- NEXTRECORD -
the DFM communicated with petitioner infrequently while
petitioner served in the foreign field. Petitioner was not
directly supervised or evaluated by anyone.
Respondent emphasizes that the DFM maintained control over
petitioner through its missions manual that dictated the manner
in which petitioner was to conduct his deputational and foreign
ministry. We think that respondent overstates the role of the
missions manual. The missions manual was intended by the DFM to
be an informational reference for missionaries, not a set of
rules controlling their day-to-day conduct.
We recognize that the missions manual contains extensive
information with respect to foreign ministry; however, most of
the manual's provisions provide general information and guidance,
rather than impose requirements on missionaries. To the extent
that the missions manual appears to impose requirements on
missionaries, we are reminded of Mr. Burgess' testimony that the
DFM never intended to enforce the manual's provisions.
In this regard, the DFM's only method of enforcing the
manual's provisions is to withdraw its endorsement of a
missionary. We observe that the withdrawal of a missionary's
endorsement does not prevent the missionary from serving in the
foreign field; rather, it merely precludes the missionary from
using DFM's services. Thus, to a substantial degree, "mandatory"
provisions in the missions manual are toothless. Because the DFM
intended that the missions manual be used only as a guideline,
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011