipment on their own. Then they went about translating our books into Vietnamese and print them. To this day, this is the only source of Vietnamese printed material that we have anywhere. So they are doing a critical work for the church, but they don't technically qualify for an FTE position. Do I cut them back to ½ time? I don't want their work to die! We don't want any ministry to fall below critical mass, so we look upon such situations with "tender eyes."

Melissa: The sharing of resources is critical for ethnic churches because they are not community churches, and many members drive a long ways to church.⁽²⁶⁾

Mike: Shindo, when you made the motion that we move into one region, was that a personal opinion on your part, or did that represent a consensus on the part of the Japanese side?

Reijin: Since we came here, (the social hall) has been so cold. We always ask, but turn down⁽²⁷⁾.

Mike: But that's not our fault. We have been frustrated too because the Japanese side never approved any of the building plans.

Rejin: Not that simple!

Mike: Why don't we just pool our funds and work closer together to get this building project done?

Reijin: I like you, Mike. You came first time...

Mike: I have been there from the beginning.

Reijin: Yes, you have been all along from beginning, and I wish we could do like you say. But every time, nothing happen⁽²⁸⁾.

Joe: Look! We spent $16,000 in architectural fees over two years and a number of changes, but you said you didn't want it. Why is that? (The tone is loud and accusatory.)

Reijin: Well, Shindo was on the building committee. Ask him!

Shindo: (Shindo has been listening intently with his head down) Yes! Ask me! I am the one! I was on those building committees. You want to know why?? From beginning, I asked Pastor Albert for separate building for the Japanese! But each time the plans came back, it was for one combined building! This happened four times. That's why the $16,000 was lost! Albert never listened. Nobody listened. I was not treated liked a human being and was told to "Shut up!"

Joe: You were never told that!

Shindo: I was also told not to discuss plan with anyone. Only sell it.⁽²⁹⁾

Diana: Isn't that normal?

Shindo: I am not going to keep my mouth shut. I am their representative and am not going to keep secret from them. Isn't this a democracy? I want Albert to answer these questions!

Joe: Wasn't Pat on this committee?

Shindo: No!

Pat: Well, I was appointed very late in the process on the last committee and was asked to present it. But I could see right away that there had been no meeting of the mind between the Japanese and American side. I don't know what went on before that.

Joe: The idea of separate buildings was ridiculous! It would have cost two to three times as much because of all the extra permits and variances that would have been required. When we merged, it was like a marriage. All of your assets became one! We don't label our things as "mine" and "yours." It all becomes one!⁽³⁰⁾

Reijin: Not so simple.

Shindo: Albert, why don't you answer my questions? (The room goes silent and waits for Pastor Albert's response. This is undoubtedly the most intense moment of the meeting.

Albert: (All eyes are on the Pastor as his face reddens and he hesitates to consider his options.) I think we need to have a private discussion.

Shindo: No, I want to hear you answer in public!

Albert: (Turns to Caviness for help)⁽³¹⁾

Caviness: This confirms my feeling that there is an internal problem here that cannot be solved by changing regions. Even if we change regions, this internal problem still has to be solved. So by all means, I think you need to keep talking. If you seek to understand first, then I believe it can be solved.

Pat: Frankly, the delays in the building project may have been a blessing in disguise. We obviously weren't ready. Neither side understands each other to this day. There are just too many unknowns at this point.

Diana: This has been frustrating, but we have been praying together about the merger.

Reijin: We also pray. We used to do lots of things...

Diana: Oh, I didn't mean you weren't praying!

John Chacon: OK, Albert did say, "Let's not talk about this." But we have to put those words in context. He just wanted to prevent people from misunderstanding things. I think Shindo misunderstood the context of those words.⁽³²⁾

Caviness: Over the last few years, I have listened to many of your complaints in my office. Some of you have come in groups. Listening to you tonight, I can see that you still have a lot of talking to do. I think you need to start all over again and keep talking. Changing regions is not going to solve this internal problem.⁽³³⁾ Seek first to understand the other, instead of trying to make yourself understood first. Then the other side feels as if it has been understood, then he will be able to hear your side. (It is now past the hour (9:10) when it was pre-determined that the board would move on to other business.)

Albert: Thank you Elder Caviness, Kiemeny for your time.

Caviness: Let me take a few minutes to greet some friends (He stands up and begins going around the table shaking hands and hugging.)

Albert: I am going to call a 5 minute recess here. (Shindo gets up and leaves the meeting)

The Recess

After Caviness and Kiemeney make the rounds, they head out the side door to their car. I am out at my car, and see them walking by. I decide to make a comment. "Elder Caviness, did you see the gulf that separates the Japanese from the American side? Did you see the difference between Mike's perspective, and Shindo's? Mike doesn't have a clue as to what is going on!" They nod in acknowledgment and we exchange greetings.

The Impromptu Elders Meeting

As the meeting is adjourned at about 10:20, Pastor Albert calls upon the Elders to stay for an impromptu Elders meeting. I leave with my daughter. Later, I am told that the main purpose of the Elders meeting was to figure out how to deal with Shindo's challenge. The objective was to arrange for a meeting of reconciliation to take place such that by Sabbath, Pastor Albert and Shindo could wash each others feet during the ordinance of humility.

The Foot Washing

On Sabbath morning, Pastor Albert and Shindo did wash each others feet. While I was not there to see it, on Tuesday night I asked Shindo about it. Pastor Albert had called him into his office shortly before Sabbath School to see if they could patch things up. Shindo then asked that Pastor Albert send him answers to his questions by e-mail. Pastor Albert declined to do so on the basis that e-mail would fly around without any control. But when Pastor Albert asked if he would be willing to be his partner, Shindo said "yes," because he had decided not to take their disagreement personally. They also agreed to discuss the matter more thoroughly in the afternoon.

The Afternoon Meeting

Because of afternoon meetings, it was about 6:00 before Pastor Albert and Shindo could get together. Shindo requested that Dennis Imai be a witness. Three items came up in that discussion⁽³⁴⁾.

A. Why Pastor Albert Kept Coming Back with a Combined Building Plan

Pastor Albert cited the extra costs of a separate building as the reason⁽³⁵⁾. He also admits "mistakes" but did not specify what those mistakes might be.⁽³⁶⁾

B. Why Pastor Albert Told Shindo to Keep Committee Matters a Secret

Pastor Albert explained that it is the American way to keep things confidential when you are on a committee and keep the rest of the church from knowing anything until the finished product is officially presented and vote up or down.⁽³⁷⁾ He told Shindo that his ethic of feeling the obligation and duty to periodically report back to his constituents and get their feedback was the Japanese way, and took too long.

Shindo Requested that Pastor Albert write out all his answers out and send them to him by e-mail. Pastor Albert declined to do that, saying that the writer would lose all control of his writing once it went on the internet.⁽³⁸⁾

C. Pastor Albert Wants to be Called "Pastor."

After a preamble about familiarity, Pastor Albert reportedly said, "It bothers me that people don't call me Pastor." Shindo and Dennis were quite taken aback by this implied request. Shindo gave his reasons why he had thought it was normal in America to call pastors by their first name.

analyzing...

Analysis and Commentary

An Unbridgeable Gulf

From the perspective on an objective outsider, these meetings must come across as one big joke, and the miscommunication as confusing and appalling as the Laurel and Hardy routine "Who's on First." The gulf between the American side and the Japanese side is wide, but not a single person on the American side shows any sign of understanding how wide that chasm is. This misunderstanding is epitomized by Mike Noyes, possibly the most respected of all the Hacienda members by the Japanese side. He called a building committee meeting and still thinks that was a wonderful, wise, and righteous thing to do. But we saw that through Shindo's eyes, that was such an outrageous and unethical thing that it almost made him lose his faith in the church⁽³⁹⁾. Both left the board meeting completely unchanged in their opinion. Mike left completely unaware that there is another way in which to interpret his actions, despite the fact that I did my best to explain to him that there might be another perspective. The chasm that separates Mike and Shindo is a microcosm of the wide chasm that separates the East from the West in this church, and at this point it looks as if the twain shall never meet.

The discussion and presumed consensus in the board meeting and the discussion and consensus in The Elephant in the Room That Nobody Was Allowed to Mention that preceded it, were virtually the opposite. Whereas the board concluded that the status quo was the best, and heard nothing to contradict that view, the JLC meeting had reached a consensus that concluded exactly the opposite. Neither Dennis Imai nor I, or anyone else said anything about that in the board meeting, because we assumed that it would be obvious to Larry Caviness what had happened, and had been happening all along: six years of talking past each other, with no end in sight.

The Japanese Side's Perspective

From one perspective it probably seemed petty and trivial for Reijin to complain about how cold it was in the social hall, and how there were cockroaches. But for the first time I saw the problem through the eyes of the Japanese side. They used to have a beautiful church with stained glass windows that they could call their own, and was their pride and joy. Now they have been meeting in a cafeteria/mess hall with portable chairs that have to be shuffled immediately after worship to make way for pot luck. In their attempt to get back what they lost by merging, they have met with more tribulations, false hopes and fiery disasters⁽⁴⁰⁾ than the Christian in Pilgrim's Progress, with no light at the end of the tunnel. In the meantime, they lost many of their former leaders directly or indirectly through the conflicts arising out of the merger, and the manipulative tactics⁽⁴¹⁾ used by Pastor Albert to consolidate power. Many of their children who used to be strong and upcoming leaders have mostly left in frustration for other churches.

What exactly did the Japanese ministry expect to get in return for what they brought to HH? There were both spiritual/political and physical expectations. Spiritually and politically, they took for granted that there would be a continuity of what they had on the old campus in a better location. Physically, it was two things: A safer location, and a large vacant lot in which to build their dream church. Of these expectations, the only benefit realized is the safe location. Everything else has been a shocking and bitter disaster.

Instead of spiritual and political continuity, they walked into a "captivity" in which their leadership was decimated and divided, and their youth demoralized by the Frederico/Yamamoto threshing machine, followed by the Ing/Yamamoto lemming call. The vacant lot has proved a cruel mirage so far that has left the Japanese church sitting on folding chairs in a cold social hall that must be rearranged as soon as they have said the benediction, and nothing better in sight. This is not what they bargained for when they vacated their beautiful church with cushioned pews and stained glass windows. To be told now that their plan to build a church facility on the vacant lot is so inefficient and stupid that it can be dismissed out of hand by the Pastor that enticed them to merge on the expectation that it could be done, is tantamount to a "bait and switch" scheme. In that context, Pastor Albert's line amounts to this:

"Now that we are merged, I will tell you the truth. Building your own separate facility on the vacant lot is a naive and stupid idea unworthy of serious consideration. So you might as well spend Japanese church money to enlarge my church building, which I will of course let the Japanese ministry use, because I am a fair and honest man."

Can Shindo and the Japanese side be blamed for being angry and resentful of this?

The Apparent American Perspective: The Japanese "Take ... take"

I should preface all my comments by saying that the American side has really been excellent in their attitude for the past six years. I have seen and heard nothing that makes me think that much more could have been expected of any American church that merged with a Japanese church, and nothing that I write from here on should be interpreted in a way that contradicts what I have just said⁽⁴²⁾.

That having been said, what is most galling to many on the Japanese side is the sentiment on the American side that the Japanese side only "take take."⁽⁴³⁾ I also sensed that attitude in Mike's comments before the board meeting. Judging from the comments of others on the American side during the board meeting, I suspect his view is representative. In their (American members) view, they are bending over backward to accommodate the Japanese side, who are always nagging them for more (than they deserve?) From their perspective, the Japanese work is something that the main HH church is patronizing out of generosity and charity.

What has been utterly forgotten is what the LACJ brought to the merger. As mercenary as it seems, this calculus is called for by the attitude of the HH members who perceive the Japanese side's attitude as all "take take." Before addressing that question, however, let us first address the issue of the new friendships and alliances were forged as a result of the merger. These are undeniably important, and should never be demeaned. But such benefits are mutual, and can therefore cancel each other out, much like identical large terms in the numerator and denominator in a fraction, or opposite sides of an equation when evaluating the relative contributions of each side. So let us celebrate and praise these invaluable new friendships to the heavens. Then let us cancel them out as "like terms" and evaluate what is left.

The HH church could not even afford a full time pastor until the merger, whereas that was never an issue with the Japanese church. The Japanese church was growing and brimming full of young people and youth leaders, whereas the HH church was basically the opposite and sliding downhill. Today, even after all the decimation and conflict that occurred during and after the merger, all of the HH children's division Sabbath Schools have been and still are staffed only by Japanese church SS teachers, and these SS school programs are now arguably the only bright spot of the entire church program. The former LACJ contributes 2-3 of the church organists. Every other week, the English speaking young adults from the former LACJ conduct youth/young adult afternoon meetings open to all that are well attended. There are frequent youth/young adult weekend events sponsored by former LAJC leaders for all church members, though some HH members help. So far, not one known youth event or program has been sponsored, organized, or even contributed to in a significant way⁽⁴⁴⁾ by the HH church's official "youth pastor" who is being paid by the church and earning high marks according to the Pastor.

The Japanese church tithing was more than double that of the HH tithing at the time of the merger. Tithing on the Japanese side has since dropped off significantly under Pastor Albert's leadership, in many cases due directly or indirectly to conflicts that these former members had with the tactics of the Pastor and/or his aggressive apologist/financial patron and benefactor, both during and after the merger. So to say that the LACJ church did not come to the merger empty handed, is an extreme understatement, even without considering the Japanese campus assets.

Can a Leopard Change Its Spots?

Elder Caviness left us with the advice that we (the Pastor and the Japanese side) should keep talking, and that if we sought to understand first, then everything would be fine. The advice with regard to seeking understanding first, is nothing other than the golden rule as applied to dialogue, and is certainly valid. Perhaps we can have an encounter group in which we can sit down and invite the Pastor to tell us what we need to know in order to really understand him. Will he tell us something different than what we have inferred from his words and deeds for the past six years? Perhaps he will surprise us.

But I cannot forget his inaugural sermon, which still rings in my ears. He told the story of a general who had just been assigned command of a fort. He kicked the chair out from under a soldier who did not jump up to salute him in time, and then showed up at the morning formation with a baseball bat in hand. When asked if he intended to use the bat, the general replied, "No, but they don't know that." What was most striking and shocking about that story in his sermon was that the Pastor did not proceed to distance or contrast himself from the general in that story with some disclaimer, but went on as if that was his fantasy. I was shocked, and so were many others that I spoke to. About that time, Dennis Imai resigned from the merger committee because he was alarmed at what he perceived to be the Pastor's ubiquitous power hungriness, and the complete lack of support in the merger committee to oppose it. Everything that has happened in the six years since then tend to confirm that the sermon represented his obsession with power and control. I propose that it is a self-defeating obsession which is stifling and corrosive to the development of leadership, independent thinking, and process integrity within the church⁽⁴⁵⁾. It seems unrealistic at this point, to suppose that more talk can contradict another Biblical aphorism that is equally valid: "Can a leopard change its spots?"

A Church of Spies and Double Agents?

The notion that the "American way" is keeping committee work secret from other church members as long as possible until the committee can present it on their own terms as a "take it or leave it" proposition to an uninformed constituency, has disturbing implications. There can be little doubt that this is the Pastor's philosophy, as this has been done again and again ever since 1998, to the point that some on the American side think this is normal.⁽⁴⁶⁾ It is a basic principle of fairness, however, that all interested parties be given the same material to consider well in advance of any decision⁽⁴⁷⁾. In forensic matters, this is formalized, and it is considered a violation of ethics if the prosecution withholds evidence from the defense to prevent them from having adequate time to analyze the evidence on their own terms. This principle of fairness is violated by Pastor Albert's notion of the "American way."

The time honored way to restore fairness under this "American" system is the creation of an intelligence network of spies and double agents to ferret out secrets and scheming that are being hidden from the rest of the church that will otherwise be sprung on an unsuspecting congregation at precisely the moment and venue when it is most awkward and unprepared to consider it critically. In fact, such a network has already developed because of the "American" ethic that has been practiced because of the Pastor's American MO. Every bulletin or notice from the church has to be scrutinized for hidden meanings and vague innuendos which might in retrospect, be arguably construed as "announcements," or "advance notice." This is the legacy of the Pastor's "Amway." Should we sanctify it?

Trying to Understand Pastor Albert

There may be some who say they think positively of their personal relationship with the Pastor and respect him out of obligation, but I am not one of them. He has been nothing short of excellent in his personal dealings with me over the entire six years, and he has raised two fine sons of whom I hear nothing but good reports. I knew his wife Linda as a child in Japan, and she has been nothing but sweet the entire time in Hacienda Heights. I truly assume he has been doing what he thinks is right in every instance that I have criticized, even when I use words like "manipulation," or other words that might imply that he is consciously "dishonest" or "unfair." I do not contend that the Pastor is "immoral" in any way. In his own mind, I assume that he believes he is being ethical and principled.

Every generation and almost every individual is blind to some contradiction or hypocrisy because of an underlying assumption that rationalizes it away. For example, the Christians of the 18^th and early 19^th century did not see a contradiction between owning black slaves, the U.S. Constitution, and Christianity. The underlying assumption that rationalized this apparent contradiction was twofold. God is assumed to have given the commands authorizing slavery in Levitucus 25:44-46. Others including Abraham Lincoln assumed that Blacks were not fully human, which prevented slavery and racial prejudice from being a fundamental contradiction to the principle of human equality.⁽⁴⁸⁾

In the same way, Pastor Albert apparently has a belief that process integrity is exempt from the principles of honesty and openness because he is commissioned by God⁽⁴⁹⁾ to "steady the ark." In his view, the democratic processes of the church are merely there to humor members because democracy is popular. This is a paternalistic ecclesiastical attitude which prevailed until 50 years ago in the Japanese church as well as most SDA churches. From this patronizing world view, it is not dishonest to manipulate the process any more than it is dishonest to tell a young child that storks bring babies into a family, or that the tooth fairy will leave a quarter under your pillow.

The other factor is that Pastor Albert gives every indication of being very insecure, which intuitively and subconsciously leads him to interpret every issue in terms of an opportunity to grasp or lose personal power. But I doubt that he is even conscious of this. Every issue on which he is criticized is one in which he hijacked the process or "stacked the deck" to "feather (or strengthen) his own ecclesiastical nest" rather than help the church as a whole or the Japanese work in particular. His refusal to come up with an architectural plan that did not have as its focus the enlargement of his own building, rather than honor and emphasizing the Japanese desire to have a separate place of worship is just one example.

Realizing at one level of his consciousness that this would be opposed, he tried to keep it a secret until he presented it with his own spin and put the Japanese on the spot for making it seem that they were the ones who were throwing away the architectural fees if they turned it down. But this was apparently justified in his mind because he was merely following the "American way," which he has apparently been employing all of his career. Given these considerations, we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt, and should not cast any aspersions on the Pastor's character. I will be the first to defend him against any that seek to assert such.

The final component necessary to complete the picture is Pastor Albert's understanding of the merger. His understanding of it is probably close to that expressed by Joe Furukawa in the board meeting. That is, everything the former Japanese church possessed now belongs, lock, stock and barrel to the HH church over which he is the head pastor. Therefore, any project, building or otherwise, utilizing the proceeds of the Japanese campus must consider the interests and desires of the entire HH church, which of course includes the Japanese language ministries, but apparently gives them no more priority than any other ministry in church. Had this attitude been explicitly expressed as a condition of the merger, it could never have taken place. This view has never been confronted, but has been allowed to fester and grow in the church, so that is not his fault. It is the fault of those who ignored, rationalized, appeased, and enabled it.

There are those who might say this is a patronizing defense. My response is that rather than worrying about labeling it, they should simply come forth with a more plausible and ethically exonerating defense, and let the labels be damned.

Japanese Group Needs to Take Responsibility

All that having been said, the LACJ group too often blames others instead of taking responsibility for shooting themselves in the posterior, and the Monitor will not let that go unchallenged. In the end, it is not Pastor Albert, Tony Ing, the Metro region, nor anybody else that is to blame for the predicament in which they now find themselves. While they are to be commended for having done a better job than all the other Japanese churches in America in keeping the next generation in their church, they completely ignored or scorned the advice and leadership of their own well educated native sons and daughters who were most capable of providing the very leadership and sound advice that was so lacking while they suffered the humiliating reversals in the last six years.

Many of the Japanese church leaders have wise adult children with ties to the church, and the adult children of three of their notable former ministers were available for advice but their advice was ignored and scorned. Dean Horinouchi, arguably the most successful and promising Japanese American SDA minister in the world, grew up on the old Japanese church campus, but he was practically tarred, feathered and run out of town for running a successful program at the Japanese church that is still paying dividends to this day. Dennis Imai, also raised in this church, and the son of one of the founding ministers, was head elder when the merger started. But he also was practically tarred and feathered when he dared to question the wisdom of the merger for the very reasons that the church is only now acknowledging. Pat (Okohira) Hokama, the daughter of the founding minister, was and is an HH church elder. While she was not abused, her opinion and judgment was completely ignored. A few years before the merger, they ran off Brent Kimura, a successful youth pastor who, like Dean is pastoring in Southern California, but like Dean, is also scarred from his experience at LACJ. Had they heeded the advice of any of these church leaders (who all knew the situation very well, opposed it, and shook their heads in disbelief over what happened), they would never have followed Tony like lemmings off the cliff, and they could have resisted the Albert/Harvey threshing machine. But instead, in the time of crisis, in addition to their own opinions, they relied on an inexperienced, insecure, and naive outsider⁽⁵⁰⁾ from Japan to lead them ...because he spoke better Japanese?

So if the Japanese side is perceived as somewhat foolish and gullible by the American side, it is not fair to blame that attitude on racism. Let us have none of that. There are no racists and no bad people in this great misadventure. As in the time of Judges, everybody is just doing what seems right in their own eyes⁽⁵¹⁾, which is all that we can expect from anybody.

The Japanese side can take pride in the fact that they had the foresight and faith to raise and educate offspring that were fully capable of handling the crisis with wisdom. In that sense, it can be truly said, "God provides." Their only mistake was in not giving themselves enough credit for having done such an excellent job. But neither am I implying that the next generation has it all figured out. What this generation has in worldly wisdom, it often lacks in zeal and commitment to the particulars of the faith possessed by the first generation that founded this church. Generation X will happily concede that without that zeal and commitment, there would be no torch to pass on and nothing left to fight over. While there has always been a tension between the generations because of these differences in theological perspective, now might be a good time for both sides to realize that unless they concede they both need each other and combine their strengths, they might not have much of a future, at HH or anywhere else.

Evidence for a Merger That Never Was

A Debriefing Interview with Pastor Albert

by Dennis Hokama,

10/05, 9:00 p.m. to 11:00

A Disclaimer

The reconstructed transcript of this interview was e-mailed to Pastor Albert for review and correction on 10/6, 12:31 p.m. On 10/8, 12:19 p.m, he replied, "...There are some things that I would like to clarify. But, it would take a little time and I need to get my sermon in order since Sabbath is coming quickly." On 10/13, a reminder was sent, but by the time this draft was completed, a response had not been received.

Background

In the week following the board meeting, I follow up on the unresolved Shindo/Pastor Albert confrontation. After I had obtained Shindo and Dennis Imai's accounts of what had happened subsequently, I decided to speak to Pastor Albert for his own version of what he said and meant. After exchanging e-mails over the weekend, we finally got together on the phone at about 9:00 on Tuesday evening. Initially, I intended to simply use the information to footnote the previous two meetings. But because the interview was more substantial than I expected, I thought it deserved to be a report in its own right. I had already composed some primary questions which I will leave intact, even though I did not actually ask them in those exact words. After a few preliminary comments, I began as follows:

The Interview

DH: During the board meeting, you conspicuously avoided answering any of Shindo's pointed questions, whereas other members jumped in to answer them for you. Why did you avoid answering these questions from Shindo in public?

AF: There were several reasons. I thought he was angry, and I thought it was off the subject. If I had responded in that emotional climate, I thought we would only deepen wounds. And I worried that Elder Caviness might think that I had allowed the discussion to wander off the subject, which was a change in the regions. But you will recall, I turned to Elder Caviness and asked him what I should do. If he had said go ahead and answer his questions, I would have done so⁽⁵²⁾.

DH: What was your reasoning in asking instead for a private discussion with Shindo?

AF: I thought there was a personal dimension to his criticism that was most appropriately addressed privately, in a less confrontational, less emotionally charged atmosphere.

DH: Was there any discussion ahead of time with Joe or John Chacon or anybody else to answer these questions for you?

AF: No. Not at all.

DH: Based on the board meeting itself, what did you conclude regarding the Japanese language side's opinion regarding the notion that it was best that the HH church remain exactly the way it was with respect to regional membership?

AF: Oh, I thought it was clear that both sides agreed that it was best to stay in two regions. Didn't you think so?

DH: If I had to base my conclusion only on what I heard at the board meeting, I think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw⁽⁵³⁾.

DH: When you met with Shindo in the presence of Dennis Imai on Sabbath afternoon, did Shindo request that you respond to his questions by e-mail?

AF: Well, I'm uncomfortable telling you what I told Shindo in private. But you can ask me the same question and I will tell you what my position is.

DH: OK, would you be willing to put into writing⁽⁵⁴⁾ your responses to Shindo's questions?

AF: I think some things are too sensitive to put into writing....

DH: I agree that some things may be too sensitive, but do you think that these two issues that Shindo raised belong in that category?

AF: Yes. But if we discuss this with Pastor Obara and others on the Japanese side⁽⁵⁵⁾, and they think it is something that should be disclosed publicly, then that would change things, and I would probably change my mind.

DH: One of Shindo's questions to you in the board meeting was why you kept returning with building plans focused on upgrading the existing building rather than focusing on a separate meeting structure on the vacant lot as the Japanese side had repeatedly requested. I won't ask you to tell me what you told Shindo, but I will repeat Shindo's question. Why did that keep happening?

AF: There was a questionnaire that we had sent out to all the users of the building, and we listened to what their needs and desires were⁽⁵⁶⁾. We also listened to what the Japanese side wanted⁽⁵⁷⁾. They expressed a desire to have a chapel that was "separate" and exclusive in its use. We interpreted that to mean that it should be dedicated to worship and not be used for socials, etc⁽⁵⁸⁾. We did not interpret that to require a geographic distance from the main building⁽⁵⁹⁾. Now we know differently.

DH: Was there an architectural plan in which there was a separate building?

AF: The architect did draw one plan in which a separate building was proposed. The other building was about 20 feet away from the current building.

DH: Was that plan ever presented to the Japanese side for consideration?

AF: No.

DH: Another challenge or accusation that Shindo voiced in the board meeting was that you demanded secrecy and that the phrase "shut up" were addressed to him or the Japanese representatives⁽⁶⁰⁾ in that context either by you or someone paraphrasing your instructions during one meeting. Did you hear the phrase "shut up" directed at Shindo by someone?

AF: No, I didn't hear that phrase used. I think he may have meant words that carried the meaning that he should not speak to others about the plans.

DH: Did you say words that effectively told Shindo that he should not talk about committee plans to others?

AF: No. It was a committee sentiment⁽⁶¹⁾.

DH: Did you endorse that sentiment?

AF: Yes, I supported it at the time⁽⁶²⁾.

DH: Was Joe Furukawa present in these meetings in which this sentiment was expressed to Shindo?

AF: No. The people present in that committee besides me were Reijin, Shindo, Duane Abel, John Chacon, Mrs. O, and after Shindo resigned, Patty.

DH: Why did you think keeping the building plans confidential was a good idea at the time?

AF: Well, I think it is the American way to let a committee thrash things out themselves and then come back with a finished product. As I understand the Japanese way, and I could be wrong, it is to continuously confer with the constituency along the way so that in the end, there is already a consensus.

DH: Delegating the details to a committee without requiring the whole body to deal with it is one thing. But deliberately requesting that committee members conceal or withhold information from the larger body is something else entirely. Why was it justifiable to go out of your way to keep things secret from the Japanese side?

AF: Well, I thought it was better to prevent people from getting all excited over false expectations, and then disappointing them⁽⁶³⁾.

DH: Shindo said that said something about wanting to be called by the title "pastor." Is this a concern of yours, that you be called, "Pastor"?

AF: This is a very awkward thing for me to talk about. But yes, it does concern me. It's not about the title, but in church, and especially in a meeting like that, it would have made me more comfortable to have been called Pastor. That doesn't mean that I expect or want to be addressed as "Pastor" by everybody. There are those who have known me since I was a student, and I am perfectly comfortable with that. As I said, this is awkward to talk about.

DH: I understand. There are some medical professionals with whom I am on a first name basis, but when I go to their office, I make it a rule to always refer to them as "Doctor" because I want show their patients to employees that they are persons to be respected. It's never something we talk about, but I am happy to do it.

DH: Now I'd like to address a few questions about the background for this board meeting. What was your "specific" request to Elder Caviness regarding what you wished him to accomplish at the board meeting?

AF: I asked him to moderate a discussion on changing the regions, to the best of my recollection. (He searches for his letter to Caviness while we are on the phone, but cannot find it.)

DH: Are you sure your request was not more directional?

AF: I'm not sure what you mean by "directional."

DH: I mean, did you ask him to steer the church in the direction of maintaining the status quo?

AF: No, as I recall, I left the particulars up to him.

DH: By the time of the board meeting, I noticed that at least Mike and Diana had arrived at the conclusion that it would be an unwise thing to have the issue of a move to one region debated and voted upon by the local church. Did his opinion of theirs reflect a view which you had expressed to one or both of them sometime after the motion by Shindo but before the meeting?

AF: I don't recall talking about this with Diana, but I did discuss the matter with Mike. I mentioned factors that might have been overlooked by those who were advocating a change, and we discussed all the ramifications of such a move.

DH: That about covers the questions that I wanted to ask you. I appreciate your being willing to take the time to go over these things with me. I will write this up and e-mail this to you to verify that my understanding of what you said is accurate. Please let me know if there is anything that I got wrong.

AF: You are welcome. I am having a meeting of Elders next week. I hope that we can put this behind us and really come togther as a church.⁽⁶⁴⁾

DH: Before that can happen, you are both going to have to understand what the other is saying. I agree with Elder Caviness on this. Seeking to understand what the other side is saying is the first step. We've been talking past each other for six years, and this meeting is another indication that we are still doing that. One of the reasons why I am going out of my way to write this up is that there is a great misunderstanding going on. It is my nature to pursue issues like this, whether it be religion, philosophy, theology, politics, history or anything else.

AF: Well, I agree that understanding the other is important too. If we get together and admit that seeking to understand the other is the first step, then what?

DH: I know that the sentiment is there, but achieving understanding of the other is easier said than done. Even though I hear from both sides, I gained an exciting new insight in listening to the Japanese side speak during these two meetings. If this late breaking insight can occur to me, despite the fact that I attended both meetings, then how likely is it that those who attended only the board meeting, and don't know the culture or language can possibly understand this? So I am going to try to put all the pieces together in a way that makes sense. I know you won't be happy with some things I say, but neither will anybody else. At the same time, I have my own blind spots, and I am willing to be criticized in the same way I criticize others. Anyway, you will be getting an e-mail from me tomorrow. Thanks, and good night.

AF: Anytime you need any information I can help you with, Denny, feel free to call me. Good night.

Analysis and Commentary

Our conversation was very cordial and warm, and it only reinforces my assumption that Pastor is a sincere Christian gentleman, who has "good" intentions. But there are many fine Christian men and women with good intentions that would be disasters as married couples. This appears to be the case with Pastor Albert and the former LA Central Japanese church. This is Pastor Albert's best defense of his words and actions. And yet his best explanations only serve to show more clearly than ever that his perspective and working assumptions are completely contrary and fundamentally incompatible with the assumptions upon which the merger was based from the perspective of the Japanese church.

Starting from a Faulty Premise

The Pastor explained the basis for deliberations of the building committee: "There was a questionnaire that we had sent out to all the users of the building, and we listened to what their needs and desires were. We also listened to what the Japanese side wanted."

This seems fair enough on the surface, until one considers the source of funds he expects to tap for "his" building project. Judging from his words and actions over six years, his entire perspective is apparently based on the premise that the equity in the Japanese church campus that has accumulated over 50 years for the Japanese work, by the blood, sweat and tears of the pioneers of the Japanese work, is now his money to spend on his local church needs, by the virtue of the merger. But the equity in the Japanese campus is not covered by the merger agreement, so his premise is false in that it is only a dubious hypothesis that will almost certainly be demolished in open debate. It is also fundamentally contrary to the justification for the merger from the Japanese church's perspective.

A Betrayal of Good Faith?

When the serious merger discussions first began in 1996, those in the Japanese church who had no burden for the Japanese work opposed all the merger discussions on the basis of the "local church" argument. But the proponents of the merger discussions won on the basis that the commitment to the Japanese work demanded it because of changing demographics, although it was a long and costly battle. Hacienda Heights won primarily because of its big vacant lot, and the way Harvey Yamamoto and Pastor Albert promoted it through aggressive political maneuvering, despite the fact that it was not located in a Japanese population center. The prominent role of the vacant lot in the decision should not be overlooked. From the very beginning, when Harvey began making his pitch for Hacienda, it was the vacant lot that took stage. I know, because I was there. The idea was that the Japanese church could merge rather than buy a church, and still have the equity in their present campus to build a new multipurpose building/church on the vacant lot.

Since it was a burden for the Japanese work that compelled the Japanese church to make this drastic move, the very last thing they had in mind was turning over their equity to a Pastor and a local congregation intent primarily on using Japanese church funds to enlarge their own building complex, while largely ignoring or patronizing the Japanese church concerns for preserving their own unique ministry. For anyone, especially one who was involved in the merger process, to assume that the Japanese campus equity was there to be used according to the priority of the local church needs, is unthinkable. It amounts to a treacherous betrayal of the good faith of the Japanese church.⁽⁶⁵⁾

A Great Irony

When the merger talks first started, it was mainly the Hawaiian Nisei who opposed it on the basis that they saw no need for a Japanese church. But once the Japanese church moved in with the HH church, the Hawaiian Nisei soon became the most staunch supporters of Pastor Albert, whereas all the former supporters of the merger who were advocates of the Japanese work, gradually became disillusioned with the merger and became opposed to the leadership of Pastor Albert. Now the reversal is complete, and the same Hawaiian Nisei who opposed and belittled the importance of the Japanese work, continue to oppose it with the support of the Hacienda Heights members. Whereas they were a minority in the Japanese church, enabling the church to move forward despite their opposition, now they are in the majority, and have the support and ear of the Head Pastor, who now embraces their theory of the merger and the illegitimacy of the "Japanese church" concept. This silent coup has not gone unnoticed by all.

The Merger That Never Was

It must be acknowledged now that the merger was fatally bungled from the very beginning, and as a result, we have been proceeding on the basis of false assumptions on both sides⁽⁶⁶⁾. If no mutual agreement was ever reached, then the question must be asked, "Was there ever a merger?" If the Japanese side had known that Pastor Albert understood the merger to mean that all the Japanese church assets including the Japanese campus would come under the jurisdiction of his control to be used according to the needs of the local church, would there have been a merger? If the local church and Pastor Albert had known that the Japanese church would insist that the Japanese campus equity would be reserved for the Japanese ministries, would they have encouraged the merger? Will Pastor Albert and the local congregation, who have been led to believe for six years that they owned and controlled the Japanese campus assets happily give up that presumption? Is the Japanese ministries now willing to knowingly turn the responsibility of building (with Japanese campus funds) over to the local church under Pastor Albert's leadership? Does it make sense that both sides can go half way and be happy? Unless there can be a "yes" to one of these questions, then it seems that the merger that never was, cannot be salvaged, even after the fact.

Why Not Try Full Disclosure?

When all else fails, why not try full disclosure? Contrary to what most people think, the merger is still formally incomplete, even if we legitimize its botched commencement on the basis of a major misunderstanding. It seems about time that somebody finally asked for a clarification as to exactly what it really means for the Japanese church to merge with the Hacienda Heights church. The unwillingness of the church to clarify this basic question has seems on the way to poisoning the well of social interactions at the HH church.

The fiasco that happened in the building committee where $16,000 was wasted, and where Japanese representatives were made to feel as if they were subhuman in the process, is only the tip of this malevolent iceberg. The seeds for the Tony Ing disaster were planted in this misunderstanding created by the botched merger, and watered by six years of frustrations in the building committee and elsewhere. Now that the buildings on the Japanese campus have been rebuilt, and the possibility of a sale has been enhanced, this unresolved question which has already caused so much destruction in the church only becomes more acute.

One's understanding of the merger is not some idle theoretical speculation like the nature of the trinity, or the meaning of righteousness by faith. This question has practical, financial, and political implications that potentially affect every word uttered by Pastor Albert. It hangs like a dark cloud over every board meeting, and puts a knot in the stomach of every Japanese board member as each board meeting approaches.

Pastor Albert often uses phrases like "We need to move on," or "We need to come together as a church." But this is hardly a logical expectation so long as the formal merger process itself lies unfinished, with both sides remain heading on a collision course by following incompatible theories of the merger. There does not seem any other responsible way to defuse this other than to confront this problem head on. Why and how this problem was not been defused earlier with full disclosure is only another can of worms that must be opened sooner or later.

Pastor Albert's Sudden Request for Secrecy

By Dennis Hokama

Background

In late afternoon on 10/14/04, after I had left about 4 messages, Albert called me back on my cell phone while I was driving. The context of this return phone call is that I had sent him my constructed transcript of an interview we did concerning his version of events during and after the board meeting of 9/23/04. During that board meeting, he had been confronted by Shindo Matsuda concerning the way Pastor Albert had run the building committee they had been on almost two years ago. (For details, see After All the Huffing and Puffing, the Status Quo Apparently Prevails, Orion Monitor #4, p. 13, 14.) Both the Conference President (Caviness) and Regional Director (Kiemeny) for the Metro region had been present. Pastor Albert avoided answering, and asked for a private meeting instead. Shindo rejected a private meeting and insisted on a public answer. Pastor Albert still refused to answer by recognizing other speakers. Shindo left the meeting before it was over. In the emergency elders meeting which followed, it was decided that he would arrange for a private meeting with Shindo and a witness on Sabbath afternoon. I had interviewed Shindo and the witness, as well as Pastor Albert concerning what happened in that private meeting. (For details see the above reference and Evidence for a Merger That Never Was: A Debriefing Interview with Pastor Albert in Orion Monitor, #4, p. 22-25).

The Dialogue

AF: Denny? This is Pastor Albert. You left a few messages for me.

DH: Thanks for calling back. You said you needed to clarify some things you said, so I wanted to take care of that.

AF: Sorry, I was quite busy.

DH: Don't apologize. I am driving right now, but I will pull over. Do you have time to talk now?

AF: Well, I am leaving in a few minutes for the airport to pick up my son for the funeral.

DH: Well, is this a bad time?

AF: No, it will only take minute. I am uncomfortable with what you are doing with our private conversation.

DH: You mentioned that there was something that you wished to clarify. Was there something that I wrote that was inaccurate or incomplete? If so, let me know what it is, and I am happy to let you change what you wish so you will be comfortable.

AF: No, that was it. I am just uncomfortable with the idea that you are putting it in writing and making public what we spoke about in private, and I am going to ask you not to do that.

DH: If I quoted you accurately, and we were not talking about personal problems but church government issues, then why should you object to that?

AF: Because I represent myself best.

DH: That is why I interviewed you rather than relying upon what Shindo and Dennis Imai said about your meeting, and then gave you the opportunity to edit your own words. So I am giving you the chance to represent yourself.

AF: But I mean orally.

DH: Oh, so you prefer that we use tape recorders?

AF: Absolutely not!

DH: Then I can't accept that. You want all these secret meetings that nobody can talk about, yet you consistently come up with convenient conclusions and interpretations that are exactly the opposite of what the other party says. That happened again in your recent private meeting with Shindo. When that keeps happening, I think we have a right to know how that can happen, so we need a third party to go determine exactly what you said and what you were told.

AF: Well, I'm still uncomfortable with your publishing of my words spoken in private.

DH: OK. I am hearing what you have said and I accept that as your position. But I also want you to hear and understand my position.

AF: What do you mean?

DH: My position is that while I understand what you are requesting, I don't agree that it is a valid request, so I am going to think about it.

AF: Well, OK, I guess. I am going to pick up Joel now. What a devastating shock that was!

DH: Yes, I didn't know her personally, but when any of our children die just as they are hitting the prime of their lives, it is all the more devastating. Thank you for calling; have a safe trip.

AF: It was nice talking to you. Bye.

Analysis and Commentary

An Ethical Dilemma

Pastor Albert's request created an ethical dilemma for me. Was I obligated to honor his request? Does a Pastor have a right to keep everybody from quoting his words, as if they were copyrighted, even when that interview that was announced from the beginning as one that he should think of as a public sermon given to his congregation?

This is not about the Pastor's private life, which he is entitled to keep private, and which I would guard with my life against frivolous intrusion. This is not about the private life of any member including my own. This pertains solely to church government issues which are subject to democratic process, a democratic process which I believe has been systematically subverted and corrupted by secret and unfair manipulation for the past six years. The confrontation in the board meeting between the Pastor and Shindo Matsuda, after all, had been about an accusation of hijacking the committee process through suppression, secrecy, and prejudice (possibly but not necessarily racial. I am alluding primarily to a self serving theory of the merger which is against the best interests of the Japanese church concept). Since the Pastor had refused to deal with it publicly, the board had no knowledge of the answers to those challenges posed by Shindo, which were very serious governmental issues.

It was an issue that could not have been secretly resolved between Shindo and Pastor Albert as a private matter, as the Pastor obviously assumes, because it challenged the very integrity of church process under Pastor Albert. It affected the whole church because $16,000 of the church's precious assets were wasted, and the Japanese language ministry had been further alienated in the process. It was that alienation and despair, after all, that set the stage for Tony Ing' hijacking of the Japanese language ministry, and the subsequent deadly consequences that brought the Japanese ministry to its knees. So this is a deadly serious business, and the entire church board, the entire membership, and the S.C.Conference has a right to demand answers. The Monitor pursued the resolution of that public challenge because it seemed necessary in order to understand the nature of the rules and assumptions the Pastor was playing by in his governance of the church, rules and assumptions under which the Japanese work has been devastated for the past six years.

This is not merely my opinion. In the meeting of the Japanese language ministry with Elders Caviness and Elder Chough on 9/19/04, Elder Chough prefaced the meeting by saying, "There is no doubt that the Japanese work has suffered ever since the merger occurred six years ago." It was a sentiment that every one of the 22 delegates agreed with, and the unanimous conclusion of that meeting had been that the present situation was not tolerable because it would kill the Japanese work. (See The Elephant in the Room That Nobody Was Allowed to Mention, p. 2-9, Orion Monitor, #4)

Getting Counsel

Did the Pastor have the moral high ground in asserting that he had the right to declare his spoken words off limits in this investigation, given this background? I consulted one of the men whose integrity, wisdom, and vast experience in church governance I respect the most. Dr. Dalton Baldwin is a theologian with a Ph.D, a philosopher, a church historian with a vast knowledge of SDA history, and possesses a knowledge of the Bible that few theologians can surpass. He is a retired professor Emeritus of Loma Linda University, and one the anchor sponsors of the Schuman Pavilion Sabbath School class that I have regularly attended for many years. After listening to the background and asking many questions for clarification, he suggested the following guidelines:

First establish that the context of the interview was such that there is no question but that the Pastor was clearly notified in advance that what he said was going to become public, as opposed to thinking that he was speaking "off the record." Secondly, establish that the content had to do with vital matters of church business, rather than trivial matters, or personal issues that serve no other purpose other than to embarrass the Pastor. Thirdly, make a convincing case that the purpose is to help the church and the Pastor, rather than merely to "get" the Pastor.

That counsel seemed wise, and I decided to follow it. I have already established that this is a serious issue pertaining to church governance, and not about petty or personal issues of no concern to the church as a whole. I also believe that good democratic government needs open discussion, a transparent process, and a free press, which I am providing.

I repeat again that I am personally fond of Pastor Albert, and feel that those who have allowed him to continue his pattern of denial have been enablers, rather than true friends. I see nothing but destruction and ruin ahead for the church and for the Pastor unless there is a confrontation and a wake up call to end all wake up calls. My method of bringing this about, since I am not a church officer, and not even present during church services, is to write history. Now let's establish the remaining element: That Pastor Albert had no reason to expect that the interview was not off the record:

Establishing That Pastor Albert Knew His Words Would Be Made Public

Here is our e-mail record establishing the context of the interview:

10/01/04, 11:03 A.M.

Pastor Albert,

I am in the process of writing a piece on the last board meeting and its aftermath. I would like it to be as thorough and fair as possible, given the contraints I have. I have aready spoken to Shindo and Dennis Imai. Would you be willing to give me your personal version of what happened and answer some questions I have about it?

Sincerely,

Denny

Note: In the very first sentence of my communication with him regarding the interview, I disclose that I am WRITING a piece that will presumably become public.

10/01/04, 10:14 P.M.

Denny,

Perhaps you've discovered by now that I am on vacation in San Diego. I checked my home messages and heard your message and now, checking my e-mail, I see your inquiry.

So, I can be more helpful when I return. Yes, I am always willing to answer questions, if I am able. To give you my personal version of what happened? I suppose I would need to know why and to whom this personal version of mine would be given. In that way I would know what to be sure to include. Otherwise, it could be a lengthy reminiscence and still miss the mark. So, if you could fill me in on what you are setting out to accomplish, I might be able to do a little better than the minutes.

Anyway, I hope you and yours has a good Sabbath. I probably won't check my e-mails until I get back to my office on Monday.

Sincerely,

Pastor Albert

10/03/04, 10:24 p.m.

Pastor Albert,

Thanks for your prompt and courteous reply under the circumstances (being on vacation).

"...I suppose I would need to know why and to whom this personal version of mine would be given. In that way I would know what to be sure to include. Otherwise, it could be a lengthy reminiscence and still miss the mark. So, if you could fill me in on what you are setting out to accomplish, I might be able to do a little better than the minutes."

A. Why write a report? Because in my judgement, a significant event happened. I have made it a point for the last 20 years to write a detailed analytical reports on what I consider to be significant events in the history of the Japanese church, and I see no reason to stop just now. I want this report to be as accurate as I can make it, so I talk to people who share my burden for leaving an accurate record.

B. To whom will it be given? To the file, or whomever is curious to understand what really went on. There are not too many people like that, but for all practical purposes, you should probably think of potential readers as you would a sermon audience. The basic rule is, write and say only things you would be happy and confident in defending, because your comments (and everybody else's), might be the subject of close scrutiny, analysis and commentary. The same advice goes for me and anybody else.

I hope this answers your questions.

Please let me know ASAP what your intention is. I want my report to be issued in timely fashion. By the end of the next week, it will probably be finished, one way or the other. If we speak on the phone or meet, it will take less than 30 minutes of your time if you answer succinctly.

Sincerely,

Dennis

Note: Can there be any question that he was informed clearly that his words would be in the public domain and that he should expect that his words would be "subject to close scrutiny, analysis, and commentary"? How could I have made it any more clear?

The actual interview took place by phone when Pastor Albert called me on 10/05/04, about 9:00 p.m. and we finished before 11:00 p.m. I promised Pastor Albert that I would send him a reconstructed written transcript the next day.

10/06/04, 12:31 p.m.

Dear Pastor,

Thank you for calling me last night. This is my recollection of how our discussion went. (I sent an attachment in Word. Please see annotated Interview entitled Evidence for a Merger That Never Was: A Debriefing Interview with Pastor Albert, Orion Monitor #4, p. 22-26 ) Please review it and let me know if anything is significantly different than my reconstruction of our conversation. If there is anything at all that you wish to change, even after the fact, then please let me know.

Please look closely at the answers you gave to me concerning the questions that Shindo posed. Feel free to edit them if you feel they don't represent your position exactly.

Denny

10/08/04, 12:19 P.M.

Dear Denny,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to look over your typed notes of our conversation and offer a response. Here is a partial response...

There are some things that I would like to clarify. But, it would take a little time and I need to get my sermon in order since Sabbath is coming quickly.

In the meanwhile, I have an idea. Elder Caviness, at the board meeting, suggested that we work together to resolve tensions. I think the Pastors should consult with the Elders at the Elders meeting this Sabbath afternoon, and see what they think would be the best approach. I appreciate very much your desire to take part in reducing tensions. I think our church should be a place where we all step forward to help reduce tensions and to effect reconciliation, it's Godly work.

Would you be willing to be my guest at the Elder's Meeting? I'm sure the Elders would appreciate hearing what you have found; it sounded like you had some insights and ideas, that we didn't get into very much, probably because of time constraints. We're meeting during potluck in the lobby of the church. Even if you were to arrive late (from Loma Linda?), with the other things we have to talk about, I'm reasonably sure you could get there in time.

Thanks,

Pastor Albert

10/08/04, 3:46 P.M.

Dear Pastor,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would appreciate it greatly if you would clarify anything in that account which you think has a potential to be misinterpreted.

With regard to your invitation to the elders' meeting, I will be happy to attend, even if it is to be a witness. I make it a point to try to be present when matters of historical importance will be addressed at the HH church.

I should clarify what my priority is in all of this. I seek understanding of that which is confused or misunderstood, which is not to say that I necessarily succeed. Whether that results in increased tension or decreased tension is not my main concern. Sometimes understanding the situation justifies an increase in tensions. However, understanding will lead to a dissipation of UNWARRANTED tensions, and I am always in favor of that.

The point is that however we think about a subject, whether it be a heightened state of alarm and fear, delirious happiness, a warm cuddly feeling, or complete indifference, it should be built upon on a foundation of the best evidence, an accurate history, and the most logical analysis of which we are capable. But we should not arbitrarily proclaim "peace, peace" when the circumstances demand painful confrontation and ultimatums, nor should we deliver ultimatums and beat the war drums before we even know what the assumptions and intentions of the other side are. There is a season for everything, and it takes a knowledge of the relevant historical facts and a logical analysis of them to discern which season it is.

I do not claim to be neutral with respect to ethnic ministries (of which the Japanese language ministries is an example), because after much analysis, I have concluded that they are defensible from a theological, philosophical, historical, biological, sociological and psychological perspective. However, it is a conclusion that is still negotiable in principle, and I am happy to argue the case with any who have differing conclusions. For a short version of my line of reasoning, see the March/April Adventist Today in 2001 (http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/2001/marapr2001/articles/whyethnic.shtml)

Appreciatively,

Denny

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: Between this e-mail and the next e-mail two significant events happened. I went to the elders meeting on Sabbath afternoon with a critical analysis I had written that morning before leaving for Sabbath School. In it, I demonstrated how the agenda he had sent out to the elders the previous evening had hopelessly stacked the deck in his favor to make it difficult for the elders to correctly identify the problem.⁽⁶⁷⁾ On Thursday afternoon (10/14/04), the Pastor returned my call to inform me that he was not comfortable with me putting his words into print.⁽⁶⁸⁾ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

10/15/04, 1:33 P.M.

Dear Pastor Albert,

Here is a transcript of our conversation yesterday for your review. For some reason I could not convert this WPD file to Word on my computer and save it.

After much thought and counsel, I decided that it would not be in your best interest, nor the church's to agree to your request. I am simply incorporating that request into my report on our interview, so there will be full disclosure and people can make up their own minds as to the legitimacy and wisdom of your request.

However, if you respond quickly, I am happy to include any thoughts you may have so that you may represent yourself accurately.

Such thoughts might include a change in your stance regarding your desire to keep your words secret, in which case I would rewrite my piece accordingly. But as it stands I will feel free to publish because:

1. As our e-mail dialogue shows from the beginning, I informed you that I would be writing a piece on this event, and that you should consider it as public as a sermon, and that your words would come under scrutiny and be the subject of commentary.

2. Democratic government is best served with transparency in all its processes. That has not been the case during your entire time in the HH church, and the confrontation in the board meeting was only one small indication of that.

3. It is for your own good that you get used to the idea that you must be accountable for your words, and you have no right to control our memories of what you say, nor deny the consequences of their meaning. You have the bully pulpit and have all the opportunity to preach or write out your ideas so that they cannot be misunderstood. Words mean something, and once uttered, they are like your children who have a life of their own.

Your cannot presume to tell us what they mean after the fact, any more than you can live the lives of your sons once they leave your house. Speak clearly; mean what you say, and say what you mean. If you didn't get it right the first time, then you are welcome to try, try again. But don't presume to control them once they are uttered. Once you accept that reality, then you will join the rest of the world.

If we agree to speak "off the record", or this involves personal matters, then that is something different, but that did not apply to our conversation.

I think you are making a grave mistake by trying to keep your words secret, and hope that you will reconsider so that you will not aggravate this tense situation even more.

I am still desirous of an amicable resolution of this mess, and I will assist in this, provided that you decide that full disclosure is the way to go. If not, then conflict is inevitable, because the politics of secrecy and full disclosure cannot be reconciled.

In either case, I assure you that I do not see this as any reason for us not to remain friends and be friendly, because I know that you are only doing what seems right in your eyes. I hope that you will see that I also am doing what I see must be done to bring peace to this troubled church.

Sincerely,

Denny

responding...

Reader Responses

There can be no reader responses yet, since this issue has not been seen until now. But this section will be reserved for all reader responses, and the Monitor will respond.

inviting...

Those wishing to comment or express a contrary opinion are invited to send an e-mail to: editor@OrionMonitor.com.

Return to home page.

End Notes

1. In retrospect, we can now see that those who formerly supported the Orion Chronicle ideology typically became staunch supporters of Pastor Albert, whereas those who agreed with the Orion Monitor eventually came to oppose him.