Google

Elder Marlving Charlet and Church Discipline, Part 3

Written on:June 7, 2012
Comments are closed
Elder Marlving Charlet

Elder Marlving Charlet

EnglishFrenchGermanItalianPortugueseRussianSpanish

It has been established in two previous posts to this blog (Elder Marlving Charlet and Church Discipline, Part 1 posted February 2012), and (Elder Marlving Charlet and Church Discipline, Part 2 posted May 2012) that Elder Marlving Charlet plays it plays loose with the Seventh-day Adventist church disciplinary process. Elder Charlet censured Brother A for reasons which many members of Brooklyn Temple Seventh-day Adventist Church are not aware of or don’t understand. Elder Charlet removed Brother B from the church membership although Brother B was not really attending or reporting to the church and had not done so in more than sixteen years. And just when you thought it couldn’t get more bizarre it does.

In February 2012 Elder Charlet brought Brother A back to the church for another disciplinary action. Elder Charlet usually prefaces his disciplinary meetings with a reading from the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual that explains that members that committed a grievous sin should be subject to discipline.

This time the infraction that Brother A committed was that he wrote e-mails to the president of the Northeastern conference of Seventh-day Adventists, the secretary of the same conference, the treasurer of the aforementioned conference, the president of the Atlantic Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, it’s this executive secretary, and its treasurer, the North American Division president, its executive secretary, and its treasurer, and the president and executive officers of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

The email was addressed to Elder Charlet asking him to cease from in any way associating Brother A. This was not the first time that Brother A made this request of Elder Charlet. Elder Charlet it would appear felt that his position as pastor overrode Brother A’s right to only associate with whom he wanted.

Elder Charlet was so bothered by the email that he had the board vote to recommend to the church the censure of Brother A for six months. It is interesting that again no written notice was given to Brother A informing him of the offense or date and time of the meeting. Instead the first elder called Brother A and told him of the recommendation six days before the meeting.

Elder Charlet’s evidence to the church was the reading of the email. He stated that Brother A was starting a cyberwar with that email. Elder Charlet could be addressed as Dr. Charlet and he has no clue as to what a cyberwar is, yet he used the word to remove the rights of a member of his church because he was angry that the higher ups in the organization were send a copy of the email.

By definition cyberwarfare refers to politically motivated hacking to conduct sabotage and espionage. Therefore sending someone an email with copies to their superiors does not constitute a cyberwar or cyberwarfare by any stretch of the imagination.

What’s disturbing about this disciplinary action which Elder Charlet successfully pulled off at the Brooklyn Temple Church of Seventh-day Adventists is that the right of a member to not associate with someone that he doesn’t want to associate with him was violated. Elder Charlet turned the situation around and made it appear that he was the victim. Instead of being embarrassed that a member didn’t want to associate with him, Elder Charlet proceeded to reveal to the church confidential discussion from the nominating committee and the church board to paint Brother A  in the worst possible light. There were no facts just innuendo and supposition.

What is also disturbing is that Elder Charlet met with Elder Larry Bailey, the executive secretary of Northeastern Conference and told him that he was planning the disciplinary action. Elder Bailey should have informed Elder Charlet that the action would violate the policies of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and advised that such an action placed the conference at risk of  a lawsuit for violating a person’s civil rights.

The authority that the General Conference and all of the other organizations below it have is given to it by representatives from around the world at a duly held General Conference session, the last which was held in 2010. Every employee of the General Conference, each division, the Union conferences, each local conference, every church, and  is bound to submit to the decisions of those sessions.

These raises some important questions. Why don’t the members of Brooklyn Temple follow these policies? Is Brooklyn Temple an ochlocracy?

Why doesn’t Elder Charlet follow the polices of the church manual. He is employed by the Seventh-day Adventist church. By allowing the violation of these rules he places the church at risk.

Why doesn’t Elder Trevor H.C. Baker insist that Elder Charlet as well as Brooklyn Temple follow these policies. Northeastern Conference can discipline both Brooklyn Temple and Elder Charlet for violation of these policies.

Why doesn’t the Atlantic Union of Seventh-day Adventists insist that Northeastern Conference hold Brooklyn Temple responsible for violation of these policies? Atlantic Union can discipline Northeastern if it doesn’t enforce the policies of the organization.

And finally why does the General Conference turn a deaf ear to the request to enforce its policies? The General Conference can discipline Atlantic Union for its negligence in enforcing policy.

It would seem that the lowly local church member is the only one that is disciplined, right or wrong.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.