UCG's doctrinal paper on Godly Governance says that man's troubles can be traced to our rejection of God's government and His way over our lives.
What is "God's way"?
In talking about the truth of God, we often refer to it as "the way" or as a "way of life", as the Bible also refers to it (Matthew 22:16, John 14:4-6, Acts 9:1-2, 18:25-26, 19:9, 23, 24:14, 2 Peter 2:21).
What is God's "way" concerning government?
How do you know someone's "way"?
You know someone's "way" by his habits, his actions. You can see what someone's way is by watching what he does. What was Jesus Christ's "way" regarding the Sabbath? His way was to keep the Sabbath. How do we know? We know by His example, by the accounts in the Bible that indicate He observed the Sabbath. "And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read" (Luke 4:16). Jesus's CUSTOM showed us that it was His WAY to keep the Sabbath.
You know someone's way of life by seeing his example. You watch his behavior. You watch how he lives. The way he lives is his way of life. You can see it.
That is why our example is important. We are admonished to live God's way of life so others can see it. Ancient Israel was to be an example to other nations of the earth (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). They will be that example in the millennium (Isaiah 2:3, Zechariah 8:23). We in the Church of God are to be examples for the world to see today (Matthew 5:14-16, John 13:35).
Likewise, just as the world can learn of God's way of life by observing our right example, so we can learn God's way of life more perfectly by looking at God's example. God teaches us by His example as well as by His commands, just as Christ taught by example (John 13:12-17, 1 Peter 2:21). Even Jesus learned from the example of His Father (John 5:19).
We can see if setting up a system of balloting is God's way by looking to the Bible to see what God has done. We can see God's custom regarding governance just as we can see Christ's custom regarding the Sabbath. It is a way of life.
Is it God's way in the Bible to use the balloting of men to choose leaders? If you ask, "what is God's way for choosing leaders and making His choice known?", what do you find in the Bible?
Has God ever used the voting of men to choose a leader? Has He ever given us even one example of that to follow in the Bible? No, not once. Never.
Voting or "balloting" is simply not God's way. You can't find any example of it in the Bible.
Never do you find an account, "...and God said, 'once a year you shall take a vote of the elders among you to elect an elder to govern you, and the man who receives the most votes shall be leader over you, and you shall obey him...' " or anything like that. There is no historical account saying something like, "...and they cast ballots, and so-and-so received 430 votes, and so-and-so received 225 votes, so so-and-so became the leader."
If God wanted us to vote to elect Church leaders, He would have given us instructions, or examples, or both. He never did.
But you fill find plenty of examples of God appointing leaders from the top down and you will find plenty of examples of leaders God appointed also appointing men to offices under them, from the top down.
God appointed Moses (Exodus 3:10-12). Moses in turn appointed leaders under him to help judge the people (Exodus 18:25-26).
God appointed Joshua to be leader after Moses, and God communicated that appointment to Moses who told it to the people (Numbers 27:15-23, Deuteronomy 1:37-38, 3:26-28, 31:1-4, 14-15, 34:9). God did not take a vote of the people to determine the leader.
God appointed Samuel to be a prophet (1 Samuel 3:1-21). Samuel was not elected by a vote of the people, nor was he elected by a vote of a council or board of 12 men who themselves were elected by the people or by the judges or elders. He was appointed by God.
God first appointed Saul to be king over Israel (1 Samuel 9:15-17, 10:11, 24). Later, Saul proved himself to be unfaithful (1 Samuel 13:8-14, 15:1-11), and God rejected him and chose David, whom God appointed to replace Saul as king (1 Samuel 15:26-29, 16:1, 6-13). Saul did not lose his office because he lost a national election to king David.
Appointment from above is GOD'S WAY. It is the WAY He does things. It is the WAY He shows us through countless examples in the Bible.
It was God who appointed Jeremiah as a prophet. "Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations' " (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Jeremiah was not voted into office by the priests, the elders, the judges, or the people of Israel. It was not government from the bottom up, ballot box governance as United Church of God practices. It was government by appointment from above, government from the top down.
Likewise God appointed Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:1-5) and the other prophets. None were elected by the voting of the people.
God appointed the twelve apostles through Jesus Christ. "And He went up on the mountain and called to Him those He Himself wanted. And they came to Him. Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons: Simon, to whom He gave the name Peter; James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, 'Sons of Thunder'; Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananite; and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him" (Mark 3:13-19). Jesus himself was appointed by God, not elected by the apostles, and Jesus in turn appointed the apostles (John 15:16).
Christ likewise appointed Saul to be an apostle and changed his name to Paul (Acts 9:10-16). Saul did not run for election. He was not voted into office by the Church. He would have been the last choice of the Church because he persecuted the Church. Paul in turn had evangelists under him and commanded them to APPOINT elders and gave them the authority to choose men and gave them the criteria by which they should choose them (Titus 1:1-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-7).
It is God who places Church members into offices in the Church by APPOINTMENT, not elections. It is God who does the appointing (1 Corinthians 12:28).
There is not a single example of God putting men into office by the casting of ballots, nor is there any example of God giving instructions in how to set up a system of balloting to choose leaders in the entire Bible. But there are many examples of God ruling through appointment of leaders from the top down.
But the United Church of God doctrinal paper on "Godly Governance" neglects to mention that. It does not point out that there is not a single example in the entire Bible of God using a system of voting to govern his people. Instead, it says that God uses a variety of governance structures. It fails to mention that this variety never includes balloting.
UCG's doctrinal paper on Godly Governance says that humanity's troubles can be traced back to its rejection of God's way. If ballot-box governance is not God's way in Bible, and if troubles result when we reject God's way and choose our own way rather than God's way, why has UCG chosen that which is not God's way? According to their own statement, they are asking for troubles for themselves, and indeed recent history shows that their ballot-box governance has become a source of trouble for them.
Balloting by those under authority to choose their leaders is not God's way. God's way is to appoint leaders and delegate to those leaders the authority to appoint others under them. That is the clear teaching of the Bible from beginning to end.
Democracy, voting, ballot-box governance, whatever you call it, is man's way, not God's.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
Sunday, November 7, 2010
New Review of Fasting Paper
UCG Current Crisis blog has announced and made available two papers reviewing the recent paper on fasting that UCG has published. Here is a link to the UCG Current Crisis blog from which you may download those reviews in .pdf format:
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/5267324-fasting-paper-analysis
These papers help to explain why some UCG ministers have been concerned about the paper on fasting, and point out alleged errors in that paper. It was apparently because of criticism of that paper and the Sabbath paper on the part of Larry Salyer that led to his removal.
If the information presented in these review papers is accurate, it does indeed seem that the paper on fasting contains serious errors. The Sabbath paper contained errors, so this should not be surprising. Yet ministers are removed or threatened with removal for disagreeing with them and for speaking out against the Sabbath and fasting papers. When a minister is asked questions from members of his congregation about these papers, if there are errors in these papers, what does the Council majority want the minister to do? Refuse to answer questions? Lie and pretend that the papers are correct? Or tell the truth and be fired?
It may be that the Council majority prefers the last one. Speak out and be fired. A minister who is gone will not be able to vote against current Council members or their agenda.
Yet what cause has the UCG ministry for complaint? They have supported and endorsed ballot-box governance for years. The Council of Elders, the chairman Melvin Rhodes, and the president Dennis Luker were selected through ballot-box governance. The current UCG administration is the product of that structure of governance. It is what the ministry voted for, and now they have what they have chosen. So why complain? If they believe in ballot-box governance, then why not be happy with the result?
I have been reviewing UCG's doctrinal paper on Godly Governance. It states that when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, quoting Proverbs 29:2. In fact, it quotes or references Proverbs 20:2 several times. Here is the whole verse "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan" (Proverbs 29:2).
Are the members and ministers in United Church of God rejoicing today because of their leadership, or are they groaning? If the ministers are groaning, is it because they are unhappy with the leaders they have chosen by their votes?
Who chose the leaders in power in UCG today, God by appointment from the top down, or man by balloting from the bottom up?
Some will no doubt point out that they people can groan under the rule of men who rule from the top down, and that is true. But at least admit that choosing leaders by balloting has not prevented the kinds of problems it was hoped that form of selection would prevent.
You need right leaders and right governance structure, both, to have wise and righteous leadership.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/5267324-fasting-paper-analysis
These papers help to explain why some UCG ministers have been concerned about the paper on fasting, and point out alleged errors in that paper. It was apparently because of criticism of that paper and the Sabbath paper on the part of Larry Salyer that led to his removal.
If the information presented in these review papers is accurate, it does indeed seem that the paper on fasting contains serious errors. The Sabbath paper contained errors, so this should not be surprising. Yet ministers are removed or threatened with removal for disagreeing with them and for speaking out against the Sabbath and fasting papers. When a minister is asked questions from members of his congregation about these papers, if there are errors in these papers, what does the Council majority want the minister to do? Refuse to answer questions? Lie and pretend that the papers are correct? Or tell the truth and be fired?
It may be that the Council majority prefers the last one. Speak out and be fired. A minister who is gone will not be able to vote against current Council members or their agenda.
Yet what cause has the UCG ministry for complaint? They have supported and endorsed ballot-box governance for years. The Council of Elders, the chairman Melvin Rhodes, and the president Dennis Luker were selected through ballot-box governance. The current UCG administration is the product of that structure of governance. It is what the ministry voted for, and now they have what they have chosen. So why complain? If they believe in ballot-box governance, then why not be happy with the result?
I have been reviewing UCG's doctrinal paper on Godly Governance. It states that when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, quoting Proverbs 29:2. In fact, it quotes or references Proverbs 20:2 several times. Here is the whole verse "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan" (Proverbs 29:2).
Are the members and ministers in United Church of God rejoicing today because of their leadership, or are they groaning? If the ministers are groaning, is it because they are unhappy with the leaders they have chosen by their votes?
Who chose the leaders in power in UCG today, God by appointment from the top down, or man by balloting from the bottom up?
Some will no doubt point out that they people can groan under the rule of men who rule from the top down, and that is true. But at least admit that choosing leaders by balloting has not prevented the kinds of problems it was hoped that form of selection would prevent.
You need right leaders and right governance structure, both, to have wise and righteous leadership.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
UCG Doctrinal Paper on Godly Governance
Defenders of United Church of God's ballot-box governance sometimes refer to a doctrinal paper entitled "Godly Governance" that explores the issue of governance in the Bible as it may relate to the Church of God. Links to the webpage that lists this paper and a direct link to the pdf file that contains the paper are below:
UCG webpage that lists study papers:
http://members.ucg.org/content/study-papers
UCG link to "Godly Governance" doctrinal paper (.pdf file):
http://members.ucg.org/papers/governance.pdf
The first thing I noticed about this paper is the date, March 2001. United Church of God was organized with governance by balloting in 1995. The decision to base UCG's governance on the balloting of the ministry predates this doctrinal study by six years. That means the decision was made first, then the study. This seems to indicate that the paper was written, not to explore what the Bible teaches with an open mind, but to justify a decision already made. How can it be objective under such circumstances? Rather than a study of Bible teaching to determine how UCG should be organized, it seems to be an after-the-fact justification for UCG governance by balloting.
How could it be otherwise? Are not UCG ministers and employees told they have an obligation to support UCG and its form of governance? And if so, how could anyone in UCG write a paper to be published by UCG that is critical of that form of governance?
The unwillingness of UCG to even discuss whether they should continue to be governed by the balloting of the ministry is evidence I think of a fanatical commitment to that structure of governance that would make it impossible for any employee, including the authors of this doctrinal paper, to make and publish an impartial study of this issue in the Bible. If the Bible does teach against governance by ballot, and if any employee did an honest and unbiased study on it, I think that employee would be in danger of being accused of rebellion and losing his job. Most likely, individuals were chosen to write this paper who themselves were so committed to ballot-box governance that there was no chance they would write any other conclusions than that there is nothing against ballot-box governance in the Bible.
The paper puts emphasis on the righteousness of the leaders of the Church, then tries to frame the issue as a choice of which one is important, the structure of governance or the righteousness of the leadership, as if it must be only one or the other, not both. It says that only character matters, structure of government does not matter. In doing this, it uses character as a smokescreen to obscure the issue of the structure of governance.
This paper was not written to teach character. There are many articles published by UCG that teach attributes of right character from the Bible. This paper was written to cover the issue of the structure of governance. It was written because many people in the Church of God outside of UCG have challenged UCG's structure of governance. This paper was written to defend UCG's ballot-box governance. It does this, not by showing from the Bible that balloting is God's way (because it can't) but by trying to say that it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is character.
Fifteen years ago, UCG ministers made a decision about structure. In that decision, they overturned Herbert W. Armstrong's doctrine and judgment on government in the Church. Was it the right decision? How should a decision like that be made? Does the Bible give any instruction relating to that decision? What does the Bible teach about structure? What is God's will concerning structure? This paper is about, and must be about, the decision concerning structure. That is the purpose of this paper. Other COG groups do not have doctrinal papers like this. It is not necessary. Only with UCG is government structure controversial.
No one argues that leaders should not be righteous. That is not the issue. The whole issue is, what structure of governance (top-down or by balloting) does God want in His Church? Anything else is a smokescreen.
At one point the paper asks if the structure of governance is the key to right government. But that is a false question. To have right governance, you need more than one "key". The leaders must be righteous. But you must also have the structure of governance God wants. We must look to the Bible to learn that.
If there is one key, that key is simply to believe and obey God's word, the Bible. The Bible gives all the necessary principles of right governance, including such character traits as love, patience, respect for authority, obedience to God's commands, etc., but also, the Bible also gives us the pattern of right administrative structure, and it is not balloting. The fact that the paper asks if the structure of governance is THE key shows the bias of the paper, that its purpose is to justify a decision already made, not to find the truth. Because if the issue is framed that way, of course the answer is no. Structure is obviously not THE key in the sense that it is the only thing necessary. You can have bad government even with the right structure. But you cannot have right government without right structure.
Throughout the paper there seems to be a very selective choosing and interpreting of Bible examples of governance designed to make the point that God does not teach an exact form of structure but uses a variety of structures, so structure does not matter. Yet there is not a single example in the Bible of God using the voting of men to make His will known.
The paper makes a point that no structure of government will solve the problems in the Church. Of course it won't. Neither will keeping the Sabbath solve problems in the Church, or honoring our parents, or preaching the gospel to the world. But those things should be done, and we need to have the right structure of government or the problems in the Church will eventually become unsolvable.
We must follow God's way in everything. Having a godly organizational structure is a step in the right direction, and along with other parts of God's law will enable us to work together to serve God effectively in peace. But with the wrong structure, that becomes impossible.
This doctrinal paper emphasizes the importance of character in those who hold office in God's Church. No one in the Church disagrees with that. The paper lists the qualifications for an elder in the Church that the Bible gives.
But here is a key point the paper does not mention. We can all agree on the qualifications, from the Bible, for elders and leaders in the Church. But the question then arises, who makes the judgment call to apply those qualifications to choose particular individuals to hold particular offices? Who decides, this man fits the qualifications, this man does not, this man will hold this office, this one will hold that office? That is a judgment call, but who makes that call? That is where the structure of governance comes in. With top-down governance, the decision is made from the top, from those higher than the office being filled. With ballot-box governance, the decision is made by the voting of those holding a lesser office.
The paper likes to say that there is a variety of structures. But there are really only two types. Within each type, details may vary, but there are only two types: 1) top-down or, 2) bottom-up (voting). Either the authority flows from the top down through appointment, or the authority flows from the bottom up through voting. Any structure will be a variation of one of those two forms.
And while there are many examples of God using top-down structure to govern His people, there is not one example in the Bible of God using a balloting structure to govern His people.
Many people want to see a clear-cut command in the Bible that says, "Thou shalt not ballot", or they will say that the Bible does not teach against it. But the greatest commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37) requires that we look for more than exact do's and don'ts that God commands us, but also that we search the Bible to know God's will, and when we do that, we look at examples also to see how God thinks, to see what His way is, not just what He commands. We seek His will because we want to please Him. We seek to please Him because we are committed to loving Him with all our being. So in exploring the issue of governance in the Bible, we should look at the examples God gives us and ask, what structure of governance is most pleasing to God? What form of governance is "God's way"? This, the paper does not do.
Seeking God's will, not just what He commands, is also a character trait. A mind that has right character will have love and faith and trust towards God that is willing to believe what the Bible teaches about administrative structure and organization and is willing to live by every word of the Bible and to admit mistakes, including the mistake UCG made 15 years ago to build an organization based on the authority of the ballot box. When we were baptized, we made a commitment to surrender our lives 100% to God, to hold nothing back, to seek His will and His way in EVERY decision we make, including decisions about organizational structure.
There are those who go as far as they can according to their own will, staying just slightly in bounds of what God absolutely commands, and there are those who seek God's WILL, not just the bare minimum of what He explicitly commands, but they search the scriptures to know how He thinks, to seek not just His commands but His will, to do it.
We are to live by every word of God, and we are to seek God's will in EVERY important decision, including the decisions about form of governance. And we seek God's will by learning how God thinks from the commands, instructions, and EXAMPLES in the Bible. God NEVER set up a system of ballot-box governance in the Bible, so how can anyone think that is God's will now?
In my opinion, this doctrinal paper is wrong and misleading in the extreme.
In future posts, I will explore some particular issues raised by this paper.
If a Church of God organization is in submission to Christ, though small details of organizational form and structure may vary, the basic principle of the flow of authority from top to bottom will not change. If authority is by the ballot box, we are not fully submitting to Christ and Christ cannot fully lead the organization because the organization is not submitting to Him. This hurts the spiritual growth of the members and impedes the work of the organization. Christ will still work with individuals to correct them and bring them to salvation, but we have our part to respond to Christ's correction and instruction. God instructs us through the Bible and God corrects us through the Bible, through circumstances, and through trials. And if we refuse to submit to Christ in our organizational structure, Christ will correct us with the Bible first, and if we refuse to believe the Bible, with trials. The current trials in UCG, the divisiveness that is occurring, is probably such a correction. Christ is allowing these to teach the painful lesson that governance by balloting in the Church of God is not biblical and does not have His approval.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
How to Understand the Bible, Chapter 1
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
UCG webpage that lists study papers:
http://members.ucg.org/content/study-papers
UCG link to "Godly Governance" doctrinal paper (.pdf file):
http://members.ucg.org/papers/governance.pdf
The first thing I noticed about this paper is the date, March 2001. United Church of God was organized with governance by balloting in 1995. The decision to base UCG's governance on the balloting of the ministry predates this doctrinal study by six years. That means the decision was made first, then the study. This seems to indicate that the paper was written, not to explore what the Bible teaches with an open mind, but to justify a decision already made. How can it be objective under such circumstances? Rather than a study of Bible teaching to determine how UCG should be organized, it seems to be an after-the-fact justification for UCG governance by balloting.
How could it be otherwise? Are not UCG ministers and employees told they have an obligation to support UCG and its form of governance? And if so, how could anyone in UCG write a paper to be published by UCG that is critical of that form of governance?
The unwillingness of UCG to even discuss whether they should continue to be governed by the balloting of the ministry is evidence I think of a fanatical commitment to that structure of governance that would make it impossible for any employee, including the authors of this doctrinal paper, to make and publish an impartial study of this issue in the Bible. If the Bible does teach against governance by ballot, and if any employee did an honest and unbiased study on it, I think that employee would be in danger of being accused of rebellion and losing his job. Most likely, individuals were chosen to write this paper who themselves were so committed to ballot-box governance that there was no chance they would write any other conclusions than that there is nothing against ballot-box governance in the Bible.
The paper puts emphasis on the righteousness of the leaders of the Church, then tries to frame the issue as a choice of which one is important, the structure of governance or the righteousness of the leadership, as if it must be only one or the other, not both. It says that only character matters, structure of government does not matter. In doing this, it uses character as a smokescreen to obscure the issue of the structure of governance.
This paper was not written to teach character. There are many articles published by UCG that teach attributes of right character from the Bible. This paper was written to cover the issue of the structure of governance. It was written because many people in the Church of God outside of UCG have challenged UCG's structure of governance. This paper was written to defend UCG's ballot-box governance. It does this, not by showing from the Bible that balloting is God's way (because it can't) but by trying to say that it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is character.
Fifteen years ago, UCG ministers made a decision about structure. In that decision, they overturned Herbert W. Armstrong's doctrine and judgment on government in the Church. Was it the right decision? How should a decision like that be made? Does the Bible give any instruction relating to that decision? What does the Bible teach about structure? What is God's will concerning structure? This paper is about, and must be about, the decision concerning structure. That is the purpose of this paper. Other COG groups do not have doctrinal papers like this. It is not necessary. Only with UCG is government structure controversial.
No one argues that leaders should not be righteous. That is not the issue. The whole issue is, what structure of governance (top-down or by balloting) does God want in His Church? Anything else is a smokescreen.
At one point the paper asks if the structure of governance is the key to right government. But that is a false question. To have right governance, you need more than one "key". The leaders must be righteous. But you must also have the structure of governance God wants. We must look to the Bible to learn that.
If there is one key, that key is simply to believe and obey God's word, the Bible. The Bible gives all the necessary principles of right governance, including such character traits as love, patience, respect for authority, obedience to God's commands, etc., but also, the Bible also gives us the pattern of right administrative structure, and it is not balloting. The fact that the paper asks if the structure of governance is THE key shows the bias of the paper, that its purpose is to justify a decision already made, not to find the truth. Because if the issue is framed that way, of course the answer is no. Structure is obviously not THE key in the sense that it is the only thing necessary. You can have bad government even with the right structure. But you cannot have right government without right structure.
Throughout the paper there seems to be a very selective choosing and interpreting of Bible examples of governance designed to make the point that God does not teach an exact form of structure but uses a variety of structures, so structure does not matter. Yet there is not a single example in the Bible of God using the voting of men to make His will known.
The paper makes a point that no structure of government will solve the problems in the Church. Of course it won't. Neither will keeping the Sabbath solve problems in the Church, or honoring our parents, or preaching the gospel to the world. But those things should be done, and we need to have the right structure of government or the problems in the Church will eventually become unsolvable.
We must follow God's way in everything. Having a godly organizational structure is a step in the right direction, and along with other parts of God's law will enable us to work together to serve God effectively in peace. But with the wrong structure, that becomes impossible.
This doctrinal paper emphasizes the importance of character in those who hold office in God's Church. No one in the Church disagrees with that. The paper lists the qualifications for an elder in the Church that the Bible gives.
But here is a key point the paper does not mention. We can all agree on the qualifications, from the Bible, for elders and leaders in the Church. But the question then arises, who makes the judgment call to apply those qualifications to choose particular individuals to hold particular offices? Who decides, this man fits the qualifications, this man does not, this man will hold this office, this one will hold that office? That is a judgment call, but who makes that call? That is where the structure of governance comes in. With top-down governance, the decision is made from the top, from those higher than the office being filled. With ballot-box governance, the decision is made by the voting of those holding a lesser office.
The paper likes to say that there is a variety of structures. But there are really only two types. Within each type, details may vary, but there are only two types: 1) top-down or, 2) bottom-up (voting). Either the authority flows from the top down through appointment, or the authority flows from the bottom up through voting. Any structure will be a variation of one of those two forms.
And while there are many examples of God using top-down structure to govern His people, there is not one example in the Bible of God using a balloting structure to govern His people.
Many people want to see a clear-cut command in the Bible that says, "Thou shalt not ballot", or they will say that the Bible does not teach against it. But the greatest commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37) requires that we look for more than exact do's and don'ts that God commands us, but also that we search the Bible to know God's will, and when we do that, we look at examples also to see how God thinks, to see what His way is, not just what He commands. We seek His will because we want to please Him. We seek to please Him because we are committed to loving Him with all our being. So in exploring the issue of governance in the Bible, we should look at the examples God gives us and ask, what structure of governance is most pleasing to God? What form of governance is "God's way"? This, the paper does not do.
Seeking God's will, not just what He commands, is also a character trait. A mind that has right character will have love and faith and trust towards God that is willing to believe what the Bible teaches about administrative structure and organization and is willing to live by every word of the Bible and to admit mistakes, including the mistake UCG made 15 years ago to build an organization based on the authority of the ballot box. When we were baptized, we made a commitment to surrender our lives 100% to God, to hold nothing back, to seek His will and His way in EVERY decision we make, including decisions about organizational structure.
There are those who go as far as they can according to their own will, staying just slightly in bounds of what God absolutely commands, and there are those who seek God's WILL, not just the bare minimum of what He explicitly commands, but they search the scriptures to know how He thinks, to seek not just His commands but His will, to do it.
We are to live by every word of God, and we are to seek God's will in EVERY important decision, including the decisions about form of governance. And we seek God's will by learning how God thinks from the commands, instructions, and EXAMPLES in the Bible. God NEVER set up a system of ballot-box governance in the Bible, so how can anyone think that is God's will now?
In my opinion, this doctrinal paper is wrong and misleading in the extreme.
In future posts, I will explore some particular issues raised by this paper.
If a Church of God organization is in submission to Christ, though small details of organizational form and structure may vary, the basic principle of the flow of authority from top to bottom will not change. If authority is by the ballot box, we are not fully submitting to Christ and Christ cannot fully lead the organization because the organization is not submitting to Him. This hurts the spiritual growth of the members and impedes the work of the organization. Christ will still work with individuals to correct them and bring them to salvation, but we have our part to respond to Christ's correction and instruction. God instructs us through the Bible and God corrects us through the Bible, through circumstances, and through trials. And if we refuse to submit to Christ in our organizational structure, Christ will correct us with the Bible first, and if we refuse to believe the Bible, with trials. The current trials in UCG, the divisiveness that is occurring, is probably such a correction. Christ is allowing these to teach the painful lesson that governance by balloting in the Church of God is not biblical and does not have His approval.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
How to Understand the Bible, Chapter 1
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Responsible Use of New Knowledge
Many pastors and ministers are familiar with the problem of members who believe they have discovered new truth in the Bible, knowledge that the Church does not have, knowledge that contradicts what the ministry is teaching, and who then try to promote their new ideas among the membership, contradicting the ministry and the teaching of the Church. Some Church of God leaders react against that by going to an opposite extreme, teaching that God never reveals new knowledge through the Bible to lay members, but only through the top leaders of the Church.
God can indeed sometimes help a member or minister understand Bible truth on a subject better than the top leaders in a Church of God organization or fellowship. God can reveal new knowledge to a lay member by opening that member's mind to understand the Bible teaching on that subject. The proof of this is that God did exactly that with Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong when he was a newly baptized lay member attending with the Church of God (Seventh Day). God helped Mr. Armstrong learn the identity of the lost tribes of Israel, and God helped Mr. Armstrong understand the Bible teaching about the Church's obligation to observe God's annual feasts and holy days. This happened before Mr. Armstrong was ordained, shortly after he was baptized, and he submitted these suggestions to Church of God (Seventh Day) leadership, but the leadership rejected that new knowledge without refuting it from the Bible.
But if God reveals new knowledge to a member, that member has a responsibility to handle that knowledge in a godly way.
There is a right way and a wrong way to handle new doctrinal knowledge.
God is testing us. This physical life is the opportunity for God to teach us lessons we will use for all eternity, and it is our opportunity to learn those lessons. God is also testing us to see if we will live the way He wants us to live in His kingdom, or not.
Sometimes God tests us by giving us a gift or an opportunity or a blessing and then watching to see how we handle it. We tend to focus on trials as tests of our faithfulness to God and His way of life. But blessings can be a test too.
A principle of understanding the Bible that I often emphasize is having a willingness to believe and obey what God says. God may open our minds to understand a point of Bible truth. If we believe God, God will help us to understand more. But if we disbelieve God, God might no longer help us to understand. This process often is what separates those who are called from those who are not called, and also those who respond to God's call and those who reject it. The world cannot understand the Bible because they do not believe what God says. And if we in the Church cease to believe what God says, God can take away the knowledge He has given us.
There is another principle of how to understand the Bible. When God gives us understanding of something that others do not have, we have a responsibility to use that knowledge lawfully.
Suppose you have a young son, and he asks for a bicycle. You carefully explain to him his responsibility to use the bicycle properly, to take care of it, to follow your rules about where he can go with it and when. He agrees. Then you give him the bicycle. Now if he breaks your rules, rides the bike to places you don't want him to go, doesn't properly take care of the bike, he is not showing that he is using the gift responsibly. Then when he is older and asks for a car, are you more or less likely to trust him with a car when you remember how he acted irresponsibly with the bike? But if he obeyed you with the bike, he will probably obey your rules with the car (Luke 16:10).
Likewise if you give your child a hamster and he or she abuses it and doesn't take care of it, would you then want to give your child a dog?
Likewise, if God should bless a member with new knowledge from the Bible, God wants to see if that member handles it lawfully, responsibly.
One point I stress in my book, and that is that because God has given the Church knowledge of the tribulation to come, we have an obligation to share that knowledge with the world by giving a warning, just as we would want to be warned. That is one way to use knowledge responsibly.
But there are other points.
In the Church we are not to cause division. We are to all speak the same thing as much as possible (1 Corinthians 1:10). We are to respect the ministry and understand that God has given them the job of teaching the membership (Hebrews 13:17, Hebrews 13:7, 1 Corinthians 12:28). This means that if God helps me understand a point of doctrine that the Church does not have, I should not go around promoting it and discussing it with other members. I can take it to the ministry or the leadership for evaluation, and if I am right, they can publish it for the whole Church, but if I am wrong they can show me my error. And if after discussing it, we still do not agree, I can put it on the shelf and wait for Christ to show who is right, and in the meantime not try to usurp the authority of the ministry by teaching it to brethren contrary to the official teachings of the Church.
Also, when God helps us understand something, we should resist the temptation to be puffed up in our minds with vanity or pride about it (1 Corinthians 8:1-3). It is a gift, perhaps to encourage us in time of trial, perhaps to test us. It does not mean we are righteous. But if God gives us that gift, we better handle it responsibly. If it is a test, and we fail the test, is it likely God will help us understand more?
If God helps me understand a point of truth from the Bible, if I use that understanding to create division, will God be pleased with that? If I use it unlawfully, am I passing the test? If I let myself become vain and proud because I learned something new, is God likely to reveal more new knowledge to me, more truth, or is He likely to reveal less? If I think I am more righteous than others because I have understanding, I think that pride and vanity could harm my character so that in the long run I might lose the knowledge I previously had.
The history of the Church of God is full of examples of people who took themselves out of the Church and God's truth because they did not handle knowledge responsibly.
So a key to understanding the Bible is, use what we learn lawfully and responsibly. Then God can give us more.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
How to Understand the Bible, Chapter 1
Changing Doctrine, Chapter 6
The Inconsistencies of Saying We Can't Change Herbert W. Armstrong's Doctrine, Chapter 6
Were Mr. Armstrong's Teachings Infallibly Correct at his Death?, Chapter 6
God can indeed sometimes help a member or minister understand Bible truth on a subject better than the top leaders in a Church of God organization or fellowship. God can reveal new knowledge to a lay member by opening that member's mind to understand the Bible teaching on that subject. The proof of this is that God did exactly that with Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong when he was a newly baptized lay member attending with the Church of God (Seventh Day). God helped Mr. Armstrong learn the identity of the lost tribes of Israel, and God helped Mr. Armstrong understand the Bible teaching about the Church's obligation to observe God's annual feasts and holy days. This happened before Mr. Armstrong was ordained, shortly after he was baptized, and he submitted these suggestions to Church of God (Seventh Day) leadership, but the leadership rejected that new knowledge without refuting it from the Bible.
But if God reveals new knowledge to a member, that member has a responsibility to handle that knowledge in a godly way.
There is a right way and a wrong way to handle new doctrinal knowledge.
God is testing us. This physical life is the opportunity for God to teach us lessons we will use for all eternity, and it is our opportunity to learn those lessons. God is also testing us to see if we will live the way He wants us to live in His kingdom, or not.
Sometimes God tests us by giving us a gift or an opportunity or a blessing and then watching to see how we handle it. We tend to focus on trials as tests of our faithfulness to God and His way of life. But blessings can be a test too.
A principle of understanding the Bible that I often emphasize is having a willingness to believe and obey what God says. God may open our minds to understand a point of Bible truth. If we believe God, God will help us to understand more. But if we disbelieve God, God might no longer help us to understand. This process often is what separates those who are called from those who are not called, and also those who respond to God's call and those who reject it. The world cannot understand the Bible because they do not believe what God says. And if we in the Church cease to believe what God says, God can take away the knowledge He has given us.
There is another principle of how to understand the Bible. When God gives us understanding of something that others do not have, we have a responsibility to use that knowledge lawfully.
Suppose you have a young son, and he asks for a bicycle. You carefully explain to him his responsibility to use the bicycle properly, to take care of it, to follow your rules about where he can go with it and when. He agrees. Then you give him the bicycle. Now if he breaks your rules, rides the bike to places you don't want him to go, doesn't properly take care of the bike, he is not showing that he is using the gift responsibly. Then when he is older and asks for a car, are you more or less likely to trust him with a car when you remember how he acted irresponsibly with the bike? But if he obeyed you with the bike, he will probably obey your rules with the car (Luke 16:10).
Likewise if you give your child a hamster and he or she abuses it and doesn't take care of it, would you then want to give your child a dog?
Likewise, if God should bless a member with new knowledge from the Bible, God wants to see if that member handles it lawfully, responsibly.
One point I stress in my book, and that is that because God has given the Church knowledge of the tribulation to come, we have an obligation to share that knowledge with the world by giving a warning, just as we would want to be warned. That is one way to use knowledge responsibly.
But there are other points.
In the Church we are not to cause division. We are to all speak the same thing as much as possible (1 Corinthians 1:10). We are to respect the ministry and understand that God has given them the job of teaching the membership (Hebrews 13:17, Hebrews 13:7, 1 Corinthians 12:28). This means that if God helps me understand a point of doctrine that the Church does not have, I should not go around promoting it and discussing it with other members. I can take it to the ministry or the leadership for evaluation, and if I am right, they can publish it for the whole Church, but if I am wrong they can show me my error. And if after discussing it, we still do not agree, I can put it on the shelf and wait for Christ to show who is right, and in the meantime not try to usurp the authority of the ministry by teaching it to brethren contrary to the official teachings of the Church.
Also, when God helps us understand something, we should resist the temptation to be puffed up in our minds with vanity or pride about it (1 Corinthians 8:1-3). It is a gift, perhaps to encourage us in time of trial, perhaps to test us. It does not mean we are righteous. But if God gives us that gift, we better handle it responsibly. If it is a test, and we fail the test, is it likely God will help us understand more?
If God helps me understand a point of truth from the Bible, if I use that understanding to create division, will God be pleased with that? If I use it unlawfully, am I passing the test? If I let myself become vain and proud because I learned something new, is God likely to reveal more new knowledge to me, more truth, or is He likely to reveal less? If I think I am more righteous than others because I have understanding, I think that pride and vanity could harm my character so that in the long run I might lose the knowledge I previously had.
The history of the Church of God is full of examples of people who took themselves out of the Church and God's truth because they did not handle knowledge responsibly.
So a key to understanding the Bible is, use what we learn lawfully and responsibly. Then God can give us more.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
How to Understand the Bible, Chapter 1
Changing Doctrine, Chapter 6
The Inconsistencies of Saying We Can't Change Herbert W. Armstrong's Doctrine, Chapter 6
Were Mr. Armstrong's Teachings Infallibly Correct at his Death?, Chapter 6
Doctrinal Changes Should Be Proved
Anyone who has read my book knows (if anyone has read my book) that I teach that Herbert W. Armstrong's doctrines can be changed if there is proof from the Bible that that they need to be changed. But changes should be proved from the Bible. Doctrines, judgments, and major policies related to doctrine should not be changed without a thorough explanation, from the Bible as much as possible, made available to the whole Church of God. It is wrong and creates confusion to tell Church members to practice things and to participate in things that they were previously taught by the Church and by Mr. Armstrong to be wrong, unless you give those members the information from the Bible they need to be able to see for themselves that the previous teaching was in error. To say to members, in effect, "We taught you for years from the Bible that such-and-such is wrong and a sin, but now we want you to do it anyway" can create conscience problems for members. You are telling them to do something they have been taught is wrong. And you could be causing some to sin, for whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:22-23).
This can apply to many doctrines, such as makeup, birthdays, voting in national elections, and ballot-box governance in the Church.
For years Mr. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God under his leadership, including most or many of the leading ministers in UCG who were under Mr. Armstrong's authority when he was alive, taught the members that God's government was from the top down. They taught members that the human devised systems of government of this world, including democracy, were wrong. Now, members in UCG are taught by their ministers and by UCG leadership that they should support and be part of an organization based on ballot-box governance, or "democracy" as the world calls it.
Mr. Armstrong's teaching on government in the Church should not be taken lightly. Thousands of Church members have been taught by Mr. Armstrong and the Church of God that voting to elect leaders in the Church is wrong, and it is wrong to teach them now to violate that doctrine without showing them from the Bible that the prior teaching was in error. Without proof from the Bible that this teaching needs to be changed, the ministry is contradicting itself and causing confusion. They are teaching the brethren to support something that they were previously taught is sin. Many of the ministers in UCG that now practice ballot-box governance and teach by their example and perhaps in some cases actual instruction that ballot-box governance is right and good have previously taught under Mr. Armstrong that it is wrong.
Shouldn't there be a thorough Bible study on this topic showing clearly, from the Bible, that the Church's previous teaching and Mr. Armstrong's judgment about governance was in error? And shouldn't that Bible study be made available to the membership of the whole Church of God?
In the United Church of God member site is a page that lists doctrinal study papers, and those papers can be downloaded in .pdf format. Here is a link to that page:
http://members.ucg.org/content/study-papers
There are two documents that may address that issue. One is a doctrinal paper entitled "Godly Governance" dated March, 2001 (file is governance.pdf). The other is a study paper entitled "Balloting in the Church" dated August, 2003 (file is balloting.pdf).
Do these study papers prove, from the Bible, that Mr. Armstrong's teaching about government from the top down in the Church was in error and needed to be changed? Do either of them show that there is biblical justification for overturning Mr. Armstrong's judgment and teaching on this matter? Do they answer the questions, from the Bible, "Is ballot-box governance a right form of governance for the Church of God in the sight of God? Is it pleasing to Him? Does God's word allow that type of governance or does it teach that it is not a right form of governance?"
In future posts, I will review these documents. Since the paper titled "Godly Governance" seems to be most often referred to by those who justify UCG's governance by balloting, and since it has an earlier date than the other paper, I will review that one first.
Relating to this post and to Mr. Dennis Luker's recent letter to the brethren I mentioned in my last post, I found an interesting post by Bob Thiel in the COGwriter blog. He points out, correctly I think, that Mr. Luker in his letter accuses some ministers (unnamed) of trying to undermine the authority of UCG's governing structure, which they have once endorsed. The implication Mr. Luker seems to be making is that these ministers are inconsistent to undermine what they once endorsed. Bob Thiel makes the point that Mr. Luker and the top ministers in United Church of God are doing basically the same thing by endorsing and practicing the form of governance they now have which they had previously taught against in Worldwide. This emphasizes further the importance of proving the need for doctrinal change from the Bible.
And the structure of governance IS doctrine.
Here is a link to Bob Thiel's post:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/dennis-luker-spirit-of-rebellion-brewing-in-the-united-church-of-god/
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Changing Doctrine, Chapter 6
The Inconsistencies of Saying We Can't Change Herbert W. Armstrong's Doctrine, Chapter 6
Were Mr. Armstrong's Teachings Infallibly Correct at his Death?, Chapter 6
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
This can apply to many doctrines, such as makeup, birthdays, voting in national elections, and ballot-box governance in the Church.
For years Mr. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God under his leadership, including most or many of the leading ministers in UCG who were under Mr. Armstrong's authority when he was alive, taught the members that God's government was from the top down. They taught members that the human devised systems of government of this world, including democracy, were wrong. Now, members in UCG are taught by their ministers and by UCG leadership that they should support and be part of an organization based on ballot-box governance, or "democracy" as the world calls it.
Mr. Armstrong's teaching on government in the Church should not be taken lightly. Thousands of Church members have been taught by Mr. Armstrong and the Church of God that voting to elect leaders in the Church is wrong, and it is wrong to teach them now to violate that doctrine without showing them from the Bible that the prior teaching was in error. Without proof from the Bible that this teaching needs to be changed, the ministry is contradicting itself and causing confusion. They are teaching the brethren to support something that they were previously taught is sin. Many of the ministers in UCG that now practice ballot-box governance and teach by their example and perhaps in some cases actual instruction that ballot-box governance is right and good have previously taught under Mr. Armstrong that it is wrong.
Shouldn't there be a thorough Bible study on this topic showing clearly, from the Bible, that the Church's previous teaching and Mr. Armstrong's judgment about governance was in error? And shouldn't that Bible study be made available to the membership of the whole Church of God?
In the United Church of God member site is a page that lists doctrinal study papers, and those papers can be downloaded in .pdf format. Here is a link to that page:
http://members.ucg.org/content/study-papers
There are two documents that may address that issue. One is a doctrinal paper entitled "Godly Governance" dated March, 2001 (file is governance.pdf). The other is a study paper entitled "Balloting in the Church" dated August, 2003 (file is balloting.pdf).
Do these study papers prove, from the Bible, that Mr. Armstrong's teaching about government from the top down in the Church was in error and needed to be changed? Do either of them show that there is biblical justification for overturning Mr. Armstrong's judgment and teaching on this matter? Do they answer the questions, from the Bible, "Is ballot-box governance a right form of governance for the Church of God in the sight of God? Is it pleasing to Him? Does God's word allow that type of governance or does it teach that it is not a right form of governance?"
In future posts, I will review these documents. Since the paper titled "Godly Governance" seems to be most often referred to by those who justify UCG's governance by balloting, and since it has an earlier date than the other paper, I will review that one first.
Relating to this post and to Mr. Dennis Luker's recent letter to the brethren I mentioned in my last post, I found an interesting post by Bob Thiel in the COGwriter blog. He points out, correctly I think, that Mr. Luker in his letter accuses some ministers (unnamed) of trying to undermine the authority of UCG's governing structure, which they have once endorsed. The implication Mr. Luker seems to be making is that these ministers are inconsistent to undermine what they once endorsed. Bob Thiel makes the point that Mr. Luker and the top ministers in United Church of God are doing basically the same thing by endorsing and practicing the form of governance they now have which they had previously taught against in Worldwide. This emphasizes further the importance of proving the need for doctrinal change from the Bible.
And the structure of governance IS doctrine.
Here is a link to Bob Thiel's post:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/dennis-luker-spirit-of-rebellion-brewing-in-the-united-church-of-god/
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Changing Doctrine, Chapter 6
The Inconsistencies of Saying We Can't Change Herbert W. Armstrong's Doctrine, Chapter 6
Were Mr. Armstrong's Teachings Infallibly Correct at his Death?, Chapter 6
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Ken Giese Resigns and UCG Finances
Here is some assorted news about UCG events.
UCG pastor Ken Giese has resigned from employment with United Church of God according to a post in the UCG Current Crisis blog. My understanding, based on my reading of this post, is that Dennis Luker and Victor Kubik told Mr. Giese they wanted to transfer him out of his area (Reno and Sacramento) because some members in his congregations did not feel he was sufficiently supportive of the Council of Elders. After consideration, Mr. Giese resigned from his position of employment with UCG. Two letters of his are in the post. A link to the post is below:
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/5241698-ken-giese-resigns
This may be an example of a pattern of behavior by the UCG Council majority that they could use to force out those ministers who do not agree with them on doctrinal issues or any other issues, as I said in an earlier post. They could do this for two possible reasons. One, to ensure their re-election in the next election by the General Conference of Elders, they may want to force out as many pastors and ministers as they can who they perceive as likely to vote against them. Two, if they want to change doctrine, they could do this to force out voting ministers who are unlikely to agree with the changes in an effort to build a 3/4 majority needed to approve doctrinal changes.
In either case, the pattern can be, identify pastors likely to vote against the interests of the Council majority, and put pressure on them to resign by requiring that they teach something they don't believe, by forcing them to transfer, or any other means. Those pastors can resign or they can disobey commands to teach what they do not believe or orders to transfer, thus giving the Council cause to fire them. Once a pastor is removed from employment and his position as a pastor, if he then serves the spiritual needs of members in his area by pastoring them in his home or other meeting place or if he collects tithes and offerings from those members, he can be expelled from UCG or his ministerial credentials revoked, and he can no longer vote against the Council majority. That has been the general pattern the Council majority has seemed to use to get rid of opposition voters in the persons of Ken Giese, Larry Salyer, and Leon Walker, not to mention many ministers who report to and support those men such as many of the Latin American ministers.
As far as I know, Ken Giese has only resigned from employment, not from UCG or the ministry, and is still credentialed as a minister who can ballot in UCG elections. But how long can that last? Some members of his congregations are bound to come to him for pastoring. Is he going to refuse them? How can he refuse without abandoning Christ's sheep (John 10:12-13, 21:15-17)? He has an obligation to Christ to feed and protect them. He also needs an income, and those members will be offering him tithes and offerings. Is he going to refuse, knowing that the Bible teaches that a minister is to earn his living from his work as a minister (1 Corinthians 9:14)? Is he going to refuse, knowing that if he refuses tithes and offerings he will have to get a worldly job and will not have time to tend to his flock as he needs to? I think not. And when he pastors those in his area who come to him and accepts their tithes, the UCG Council majority can accuse him of causing division and revoke his ministerial credentials, in effect, banning him from voting against them.
So the UCG Council majority has an effective tool to keep themselves in office and to make any changes they want, including doctrinal changes. It is just a matter of them moving strongly enough and fast enough before the next election. Because I think it is a pretty sure bet that their heavy handed approach has alienated many moderate ministers who would not have voted against them before, but now will.
This is the fruit, and the conflict of interest, with ballot-box governance. And I think this is one reason God has not put instructions in the Bible for the Church to use voting to appoint leaders in the Church of God.
Again the question will come up for Ken Giese as well as Larry Salyer and others. Will they set up a new organization also based on ballot-box governance? Time will tell.
Robert Thiel in the COGwriter blog has reported on UCG finances in the fiscal year ending June 30. Income is down 3.5% over last year. This is not a great drop considering the turmoil in UCG. However, this is for an entire year ending about four months ago, and the UCG internal conflict had not reached the high level it is at now during most of that time. Most UCG tithe-payers may not have known much about the internal divisions until just a few months ago. It is possible, even likely, that income during the last few months is down much more than that. Here is a link to that post:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-2010-financial-statements-show-income-drop/
Dennis Luker has published a new letter to the brethren dated November 4, 2010. The letter is basically a warning to members about ministers Mr. Luker says are practicing rebellion (the letter speaks of those ministers in a general sense, not mentioning names).
If you read the letter, you might notice the part where Mr. Luker says that rebellious ministers use dissident websites to air their views and that these sites often block and refuse to publish factual information in favor of UCG. Probably he is not referring to my site (my site is very small compared with many others), but just for the record, I have not refused to publish comments presenting factual information favorable to UCG. The vast majority of the comments submitted to this blog I have published. Occasionally I refuse a comment if it is totally off-topic, spam, rude or disrespectful, or for other good reason. But not just because it advocates a view I do not agree with. Yet in the same UCG blog that Mr. Luker writes in, I have submitted a comment, written respectfully but asking a question and challenging an assumption, and that comment was refused.
Mr. Luker also suggests several official UCG sites where UCG members can get information, and he lists links to those sites.
Here is a link to Mr. Luker's letter:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nov-4-letter-from-president-luker/
I can understand the desire of some UCG members to go outside of official UCG websites to try to get information about what has been happening. UCG communications have not been exactly even-handed. For example, in one of their communications, they published a letter by Larry Roybal I think that he had apologized for, yet they never mentioned the apology. Yet earlier they accused Leon Walker of being one-sided in his communication with his pastors about issues they were going to vote on.
It would be nice if UCG were a little more open. For example, Living Church of God usually notifies members and the world if its income is up or down each month and by how much. But I know of no UCG channel of communications that you can go to in order to learn how income is doing for July, August, September, or October. I also am still waiting for solid evidence about what is at the heart and core of this war within UCG. My guess is, it is doctrine. But I can't know, and the silence of Dennis Luker, Melvin Rhodes, Roy Holladay, Victor Kubik, and the majority of the Council of Elders about this does not help. They have denied that this is about doctrine, but they have not said what it is about. If not doctrine, then what?
It will come out eventually.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
The Cause of the Church's Scattered Condition, and the Solution, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
UCG pastor Ken Giese has resigned from employment with United Church of God according to a post in the UCG Current Crisis blog. My understanding, based on my reading of this post, is that Dennis Luker and Victor Kubik told Mr. Giese they wanted to transfer him out of his area (Reno and Sacramento) because some members in his congregations did not feel he was sufficiently supportive of the Council of Elders. After consideration, Mr. Giese resigned from his position of employment with UCG. Two letters of his are in the post. A link to the post is below:
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/5241698-ken-giese-resigns
This may be an example of a pattern of behavior by the UCG Council majority that they could use to force out those ministers who do not agree with them on doctrinal issues or any other issues, as I said in an earlier post. They could do this for two possible reasons. One, to ensure their re-election in the next election by the General Conference of Elders, they may want to force out as many pastors and ministers as they can who they perceive as likely to vote against them. Two, if they want to change doctrine, they could do this to force out voting ministers who are unlikely to agree with the changes in an effort to build a 3/4 majority needed to approve doctrinal changes.
In either case, the pattern can be, identify pastors likely to vote against the interests of the Council majority, and put pressure on them to resign by requiring that they teach something they don't believe, by forcing them to transfer, or any other means. Those pastors can resign or they can disobey commands to teach what they do not believe or orders to transfer, thus giving the Council cause to fire them. Once a pastor is removed from employment and his position as a pastor, if he then serves the spiritual needs of members in his area by pastoring them in his home or other meeting place or if he collects tithes and offerings from those members, he can be expelled from UCG or his ministerial credentials revoked, and he can no longer vote against the Council majority. That has been the general pattern the Council majority has seemed to use to get rid of opposition voters in the persons of Ken Giese, Larry Salyer, and Leon Walker, not to mention many ministers who report to and support those men such as many of the Latin American ministers.
As far as I know, Ken Giese has only resigned from employment, not from UCG or the ministry, and is still credentialed as a minister who can ballot in UCG elections. But how long can that last? Some members of his congregations are bound to come to him for pastoring. Is he going to refuse them? How can he refuse without abandoning Christ's sheep (John 10:12-13, 21:15-17)? He has an obligation to Christ to feed and protect them. He also needs an income, and those members will be offering him tithes and offerings. Is he going to refuse, knowing that the Bible teaches that a minister is to earn his living from his work as a minister (1 Corinthians 9:14)? Is he going to refuse, knowing that if he refuses tithes and offerings he will have to get a worldly job and will not have time to tend to his flock as he needs to? I think not. And when he pastors those in his area who come to him and accepts their tithes, the UCG Council majority can accuse him of causing division and revoke his ministerial credentials, in effect, banning him from voting against them.
So the UCG Council majority has an effective tool to keep themselves in office and to make any changes they want, including doctrinal changes. It is just a matter of them moving strongly enough and fast enough before the next election. Because I think it is a pretty sure bet that their heavy handed approach has alienated many moderate ministers who would not have voted against them before, but now will.
This is the fruit, and the conflict of interest, with ballot-box governance. And I think this is one reason God has not put instructions in the Bible for the Church to use voting to appoint leaders in the Church of God.
Again the question will come up for Ken Giese as well as Larry Salyer and others. Will they set up a new organization also based on ballot-box governance? Time will tell.
Robert Thiel in the COGwriter blog has reported on UCG finances in the fiscal year ending June 30. Income is down 3.5% over last year. This is not a great drop considering the turmoil in UCG. However, this is for an entire year ending about four months ago, and the UCG internal conflict had not reached the high level it is at now during most of that time. Most UCG tithe-payers may not have known much about the internal divisions until just a few months ago. It is possible, even likely, that income during the last few months is down much more than that. Here is a link to that post:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-2010-financial-statements-show-income-drop/
Dennis Luker has published a new letter to the brethren dated November 4, 2010. The letter is basically a warning to members about ministers Mr. Luker says are practicing rebellion (the letter speaks of those ministers in a general sense, not mentioning names).
If you read the letter, you might notice the part where Mr. Luker says that rebellious ministers use dissident websites to air their views and that these sites often block and refuse to publish factual information in favor of UCG. Probably he is not referring to my site (my site is very small compared with many others), but just for the record, I have not refused to publish comments presenting factual information favorable to UCG. The vast majority of the comments submitted to this blog I have published. Occasionally I refuse a comment if it is totally off-topic, spam, rude or disrespectful, or for other good reason. But not just because it advocates a view I do not agree with. Yet in the same UCG blog that Mr. Luker writes in, I have submitted a comment, written respectfully but asking a question and challenging an assumption, and that comment was refused.
Mr. Luker also suggests several official UCG sites where UCG members can get information, and he lists links to those sites.
Here is a link to Mr. Luker's letter:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/nov-4-letter-from-president-luker/
I can understand the desire of some UCG members to go outside of official UCG websites to try to get information about what has been happening. UCG communications have not been exactly even-handed. For example, in one of their communications, they published a letter by Larry Roybal I think that he had apologized for, yet they never mentioned the apology. Yet earlier they accused Leon Walker of being one-sided in his communication with his pastors about issues they were going to vote on.
It would be nice if UCG were a little more open. For example, Living Church of God usually notifies members and the world if its income is up or down each month and by how much. But I know of no UCG channel of communications that you can go to in order to learn how income is doing for July, August, September, or October. I also am still waiting for solid evidence about what is at the heart and core of this war within UCG. My guess is, it is doctrine. But I can't know, and the silence of Dennis Luker, Melvin Rhodes, Roy Holladay, Victor Kubik, and the majority of the Council of Elders about this does not help. They have denied that this is about doctrine, but they have not said what it is about. If not doctrine, then what?
It will come out eventually.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
The Cause of the Church's Scattered Condition, and the Solution, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
New "Church of God - South Texas", Pastored by Jack Hendren, Comes Out of UCG
A new Church of God fellowship has formed, composed of ministers and members coming out of United Church of God, as UCG continues to split. Church of God - South Texas is pastored by Mr. Jack Hendren, and is composed of three congregations at present (Corpus Christi, Harlingen, and Victoria). They have a website, at:
http://www.cogst.org/
I first learned of this from a post in the Shining Light blog:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=1126
Their website is simple and attractively designed with a welcome page and pages for their current Bible reading calendar, fundamental beliefs, relationships with other Church of God fellowships or organizations, and sermons. I have not studied their list of fundamental beliefs in detail, but it seems to be standard Church of God doctrine. Their relationships page lists two organizations, Church of God in Latin America and International Ambassador Outreach. There are two sermons listed in their sermons page which can be downloaded in .mp3 format, one by Mr. Leon Walker and one by Mr. Larry Roybal, both apparently given October 23, 2010. According to whois.net, the domain was created September 13, 2010.
There is contact information include email address, phone number, and mailing address in their welcome page.
I expect this website to expand as time goes on.
I have never heard Mr. Leon Walker speak before, so I look forward to listening to his sermon.
The page for COG relationships is interesting. Most Churches of God, especially the larger ones, do not have cooperative arrangements with other COG fellowships and organizations. This page may indicate that a pattern is being set along the lines of voluntary cooperation between Church of God fellowships. The idea of more than one Church of God organization working together in cooperation along the pattern of Peter and Paul working together is one of the suggestions in my post How the Church Can Be Organized.
One thing I did not find, but I am sure will be answered in time, is their form or structure of governance. I am wondering if Mr. Jack Hendren is elected to his leadership position by the ministers in Church of God - South Texas. I am curious to see if anything has been learned by UCG ministers about ballot-box governance in the division and discord that has come about in UCG, problems which UCG ministers hoped to prevent when they made their decision fifteen years ago to build an organization with the leadership selected by a process of voting.
It is my hope that Mr. Hendren is accountable only to Jesus Christ, with government from the top-down according to the biblical pattern, and that he is not placed in a conflict of interest by having to be accountable to those under his authority who also have the authority to remove him.
That decision, on governance, is one that all pastors leaving UCG will have to make. They all made that decision in the past. They will have to make that decision again. God is teaching the Church lessons. This will be a test to see how well UCG ministers are learning.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
The Cause of the Church's Scattered Condition, and the Solution, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
http://www.cogst.org/
I first learned of this from a post in the Shining Light blog:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=1126
Their website is simple and attractively designed with a welcome page and pages for their current Bible reading calendar, fundamental beliefs, relationships with other Church of God fellowships or organizations, and sermons. I have not studied their list of fundamental beliefs in detail, but it seems to be standard Church of God doctrine. Their relationships page lists two organizations, Church of God in Latin America and International Ambassador Outreach. There are two sermons listed in their sermons page which can be downloaded in .mp3 format, one by Mr. Leon Walker and one by Mr. Larry Roybal, both apparently given October 23, 2010. According to whois.net, the domain was created September 13, 2010.
There is contact information include email address, phone number, and mailing address in their welcome page.
I expect this website to expand as time goes on.
I have never heard Mr. Leon Walker speak before, so I look forward to listening to his sermon.
The page for COG relationships is interesting. Most Churches of God, especially the larger ones, do not have cooperative arrangements with other COG fellowships and organizations. This page may indicate that a pattern is being set along the lines of voluntary cooperation between Church of God fellowships. The idea of more than one Church of God organization working together in cooperation along the pattern of Peter and Paul working together is one of the suggestions in my post How the Church Can Be Organized.
One thing I did not find, but I am sure will be answered in time, is their form or structure of governance. I am wondering if Mr. Jack Hendren is elected to his leadership position by the ministers in Church of God - South Texas. I am curious to see if anything has been learned by UCG ministers about ballot-box governance in the division and discord that has come about in UCG, problems which UCG ministers hoped to prevent when they made their decision fifteen years ago to build an organization with the leadership selected by a process of voting.
It is my hope that Mr. Hendren is accountable only to Jesus Christ, with government from the top-down according to the biblical pattern, and that he is not placed in a conflict of interest by having to be accountable to those under his authority who also have the authority to remove him.
That decision, on governance, is one that all pastors leaving UCG will have to make. They all made that decision in the past. They will have to make that decision again. God is teaching the Church lessons. This will be a test to see how well UCG ministers are learning.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
The Cause of the Church's Scattered Condition, and the Solution, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
