I choose to believe that the original concerns which prompted later actions were sincerely held. If I knew exactly what those concerns were, I might be in a position to agree or disagree with them intelligently, but there has been no candid portrayal of the original concerns, so the best I can say is that I choose to believe they were sincerely held.
The early actions (de-delegating Elder Vine, and avoiding discussion of the matter at the General Conference) were taken with minimal explanation.
I consider both of those actions to have been poorly considered efforts to achieve an end without the benefit of bringing the laity along. Questions and even accusations in return were predictable and unavoidable once that approach was taken.
This was compounded by the subsequent policy of refusing dialog. This is a case in which "avoiding the appearance of evil" would have been a great piece of advice. Appearance matters, and two "strong-arm" measures followed by a refusal to discuss has--at the very least--the appearance of commitment to a pre-determined goal with 1) no openness to the possibility of a change in position based on what others might say, and 2) a desire to "get the issue behind us quickly" with a minimum of publicity since many church members might not agree with that goal.
This course of action has that appearance, to me, anyway, though I'm sure others may see it differently. Open discussion would have been the best way to dispel such concerns.
It is a poorly kept secret that the Adventist Frontier Missions board has been pressured for more than two years to remove Elder Vine from his position as president of one of Adventism's premier missionary organizations. That they have withstood this pressure and chosen not to do so is a testament to both the board's strength of character and Elder Vine's perceived value to the organization. This detail is of personal interest to me as I have family who have worked for AFM for 20-odd years. Interestingly enough, that work has been in a region of the world where anything resembling the kind of para-church organization Elder Vine famously mentioned would be a step above what currently exists.
The more recent matter of pressure applied to Elder Kelly and the Village Church to remove Elder Vine from church office is, in my mind, of a much different nature. Time has passed since the last GC session, time which might have been spent in consideration of previous choices and actions. Time which might have been spent in dialog. Instead, it would appear that those years were spent, first, in hoping the matter would die down, and second, in realizing that the issues of the pandemic policies, the famous "position statements," and the church's track record in regard to religious liberty (which it should be remembered, varied from one country to the next), were not going to fade softly into the night.
Indeed, the level of church member interest seemed to be on the rise. As an increasing percentage of the general population--and of church members--came to see the "vaccines" as undesirable for one or more of a number of reasons (up to and including serious risk to health and life), the idea that someone else could just decide that this had nothing to do with your religious liberty became increasingly odious. In other words, the concern "had legs."
And yet, nothing was done in public.
This all changed with Elder Vine's mention of "go woke, go broke" and a "para-church" structure for the distribution of tithes to "faithful ministers." This suggestion poses a variety of difficulties, not the least of which is determining the definition of "faithful." Still, the comment was made as a hypothetical case: "If a given conference structure adopts or endorses LGBTQ+ ideology"... what is one to do? (Please note that I'm using quotation marks here to set off ideas, not to indicate precise wording. I'm just working memory here, not trying to provide exact quotations.) Elder Vine certainly wasn't offering a fully fleshed-out plan of action; he was raising a point of concern.
But the reaction was immediate: "Vine is advocating the destruction of the denomination's entire organizational structure!" (OK, that is perhaps hyped up a bit. Take it as a metaphorical description.) This strikes me as an over-reaction to something that was never said. Incidentally, the idea of church members' finding alternative channels for the transfer of tithe funds is not as "heretical" as it has been painted to be. W.C. White, A.G. Daniells, and W.W. Prescott addressed the possible need for exactly that possibility when responding on Ellen White's behalf to C.E. Stewart's 1906 "Blue Book" attack against her. Given that they were writing less than a decade after Ellen White had been forced by circumstances to admit that "It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God" (GCDB, February 24, 1899), it was no stretch of the imagination. They were dealing with real issues.
Even this reaction--as uncalled for as I personally feel it to have been--was very possibly sincere as the day is long. Indeed, I know people whom I consider good, solid, followers of Christ, who tend to favor Elder Vine's position on his concerns, but who honestly feel that even mentioning an alternative to "the regular channels" of church finance was crossing the line. I disagree, but I attribute that to the fact that I've read a bit more of the history than most folks, and I don't consider them as enemies or apostates because they honestly hold that position. At some point, it may be appropriate to consider all that history, but even Ellen White recognized that the issue of properly responding to failures on the part of the denomination was not a profitable topic to publicize widely.
To the degree that any individual has disingenuously grasped Elder Vine's "para-church" comment as a weapon to use against him, to that degree I would indeed call it "wrong." Anyone who unsuccessfully opposes point "A" in the court of public opinion, and then conflates that issue with point "B" because the latter is emotionally charged and more easily manipulated, is--in my estimation--disingenuous.
Now, finally, when it comes to Elder Kelly's circumstances.... These events are more recent, and I know less of the details in the case. I personally am not a big fan of using the Church Manual like a legal code. If Inspiration is not a clear enough guide for God's people, I am suspicious that even the best of uninspired guidelines will prove ineffective as well. Accordingly, I would like to see some transparency on the decision making. Some of this was provided in the recent "Town Hall" meeting, but the situation was unavoidably so tense and emotionally charged as to create far more ill-will than genuine coming together.
The action in regard to Elder Kelly's employment, coming as it did on the heels of conference pressure to remove Elder Vine from church office, fails to pass the sniff test--for many, but not all. Those who feel Elder Vine deserves to be disciplined will likely find Elder Kelly's dismissal appropriate; those who do not feel thus about Elder Vine, will likely not condone the action taken in regard to Elder Kelly. The effort to separate the two issues strikes me as a pointless endeavor. To say, "Pastor Kelly was fired for some other reason," will not be persuasive, I suspect. At least, I would find it hard to believe, from what I've heard so far. Opinions will very likely vary, though.
Weird how some people don't see things the same as I do..…
Dave Fiedler
["I have, since writing the above comment (and possibly as a result of writing it), received a communication from someone who has been in a position to observe certain aspects of the situation that I was not. Their effort to fill in some gaps is appreciated. I guess, at this point, the usefulness of the new-to-me perspective tends to underscore my wish for a comprehensive dialog that goes to the most basic layers of a complex situation and seeks to honestly address each layer, not with the intent of proving this side or that side correct, but in the audacious hope that God could perform a miracle that would answer Christ's prayer of John 17. When you read enough history, the idea of human perfection in any quarter becomes kind of quaint. The danger, as I see it, is in abandoning belief in divine perfection, and the possibility of it working through a collection of erring and often querulous human beings."]
****
“The greatest want of the world is the want of men—men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.”