[charity]

DKB posted this


Since the situation in Mexico has become a matter of much speculation, I will make a few comments. First, everything has been fully handled by the Global Missions Board and reported to the General Board, covering a time period of more than one year. Thus, we have over 125 elected elders who have been dealing with the situation in direct fulfillment of their delegated responsibilities. It doesn't mean they are infallible, but it does mean that we must respect their decisions. Even after the latest GMB action, there was a right to appeal to the General Board, but the minister did not avail himself of that option.

Second, it is not possible for boards to divulge confidential matters. We don't want to cause speculation, and we don't want to harm reputations. We are at a disadvantage when someone chooses to go public with their side of the story, because we can't tell the whole story. The GMB has issued a letter of explanation, which is posted on WS and which tries to answer questions while respecting the dignity and confidentiality of the process, including the reputations of ministers.

Third, as general superintendent I have been personally working with the situation from 2010 until now, and roots of the problem go back before my tenure. I personally attended the General Conference in Mexico in 2011 and have first-hand observations as well as direct communications with many ministers. I have tried to be a mediator and facilitator, acting in good faith. There were many serious questions and concerns raised about our missionary, who was also the superintendent of Mexico. It doesn't mean that all the concerns or allegations were accurate, but it does mean there were very serious issues that needed to be addressed. In response, in personal conversation with me he announced that the solution would be for him to resign voluntarily. I agreed that it was the best for the unity of the work. He announced this decision in writing to the ministers of Mexico. The wording of his announcement left some concern about whether he intended to ask for a vote of confidence or a reelection. I discussed his intentions personally with him a second time. He reiterated his decision and issued a second communication to the ministers of Mexico announcing that his decision to resign was "irrevocable." He called a special conference to elect his successor.

At that point, the Global Missions Board instructed him to make his resignation effectively immediately, so that the National Board of Mexico would guide the process of electing the successor instead of having him preside over the election conference. In response, he rescinded his decision to resign, and he gave two reasons: first, he didn't think the GMB should have any right to instruct him, and second, the church would split unless he remained superintendent. In retrospect, his actions could lead one to question whether he ever truly intended to resign or not.

Because his new decision opened all the questions again, the National Board conducted a partial investigation of some questions and proceeded to remove him from office, per their constitution. He challenged his removal and called for a special conference, over which he presided. He did not allow evidence concerning the underlying questions but limited discussion strictly to whether the ministers thought the National Board had the right to remove him. By a very narrow margin, if memory serves, something like 106-99, the ministers voted that the National Board could not remove him, so he retained his office.

As a result, the church has split basically 50-50, with most of the leaders leaving the UPC of Mexico, including the vice president, secretary, treasurer, legal representative, and the majority of the National Board. His decision to cancel his resignation caused the very thing he said was trying to prevent, the very thing that GM and I had worked so hard to prevent.

From my perspective, he did not submit to his authority as a missionary, which is the GMB, and he did not submit to his authority as a national leader, which is the National Board. Moreover, he did not keep his commitment to his general superintendent and did not even consult his general superintendent when he unilaterally changed the plan that they had mutually discussed. At least, he had the ethical and organizational responsibility to discuss his new plan with his general superintendent (or GM director) before changing what they had agreed.

Finally, the GMB has worked very hard not to make this decision final. Even now, as general superintendent of the UPCI and as chair of the Global Council (which consists of all national churches of the UPCI), I have issued a call for a unity conference. The leaders who left have agreed to attend the unity conference. The leader in question has not responded. Apparently his response is to state his opinions on You Tube and by email.

Regardless of the underlying questions and concerns, at some point there has to be submission to leadership and there has to be a sincere effort to restore unity. Public attacks and debate don't seem likely to produce such an outcome. It's like the story of dividing the baby. At some point, it is best to concede one's rights than to fight to the disunity of the body. Having said that, I have striven to protect everyone's rights, including that of the minister, while keep the focus on what is best for the body.