As I stated before her actions have now been vindicated by the Division.

And, you are entitled to your opinion.

However,it is not as simple as you would make it seem to be.

1) The process that you mention is a complex one. When it works, it provides for reinstatement, as you have said. It does not annul tha action of the congration that disfellowshilped the person. As a result ofthe actionthat Linda took, she can truthfull say that she was never disfellowshiped, which was important to her.

2) I remind you that the CHURCH MANUAL states that a person can be accepted on Profession of Faith, who has had their membership withdrawn (that is what Linda did) but ". . . who in reality has remained faithful to his/her Christian commitment."

It was the view of those who looked carefully at her case that she had not violated norms that would require that she bedisfellowshiped.

Therefore, she met, whether you agree or not, the standards of the CHURCH MANUAL to be accepted by Profession of Faith into the membership of the SDA Chruch.

This was a good resolution for all concerned. There is not real proces to overturn the decision of a local congregation to disfellwoshilp a member--only a process to reinstate. Linda was not disfellowshiped. She was not disciplined. There is no action by her former congregation to overturn.

As for Linda, she remains a recognized member.

I am a strong believer in following the Church Manual, but I can also accept the fact that there may need to be an exception in the way it is followed, such as in this instance.

Daryl, rules must have flexability. God considers the overall situation. The Bible is clear that God does not charge us with sin for issues that the Holy Spirit has NOT convicted us on. In our imperfect world, we need a way to correct injustice. Our corrections are often imperfect, but they are the best that we are able to do.

I mentioned earlier a situation where a member was disfellowslhiped on a Wednesday and voted into membership on Profession of Faith the following Sabbath. That situation was horiffic. For reasons of privacy I cannot publish the details. If I were to do so here, I am confident that people reading my post would contact me privately to ask if there was any way thay could help out.

Well, this is a time when things are going well. Individual members of the congregation that accepted this person into membership by Profession of Faith have responded to the need. Several members have personally each spent hundreds of dollars to provide very neded assistance. Ongoing attempts are being made to provide at no cost to the member assistance that is needed.

This is not being done for someone who has been associated with this congregation for a long period of time. This is being done for a person who has been associated with this congregation for a few weeks. This person showed up on our proverbabal doorsteps as a brand-new SDA who was doing everything in their power to resolve the situation that they were in.

Individual members of the congregation realized that this was not the time to discipline an imperfect, young, SDA; rather it was at time to heed the message of Christ in Matthew 25, beginning with verse 31. Those members continue to respond.

Rules must have flexability.

Sometimes rigid humans do the right thing and are flexable.

We must never forget the case where men came to Christ with the question:

- Our rules say that this women should be stoned.

Did Jesus tell them to follow the Church Manual issued by Moses? In stead he said he invited the faultless to cast the first stone. Is this doctrine of Christ incorporated in our way of thinking - or into our rules? Where is our faith and trust in Jesus Christ?

Sorry, in my language the same term would be applied to both situations and in the minds of the members here there would be no difference between the person being removed from membership by the church and the person asking to be removed. Also, we would interpret someone's request to be removed as an admission of guilt.

As a pastor, I would not see it as an admission of guilt.

Rather, I would see it as a broken relationship and I would want to know more about how and why the relationship was broken.

This would stem from two perspectives as a pastor:

1) My view that without assessing blame, a congregation, in its hummaness, may not be able to meet the spiritual needs of everyone.

2) Some congregations are simply spiritually toxic to some people.

One issue that concerns me is that of professional ethics. This comes in part from my professional training and in part from the fact that for years I have been a member of the Ethics Committee in the hospital where I work.

One of the fundamental ethical issues with which we deal is that of a "dual relationship." In considering that,a fundamental part of that issue is that the ethical relationship must look fair, in addition to aactually being fair. It is not required to pass a judgement that the issue was unfair. Rather it must have the appearance of being fair, in addition to actually being fair. In considedring this, norms are established as to what would constitute the appearance of unfairness. Fundamental to this is the basic issue of a "dual relationship."

In the issue of Linda Shelton and the congregation that held her membership, there was no way that it could have met the ethical requirements to determine whether or not she should be disciplined. The problelm of "dual relationships" was throughout that congregation and existed with the pastoral leadership of the congregation.

NOTE: I do not claim that the congregation and the pastors would have been unfair to Linda.

The transfer of her membership to another congregation on Profession of Faith took place under conditions where that transfer was considered by people who did not have a "Dual relationshilp."

"The transfer of her membership to another congregation" as you worded it, wasn't done in the normal sense of what is done in the case of a transfer of membership. When a transfer is properly done, the person actually holds membership temporariy in both churches solely for the reason that there isn't to be any interruption of that person's membership during the transfer process.

In the case of Linda Shelton, it seems that there was a segment of time when Linda wasn't a member in any church, resulting from her being removed at her request from one church before becoming a member by profession of faith in another church.

As it seems that Linda was being treated unfairly by the other church, and, as they probably wouldn't have transferred her membership, if it had been requested, there was no other choice to do what was done in this instance.

Yes, there was.

"When a person applies for membership on profession of faith and it is found that he/she still is a member of another congregation, no steps should be taken to receive that person into membership until the church holding the membership grants a letter of transfer. If, after the process of transfer is
followed (see p. 52), a church refuses to grant a letter of transfer and the member feels the letter has been unjustly denied, the member may appeal to the conference committee" (p. 51).

What she did wasn't the normal procedure, and that's why the division found it necessary to vindicate her.

Good point, Rosangela, except that I believe the president of that conference was on 3ABN's Board of Directors at that time, as well as one or more other members of 3ABN's Board of Directors, so it is possible that Linda Shelton also didn't think she would have received a fair hearing from them.