AA Pastoral Summary Letter September by nikeborome

VIEWS: 243 PAGES: 11

									               Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus
                              1622 Holly Street
                          Austin, Texas 78702-5422
                                512/474-2776
                         E-Mail: avilaccc@texas.net




Thursday October 4, 2007


Dear pastor:

We greet you in the name of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ!

Let this serve as an opportunity to express the honor we have for our beloved
organization the Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus. We esteem our
organization. Our forefathers invested so much to give us this glorious fellowship. We
also respect the element of governance by which our beloved fellowship is led. As the
Apostle Paul writes to the Thessalonians: “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and
edify one another, even as also ye do. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them
which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to
esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among
yourselves.” (I Thessalonians 5:11-13).

The purpose of this letter is to give you a brief summary of the events that have occurred
since the elections that were held on Friday November 24, 2006 in Long Beach,
California. The events are as follows:

Bishop Abel V. Torres (Pastor in Midland, Texas and petitioner of “The Letter of
Demand”) was designated as part of the Electoral Commission by Bishop President
Daniel G. Sánchez to compute and tally the votes as they were being cast. Bishop Torres
wrote a letter to Bishops Baldemar Rodríguez, Daniel Salomón, Juan Fortino, Daniel
Jauhall, Ismael Arellano, Arthur L. Tafoya, Juan Hernández, Julián Aguirre, Jr. and
Alejandro Galarza on March 23, 2007 stating the following: “We, the electoral
commission, counted the votes and then we sent the tabulation sheets with the results
to the Qualifying Board. To our surprise and amazement, when the candidates were
introduced by the President of the Elections, it was shocking to hear the names of
people who had not received enough votes to qualify as candidates. We, the Electoral
Commission members, just looked at each other in amazement as we heard the names
of the candidates called out. We could hardly believe what was going on before our
own eyes. For a moment there, we thought we had entered the wrong auditorium and
that perhaps the results that we had provided the Qualifying Board were being



                                            1
presented in another auditorium altogether.” Bishop Torres concludes his letter saying
the following: “When the so-called elections concluded, I returned to my hotel room
with no desire whatsoever to return to the evening service where the new General
Board was going to be presented. I had a terrible headache as a result of the fiasco I
had just witnessed at the elections. I ask myself the following: Why were the brothers
disqualified? Was it an act of vengeance? I still can‟t understand why President Daniel
Sánchez chose me to be a member of the Electoral Committee if he very well knew that
I would not be afraid to express my opinion if something wasn‟t done right. Now I
absolutely cannot participate in covering up or ignoring the injustice that has been
committed.”

Thereafter, he wrote to Bishop President Sánchez directly on March 25, 2007. In this
letter he wrote: “Today, the Church is at a crossroads. You are the key person who can
help in this matter to help deter the great harm that is about to befall the Church. It is
urgent that you take actions that will avoid this terrible dilemma we are facing. In this
very critical moment, you have the great burden and responsibility to set aside your
personal interests and feelings. At a certain time, Moses went before God to advocate
for the preservation of the life of the people (Numbers 14:11-20). Moses placed his
personal interests to the side when God wanted to destroy the people of Israel and give
him a new people. According to God, the people warranted death. But Moses did not
want another people. He wanted God to forgive Israel. Moses deals personally with
God. If somebody else would have been by his side, perhaps they would have advised
him, “Let God destroy them. They deserve that for being such a rebellious people.” It is
obvious that Moses was more interested in the well being of the people than his own
personal interests.

My brother and friend, Bishop Daniel Sánchez, you are faced with an enormous
decision that will impact and have great repercussion in the Church. In no way do I
pretend to comprehend your situation in totality, but the reality is that you are the
only one that with the direction of God could help resolve this crisis that now threatens
the Lord‟s Church.

At this juncture, my simple opinion is that you would please consider new elections to
solve this most serious situation. I believe with all my heart that if you do that, you
will still be elected President. We need your maturity in that important position. I
believe that will be honorable for you and it will bring healing to the Church and we
will avoid much harm. This will show that the interests of the Church of the LORD are
more important for you than your own.

As a friend, I beg you for the love of God and His work that you will use your power to
preserve the unity of the Church. It does not behoove us to blame the brethren that are
demanding. You well know that they did not originate the dilemma in which we are
now in. Do not permit this to reach the need for litigation in courts. If this does
happen, no matter who wins, we will all lose.

I come to the end of this plea by saying that my desire is that God will bless you and
your appreciative wife. I will be praying that the LORD will show you what you need


                                            2
to do in this very difficult hour. I have the utmost confidence that you will allow the
LORD to guide you.” He was the proverbial “whistle blower” that set in motion the
beginning of many men to participate with their requests.

Bishop Daniel Jauhall (Pastor in Portland, Oregon) wrote a letter (March 3, 2007) to
the Honorable Board of Directors and the Episcopal Body. He based his letter on his
conclusion of election irregularities. He wrote: “For the love of the name of Jesus Christ
and His beloved Church (for it to heal) it requires for Bishop President Daniel Sánchez
and the Bishop Vice-President Samuel Valverde to submit their resignation if they
truly love the work of God. Even the Bishop of Foreign Missions Arturo Espinosa is
also very doubtful.” The Honorable General Board responded they would not proceed
with his letter because he was not present when the elections took place. This indicated
he was not a witness therefore his issue would not be addressed.

Bishop Arthur L. Tafoya (Pastor in Glendale, Arizona) writes a letter (March 16,
2007) to the Honorable Board of Directors and the Episcopal Body the following: “I
humbly request to you as Bishop of the Arizona District and as one of your corporate
assistants to initiate what the Constitution of the Apostolic Assembly states to be done
in a case of this nature. In my humble opinion the Constitution of the Apostolic
Assembly was violated namely Article 5 “The Qualifying Commission”. My request is
thus: The establishment of a “Committee of Honor and Justice” as it pertains to Article
39 to investigate with all of its privileges and responsibilities what I am ascertaining
as fact.” The Honorable General Board responded in a letter (March 21, 2007) by
saying: [The] “Request for the establishment of a Commission of Honor and Justice”.
Our Constitution establishes in article 39, sections III and IV that a Commission of
Honor and Justice be constituted when the Bishop President, a member of the General
Board of Directors, or a Bishop Supervisor has violated the Constitution.” To process
your request we ask that you specify the following: What articles were violated?
Indicate the specific section of the articles that were violated in your opinion. Explain
why and how they were violated. Provide evidence of the presumed violations (proof,
witnesses). When the General Board of Directors receives the above mentioned
information, it will examine the evidence to decide to proceed or not in setting up a
Commission of Honor and Justice as is indicated in sections III and IV of article 39.” .”
It is in this response that they cite him to appear on April 18, 2007 first with the
Honorable General Board and then with the rest of the Episcopal Body.

Subsequently, Bishop Tafoya was present at this special extraordinary meeting before
the Honorable General Board and Episcopal Body Joint Meeting on said date. He
presented the 2006 elections violations as requested to all the Honorable General Board
members to which he was cited to answer personally and with documentation the
responses to their above inquiries. Before adjourning, he requested that he be
permitted to read the document stating the violations to the special session with the
Honorable Board of Directors and Episcopal Body later on that same day and expresses
his desire to settle this dilemma in house with the fear of the Lord of which he was not
permitted. Later on Bishop Tafoya writes to them on July 15, 2007: “On the day of the
extra ordinary Joint Episcopal and Honorable General Board meeting to discuss the
2006 elections (April 18, 2007), I sincerely felt humiliation and was mocked by the


                                            3
Honorable General Board. Power was abused to control what was to be said and
what information was given out to the bishops before a vote was taken. You (general
board) never gave me an opportunity to present the requested 2006 election violations
before the entire joint body present there. Yet, a vote of confidence was taken in that
meeting concerning the 2006 elections.

In this same meeting you granted each Bishop five minutes to speak, I chose to use my
five minutes to pass out the information you (the Honorable General Board) had
requested of me stating the violations of the 2006 elections to each District Supervisor.
I was (publicly) not allowed to disburse my document per the Bishop President and
Bishop Vice-President directive. However, I was informed by both that I could pass
out this information after the meeting was adjourned. I could not believe the unfolding
of events during said meeting in which my voice was silenced.” That set in motion part
four which is...

Bishop Baldemar Rodríguez (Pastor in San Bernardino, California and petitioner of
“The Letter of Demand”) writes a first letter (March 31, 2007) to Bishop President
Sánchez requesting a possible personal intervention per the requests of various bishops
to investigate the election allegations. Bishop President Sánchez did not reply and
Bishop Rodríguez resent the letter (April 4, 2007) this time to the entire Board of
Directors requesting the same participation. The Honorable General Board members
responded in a letter dated April 6, 2007 in which there are eight signatures that his
request violated the Constitution. They also wrote that the “C.I.D.” was a legal
document approved in 2005 by the pastorate and that the Constitution did not allow a
pastor to self-name himself to spearhead a commission to investigate a qualifying
commission. Thereafter, Bishop Rodríguez replied to them all with all due respect
stating that he knows the Constitution and in no way did he want to violate said
document in any manner, shape or form. Furthermore, Bishop Rodríguez tried to find a
practical solution in soliciting the application of Article 23 Clause 1 of the Constitution
to the Honorable General Board whereby an Extraordinary Ministerial Convention
vested with legislative powers be convoked. His letter was answered and signed only by
Bishop President Sánchez and Bishop General Secretary Pacheco denying all his
requests. Bishop Rodríguez wrote a third letter responding to them still requesting to
meet but his third letter was never responded to. They did not afford him the
opportunity to set up a meeting with all parties to clear any doubts that any might have.

Bishop President Daniel G. Sánchez visits with Bishop Daniel Salomón on
December 14, 2006 in the presence of Bishop Vice-President Samuel P. Valverde and
Minister Samuel Orozco, facilitator of the Road Map concept, to apologize for the
outcome of the elections. Thereafter, Bishop President Sánchez met with Bishop Daniel
Salomón privately to once again apologize. Additionally, when Bishop President
Sánchez went to the Road Map Seminar in Denver, Colorado on April 13-14, 2007 he
once again expressed the same thing over again to Bishop Daniel Salomón of his regret
of the outcome of the elections. Bishop President Sánchez also met with another former
member of the Honorable Board of Directors expressing his apologies for the outcome
of the elections. Lastly, on April 24, 2007 Bishop President Sánchez travels to Glendale,



                                             4
Arizona and visits with Bishop Arthur L Tafoya to do the same in the vein of the
previous other personal visits as referenced above.

Bishop Daniel Salomón (Pastor in Denver, Colorado and petitioner of “The Letter of
Demand”) after many attempts cited above to settle the election result differences in
house, generates a call to Attorney Gary E. Parks in Houston, Texas to initiate a “Letter
of Demand” where he, Bishops Baldemar Rodríguez and Abel V. Torres petition the
Honorable Board of Directors for new elections. The “Letter of Demand” dated May 23,
2007 was sent to all the members of the Honorable Board of Directors. Said letter states
the following: “Suffice it to say that there appears to be ample evidence of
irregularities in both the conduct of the voting and the decision-making process that
abrogated the vote that was actually taken in California last year. These actions
appear to be contrary to the constitution of the Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in
Christ Jesus and, as I understand it, may also be contrary to the applicable provisions
governing religious corporations under California law.” Lastly, Counsel Parks writes:
“This is not one in a series of letters but represents the one best chance to see this
matter resolved short of secular involvement in church affairs. Please let me hear
from you, in writing, within ten days of the date of this letter.” The bottom line in this
initial Letter of Demand was for there to be a completely new election.

We received a response letter dated June 4, 2007 from Counsel Matthew L. Motes, the
Apostolic Assembly„s lawyer, requesting an extension which was granted them due to
some logistical challenges. In a letter dated July 9, 2007 Counsel Motes finally responds
and writes the following: “...most recently, the general Board formed a 2006 Election
Commission (the “Commission”). The Commission studied the 2006 elections and
concluded that the 2006 elections were held pursuant to the Apostolic Assembly
Constitution and the C.I. D. governing document. Thus, no constitution violation
occurred and it is not required for the AAFCJ to take any further action. Therefore,
your client‟s demand for a new election is denied.”

Pastor Saúl L. Ávila (Pastor in Austin, Texas) opens a bank account under the
heading of “Elections Legal Defense Trust Fund” in preparation to satisfy the debt that
was incurred as a result of the “Letter of Demand” that was requested to be generated by
Counsel Parks and its possible ramifications. This account was opened in June, 2007.
In the initial “Letter of Demand” the petitioners are named above but there was also a
list of name of former bishops/pastors of our organization that consented for this letter
to go out and find peaceful resolution in house. They were: Bishop Ishmael C. Arellano,
Bishop Daniel Jauhall, Bishop Richard Galavíz, Bishop Isaac H. Cota, Bishop Julián
Aguirre, Jr., Bishop Samuel C. Arellano, Bishop Guillermo M. Mendoza, Bishop Martín
M. Vásquez, Pastor Efraín Andrade, Bishop Hermán Garza and your servant. Attached
please find the “Letter of Solicitation” if you care to contribute to this endeavor.

Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus sends out a letter to all the
pastorate of our fellowship dated June 13, 2007 where they reference for the first time
the possibility of the legal element coming into the corporate picture as a result of the
national elections. It is interesting to note though, that the organization has been sued
legally many times and never once did our Honorable General Board ever acknowledge


                                            5
such litigation to the pastorate. The Apostolic Assembly has won and lost some cases of
which for the most part the majority of pastors are not even aware. Therefore, having
exhausted all possible means at our disposal to resolve this amicably, a lawsuit will be
filed.

Lastly, we request that you continue to pray, fast and seek the LORD as we all want our
beloved fellowship to operate under the directorship of His Spirit and Word. If you have
any questions or comments please feel free to either call or write Bishops Daniel
Salomón, Baldemar Rodríguez, Abel V. Torres or your servant. We are praying for the
well-being of our fellowship to be well served.

“But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy
Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus
Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And
others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by
the flesh. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you
faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our
Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” Jude
20-25

Your appreciative servant,



Saúl L. Ávila
Secretary


SLA/sla

Attachments: “Letter of Solicitation” and letter of Bishop Abel V. Torres to Bishop
President Daniel G. Sánchez.

Contact information of...
Bishop Daniel Salomón             Bishop Baldemar Rodríguez        Bishop Abel V. Torres
2248 South Quail Hollow Road      1328 South Lilac Avenue          1417 Ainslee Street
Byers, Colorado 80103             Bloomington, California 92316    Midland, Texas 79701
303/822-6581                      909/877-3848                     432/352-3958
gensec55@aol.com                  brodrig238@aol.com               atorres111@aol.com




                                            6
              Asamblea Apostólica de la Fe en Cristo Jesús
                                 1622 Holly Street
                             Austin, Texas 78702-5422
                                   512/474-2776
                       Correo Electrónico: avilaccc@texas.net



4 de octubre de 2007

Muy estimados Hnos. Pastores:

¡Paz de Cristo!

El propósito de la presente es con el fin de explicarles atentamente, como ustedes lo
merecen qué lo hagamos, la razón porque se hara una demanda oficial a la Mesa
Calificadora que fungió en las elecciones en la Convención General próxima pasada que
se celebró en Long Beach, California el viernes 24 de noviembre del 2006. Está
absolutamente claro que se cometieron varias violaciones en dichas elecciones. La
demanda se hara después de varios intentos que se hicieron por algunos hermanos para
que se solucionase el grave dilema que hoy está afectando la Asamblea Apostólica, pero
nuestro Hno. Obispo Presidente Daniel Sánchez, los demás miembros de la Mesa
Calificadora en cuestión y los demás miembros de la Mesa Directiva General han
rechazado rotundamente toda súplica que se ha presentado para que se corrijan las
injusticias y violaciones que se han cometido.

Estamos conscientes que al presente existe mucha inquietud entre todo el pastorado de
nuestra organización. Muchos pastores nos han suplicado que demos una información y
explicación completa de lo sucedido y las razones que nos han obligado hacer una
demanda. Se ha ofrecido alguna información del caso a través del internet, pero
comprendemos que muchos pastores no tienen acceso a ese medio de comunicación.
Pedimos disculpas por lo extenso de esta comunicación, pero esperamos que sea útil
para que se pueda apreciar y comprender por qué es necesario ahora que se proceda a
través de una demanda. Una entre algunas de las razones por la demora es que hemos
tratado este grave problema con mucho temor y temblor. Nada hemos hecho con
ligereza. En el transcurso de todo este proceso hemos estado pidiendo a Dios que
nuestro Hno. Obispo Presidente Daniel Sánchez y los demás miembros de la Mesa
directiva reflexionen y recapaciten para que todo se pueda resolver con el más mínimo
daño posible a nuestra amada organización. Lamentablemente, la actitud que
manifiesta nuestro Hno. Obispo Presidente y sus colaboradores en la Honorable Mesa
Directiva es la siguiente: “que se defenderán vigurosamente.” La actitud de ellos
debería ser que agotarán todos los recursos para solucionar todo en una manera
pacífica. Por tal razón, nos estamos dando la tarea y el tiempo para informarles los
detalles que se nos permite legalmente compartir con ustedes por el momento.



                                          7
Todos los hermanos que están tomando parte en la demanda son hombres de Dios que
han servido en la organización por muchos años como miembros de la Honorable Mesa
Directiva, Obispos, Ancianos, Pastores y otros puestos administrativos. Los pasos que
han dado los hermanos los han dado después de mucha oración y lo han hecho con el
temor de Dios. Además, no es la primera vez que se han cuestionado las acciones de un
líder en nuestra organización. Queremos enfatizar que no es anti-Bíblico ni anti-
Constitucional. Al contrario, la demanda se hace a raíz de violaciones que se han hecho a
la Constitución de la Asamblea Apostólica.

La demanda se hará después de haber agotado todos los demás recursos. Cada intento
de los hermanos de resolver esta situación se ha encontrado con rechazo por la
Honorable Mesa Directiva. El Obispo Daniel Jauhall les escribió y lo rechazaron. El
Obispo Baldemar Rodríguez les escribió por súplica de varios hermanos y él en turno
también fue rechazado. El Obispo Arthur L. Tafoya les escribió y los resultados fueron
los mismos. El Obispo Tafoya aún fue citado a una reunión, pero nunca lo dejaron
presentar su queja en la Reunión Conjunta el 18 de april, 2007. El estaba muy bien
preparado para presentar por escrito las violaciones de las elecciones del 2006 a todo el
cuerpo Episcopal ese día como se le había instruido que lo hiciera, pero no se le permitió
que presentara el documento que especificaba las violaciones que se cometieron. Le
habían requerido que preparara todo por escrito y el hermano se tomo el tiempo para
hacerlo, pero no le permitieron presentarlo en la Reunión Conjunta. Se pidió de todas
maneras un voto de confianza a los Obispos presentes con respecto a las elecciones sin
dar oportunidad al Obispo Tafoya que presentara su escrito detallado con relación a las
violaciones. Le dieron solo cinco minutos para hablar y era imposible que el presentara
su caso en dicho tiempo. El Obispo Abel V. Torres también escribió a nuestro Hno.
Obispo Presidente suplicándole que no permitiera que la situación llegase a litigación en
corte porque al ser así todos íbamos a salir perdiendo. A nadie se ha escuchado hasta la
fecha. El Obispo Rodríguez y el Obispo Tafoya varias veces solicitaron que se
estableciese una Comisión de Honor y Justicia para que investigara los resultados de las
elecciones y nunca fueron escuchados. Se les dijo que no era Constitucional. Se ha
seguido el proceso que establece la palabra de Dios en Mateo 18:15-17 que dice: “Por
tanto, si tu hermano peca contra ti, ve y repréndele estando tú y él solos; si te oyere,
has ganado a tu hermano. Más si no te oyere, toma aún contigo a uno o dos, para que
en boca de dos o tres testigos conste toda palabra. Si no los oyere a ellos, dilo a la
iglesia; y si no oyere a la iglesia, tenle por gentil y publicano.”

Existen pruebas contundentes que no fue respetado el voto del pastorado. Fueron
descalificados hermanos que tenían una mayor cantidad de votos para varios puestos.
Dos de los hermanos que fueron descalificados eran miembros de la Mesa Directiva que
terminaban sus funciones en la convención pero podían ser reelectos al mismo puesto o
electos a otro. La Mesa Calificadora, integrada por nuestros Hnos.: Obispo Presidente
Daniel Sánchez, Obispo Vicepresidente Samuel Valverde, Obispo Tesorero Aurelio
Arturo Espinosa, Obispo Felipe Gaxiola, Obispo Celestino Guzmán, los descalificó sin
haber razones justificadas. En lugar de ellos fueron aprobados como candidatos
hermanos que solamente tenían uno o dos votos. De listas de hermanos de 10 o más se
escogían de los últimos hermanos que eran nombrados en las listas. Esto significa que



                                            8
cada vez eran descalificados como seis a ocho hermanos para poder darles el lugar a los
hermanos que la Mesa Calificadora prefería y desea aprobar como candidatos.

Nuestro Hno. Obispo Presidente y otros miembros de la Honorable Mesa Directiva han
explicado que la razón por la cual descalificaron algunos hermanos fue porque aplicaron
en forma rígida el documento “Capacidad, Idoneidad y Derecho.” Es sumamente difícil
creer que hicieron tal cosa porque se ha comprobado que calificaron y aprobaron como
candidato para varios puestos al Obispo Joel M. Montes quien no tenía la propiedad del
templo donde pastorea a nombre de la Asamblea Apostólica. A nuestro Hno. Obispo
Presidente se le hizo entrega de las copias de documentos legales que indican eso.
Nuestro Hno. Obispo Presidente ignoró todo y permitió que calificara como candidato el
Obispo Montes aunque en ese entonces y todavía está violando los acuerdos
Constitucionales. Tales acciones son evidencias de terribles inconsistencias.

Después de las elecciones se ha estado explicando por los miembros de la Mesa
Directiva como es que se aplicó el documento: “Capacidad, Idoneidad y Derecho.” Tales
explicaciones nunca se hicieron antes de las elecciones. Los pastores nunca aprobamos
que se aplicase el documento como ellos lo están haciendo ahora. Explican ahora que el
voto cuenta un 25%, capacidad otro 25%, idoneidad 25% y derecho 25%. Si es así,
entonces el documento tiene más poder que la Constitución. Existe una grande
contradicción pero el mismo documento dice en la Introducción: “A. Los criterios
„capacidad, idoneidad y derecho‟ son las directrices que la Constitución da a toda
Comisión Calificadora para seleccionar y aprobar candidatos para la Mesa Directiva
General y mesas directivas de distrito.” Solo esta parte del documento sirve para
declarar que el documento sale sobrando porque la Constitución ya incluye estos
requisitos pero en ninguna parte se especifica algo con relación a porcentajes. Si el
documento tiene un valor de 75% entonces el voto del pastorado sale sobrando.
Significa que estuvimos perdiendo el tiempo los pastores al estar confiando que nuestro
voto iba a ser tomado en cuenta. Al asignar porcentajes en tal forma, la Mesa
Calificadora se está adjudicando poderes que nunca se le han conferido. En esencia,
cinco personas estuvieron escogiendo los miembros de la Honorable Mesa Directiva. Es
un gran riesgo cuando solo cinco personas están determinando el destino de nuestra
organización.

El Obispo Joel M. Montes quien fue aprobado por la Mesa Calificadora como candidato
no tenía el voto, ni capacidad, ni idoneidad y ni derecho. El hermano recibió solamente
dos votos y aun así lo aprobaron como candidato cinco ocasiones para cinco diferentes
puestos. Todos pudieron ver que obviamente lo estaban tratando de acomodar en la
Honorable Mesa Directiva. No tenía capacidad porque dice la clave D de la sección de
Capacidad: “… (todo puesto de elección, nacional, o distrital es en esencia una
responsabilidad).” Claro está que el candidato no era responsable en el sentido de que
no tenía la propiedad a nombre de la Asamblea Apostólica. La sección de Idoneidad
dice en la Clave D e Inciso 2: “… ¿Podrá obedecer y trabajar en equipo en el máximo
cuerpo de autoridad?” El candidato no obedeció la Constitución. ¿Cómo podrá lograr
que otros lo hagan si él mismo no lo hace? Definitivamente el candidato no tenía




                                           9
derecho porque no cumplió con su deber de poner la propiedad del templo a nombre de
la Asamblea Apostólica. Nuestro Hno. Obispo Presidente estaba consciente de todo esto
porque existen pruebas que él recibió un documento de las copias de documentos
legales que claramente indicaba que la propiedad del candidato no estaba y ni aun está
hasta el día de hoy a nombre de la Asamblea Apostólica. Cuando el nombre del
candidato fue anunciado por el presidente de las elecciones, un Hno. Pastor trató de
presentar su objeción ante la Mesa Calificadora pero nuestro Hno. Obispo
Vicepresidente Samuel Valverde no le dio permiso de entrar. Lo que es muy difícil de
entender es que cuando el candidato aludido quien fue aprobado ilegalmente fue a
presentar su objeción a la candidatura de otro hermano, a él si se le permitió hablar con
la Mesa Calificadora para presentar su objeción. Las violaciones están claras.

El Artículo 39 e Inciso 1 dice: “El Obispo Presidente al ser electo, para ser confirmado
en su puesto, deberá protestar públicamente, a cumplir con todos los ordenamientos
establecidos en la presente Constitución, velando celosamente porque se cumplan
todos sus deberes y se ejerzan todos sus derechos con apego a la justicia, exigiendo de
los demás miembros de la Mesa Directiva General y de los obispos supervisores el
cumplimiento de todas sus obligaciones prescritas.” En este caso faltó la justicia. Si no
se obra con justicia, ¿cómo será posible exigir el cumplimiento a los demás? Tal es el
predicamento de nuestro Hno. Obispo Presidente en función.

Algunos Hnos. han enviado correspondencia a nuestro Hno. Obispo Presidente y otros
se han comunicado personalmente con él suplicándole que se corrijan los errores que se
cometieron, pero todo ha resultado infructuoso. Ellos son los siguientes hermanos: el
Obispo Baldemar Rodríguez, el Obispo Daniel Salomón, el Obispo Daniel Jauhall, el
Obispo Arthur L. Tafoya y el Obispo Abel V. Torres. Toda correspondencia se ha
dirigido con mucho temor y respeto. Los hermanos han hecho todo con honor y respeto
guardando el más alto nivel de ética ministerial. Todo esfuerzo ha sido rechazado y
negado por la Honorable Mesa Directiva. En varias ocasiones se le suplicó a la
Honorable Mesa Directiva que no permitiese que este caso llegase a una corte pero todo
ha sido en vano.

Entendemos por qué la Honorable Mesa Directiva envió una carta a todos los pastores
para informarles de la demanda con respecto a las elecciones de noviembre del 2006.
Es interesante que la Honorable Mesa Directiva haya decidido informar a todos los
pastores solamente de este caso, pero lo que no entendemos es por qué nunca ha
informando a todos los pastores de otras demandas que han recibido. Algunos casos
han perdido y otras han negociado. De todo esto nunca nos han informado. Es
interesante también pensar que están informando a los pastores, buscando apoyo en
ellos cuando precisamente estos son los mismos a quienes ellos ignoraron en nuestra
convención pasada al ignorar totalmente el voto pastoral.

El propósito de esta información es con el fin de aclarar ampliamente a todos los
pastores de todo lo que ha acontecido a partir de la Convención de Elecciones 2006.
Nadie deseábamos que llegase la situación ha este estado pero la Honorable Mesa
Directiva ha resistido todo intento que se ha hecho para resolver esta crisis en forma



                                            10
pacífica. El rechazo de las buenas intenciones y acciones de los hermanos han
ocasionado una situación muy grave en nuestra organización. Es muy lamentable que
ahora tengan que intervenir las autoridades jurídicas. Nuestro argumento desde el
principio ha sido que tenemos suficientes hombres sabios en nuestra organización para
resolver este problema, pero las autoridades de nuestra organización no comparten el
mismo pensamiento y por tal razón nos ha llevado al precipicio en el cual ahora nos
encontramos. Estamos contemplando una hora muy negra en la historia de nuestra
organización. Necesitamos Su intervención y dirección. Todo lo estamos haciendo por
amor a la obra de Dios. Es nuestra responsabilidad. Haríamos mal sí callamos e
ignoramos las violaciones que se han cometido. Sigamos orando para que el Señor nos
ayude. La Iglesia es de Él. Nos despedimos de ustedes con estas palabras del Apóstol
Pablo en Efesios 6:18: “orando en todo tiempo con toda oración y súplica en el Espíritu,
y velando en ello con toda perseverancia y súplica por todos los santos;” y sus palabras
en 2da Tesalonicenses 3:18: “La gracia de nuestro Señor Jesucristo sea con todos
vosotros. Amén.”

Su apreciable servidor,



Saúl L. Ávila
Secretario


SLA/sla

Adjunto: La “Carta de Solicitud” y la carta del Obispo Abel V. Torres al Obispo
Presidente Daniel G. Sánchez.

Información de contacto de...
Obispo Daniel Salomón             Obispo Baldemar Rodríguez        Obispo Abel V. Torres
2248 South Quail Hollow Road      1328 South Lilac Avenue          1417 Ainslee Street
Byers, Colorado 80103             Bloomington, California 92316    Midland, Texas 79701
303/822-6581                      909/877-3848                     432/352-3958
gensec55@aol.com                  brodrig238@aol.com               atorres111@aol.com




                                           11

								
To top