In Mr. Dennis Luker's July 1 member letter announcing the decision of the UCG Council of Elders to remove Mr. Leon Walker from his supervisory duties in Latin America, Mr. Luker provided a link to a pdf document entitled "Background to Leon Walker and Latin America." Here is a link to Mr. Luker's letter:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/member-letter-from-dennis-luker/
Here is a link to the document he mentioned giving background information:
http://realtimeunited.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/background-to-leon-walker-and-latin-america.pdf
One of the key parts of that document is a copy of Mr. Walker's communication to several ministers about issues that they would vote on, dated April 6 according to this document. The position of Mr. Luker and the Council, as I understand it, is that this communication is wrong and unethical because Mr. Luker in effect advised these ministers how to vote.
I ask the question, was this message from Mr. Walker wrong or unethical? And what standard should be used to judge if this message was wrong or unethical?
The whole subject of the message is voting. And the criticism of Mr. Melvin Rhodes and Mr. Dennis Luker in this document is that Mr. Walker in this memo wrongly tried to influence voting. So if you are going to use a standard of right and wrong, you might look for a standard that has to do with voting. The question becomes, what are the right and wrong priciples of voting? In a system of voting, is it right or wrong to advise someone else how to vote?
What does the Bible say about voting? What principles does the Bible give for wise voting? Does the Bible give guidelines, principles, instructions, commandments, laws, statutes, or judgments about the giving and receiving of advice about voting? What exactly does the Bible say about voting specifically?
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
If you look up the words "vote," "voting," "ballot," or "balloting" in a concordance, I don't think you would find anything in the Bible. You might find "elect" and "election," but not in the context of a group of people casting votes to elect someone. In the Bible, "election" refers to a selection by God. Christians are God's "elect" in that sense.
The Bible says nothing about voting specifically. The Bible shows by example that God's government is not by voting, but the Bible says nothing about how to vote in a right way or how to discuss voting decisions with others, not directly anyway.
If you look outside the Bible, you can find the example of the United States Constitution. The Constitution says a great deal about voting and advice given and received about voting decisions. Basically, the Constitution guarantees not only the right of citizens to vote as they choose, but also guarantees freedom of speech and press. There are no restrictions on discussions and advice about voting or any other matter. Any citizen can express his opinion to any other citizen about how to vote, whether verbally or in writing. Citizens are free to campaign for or against candidates and to seek to persuade others to vote a certain way. They are free to criticize the president of the United States or any other elected official or member of the government. If the memo written by Mr. Walker was concerning an election in the United States, and a government official charged Mr. Walker with wrongdoing in a court of law, the case would rightly be thrown out. If the government passed a law forbidding the kind of communication Mr. Walker engaged in, the law would be voided as unconstitutional. If you use the United States Constitution as the rule of right and wrong behavior, Mr. Walker's communication would certainly be ruled as right and lawful, not wrong and unethical.
The Constitution of the United States includes freedom of speech along with the right to vote because the second is worthless without the first. Voting is useless as a way of ensuring checks and balances to prevent doctrinal heresy in United Church of God unless freedom of speech is including with voting, otherwise those in power can stifle speech critical of them which is needed to inform and organize any voting opposition. That is basic.
What, you say? Our standard is the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution?
Ok, let's look at Mr. Walker's letter in light of the principles taught about government in the Bible.
Even though the Bible does not talk about voting specifically, there are two basic principles taught in the Bible that can be used to judge the lawfulness of Mr. Walker's letter. One is the principle of respect for and submission to authority. The other is the principle of getting counsel before making an important decision.
Here are scriptures that show we should respect, support, and submit to those in authority over us. "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you" (Hebrews 13:17).
"And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor 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. Be at peace among yourselves" (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).
"Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10).
"For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33).
"Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses....Then the Lord came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. And they both went forward. Then He said,'...Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?' So the anger of the Lord was aroused against them, and He departed. And when the cloud departed from above the tabernacle, suddenly Miriam became leprous, as white as snow..." (Numbers 12:1-10).
In practice, the principle of submission to those in authority includes the policy that those under authority are not to weaken the office and undermine that authority by criticizing the man in authority in front of those under authority. This has always been understood in the Church, at least during Mr. Armstrong's years and even later. It is understood in companies, corporations, government, the military. You can't function effectively otherwise. If you work in an office, and the boss tells everyone something they have to do, and you loudly undermine the boss and criticize the decision, telling everyone, "the boss is no good, what he told you is wrong," you can certainly expect to be fired, and justly so. Open criticism of the boss in not permitted. Mr. Roy Holladay made that point in his December 28, 2009 letter to the ministry.
You can give advise, even corrective advise and constructive criticism to your boss in private, provided it is done in the right way, as shown in the example of Naaman the Syrian who was healed by Elisha of leprosy when his servants advised him to do what the prophet said (2 Kings 5:1-14), and wise bosses will appreciate and encourage such advice. But you don't publicly criticize the boss and his policies.
According to this principle, Mr. Walker's communication is clearly wrong because he is criticizing the Council or some of its members, suggesting they should not hold the office (see Numbers 16:1-33 for the example of the rebellion of Korah), yet that Council has authority over Mr. Walker as well as authority over all employees in UCG.
But wait! What about the principle of getting, and by necessity giving, advice? The Bible has something to say about that too. "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14).
"Without counsel, plans go awry, But in the multitude of counselors they are established" (Proverbs 15:22).
"For by wise counsel you will wage your own war, And in a multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 24:6).
"Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
"The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17).
These verses teach the principle of getting the facts, getting advice, proving the truth, before making important decisions. This of necessity must mean that we must be able to give advice as well as receive it, because if no one gives it how can anyone receive it? In fact, Mr. Walker in one of his statements indicated that some of the ministers in his area indicated that they wanted to know some or all of the information he gave them. They were asking advice, according to God's principles in the Bible, and as a servant of Christ and of those ministers (Matthew 23:11) Mr. Walker was obligated to give them the information and advice they wanted and needed. So according to that principle, what Mr. Walker wrote was right, in fact, he would have been wrong to withhold that information and advice, because without it the ministers he is obligated to serve would not be able to obey God's instructions to prove all things and seek safety in a multitude of counsel.
What gives? By one biblical principle, what Mr. Walker wrote was wrong. By another biblical principle, what he wrote was right. Is the Bible contradicting itself? Is Mr. Walker caught in an impossible situation in which he is wrong if he speaks and wrong if he is silent? Or should he give false witness and say what he doesn't believe, pretending to support the Council and saying they are right when in his heart he believes they are wrong? That would be a violation of the ninth commandment (Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Leviticus 19:11, Colossians 3:9, Revelation 21:8). But the Bible also says, "...God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it" (1 Corinthians 10:13). There is ALWAYS a course of action that is not sin. We are never trapped in circumstances that force us to sin, provided we are overall faithful to God's way of life. God's law provides a lawful course of action. And God does not contradict Himself in what He teaches.
Here is the answer.
In God's way of life, in His government, those under authority never have the responsibility for choosing whether to vote for or against those over them, so that is never a decision they need advice about. The proving of facts, the giving and receiving of advice, is only for the purpose of making decisions we are given the responsibility for making. And God does not give us the responsibility for making decisions about who is over us in authority by voting them in or out of office.
God did not forget to give us instructions in the Bible on how to vote or how to give or receive information and advice about voting. It isn't necessary because God's government is always by appointment from the top down, so there is no voting. God is teaching us and preparing us for the kingdom of God, and there will not be voting in that kingdom. God is teaching us and letting us practice in this life the way of life we will be living for eternity in His kingdom. Abraham, Moses, David, and the apostles will not have to stand for re-election every two million years. We won't vote for them or against them, ever. God will assign them their offices, and we will all respect and submit to God's decisions. That's it.
So the Bible doesn't judge Mr. Walker's letter because the whole context is outside the scope of God's way of life. God will certainly judge Mr. Walker's words and actions based on his attitude and various principles such as telling the truth, loving his neighbor, loving God with all his heart, etc. But not about voting or the giving of advice about voting. Voting is part of Satan's way, one of the systems of Satan's world that will be abolished when Christ returns, and God does not give instruction in the Bible on how to make Satan's way work better by teaching us how to vote.
So if you are going to follow the Bible, you are not going to have governance by voting, and the issues raised by this letter never come up.
But if you want have voting anyway, and you want to learn how to make voting as effective as possible in providing a system of checks and balances, I suggest using the United States Constitution as a guide. The Constitution protects freedom of speech and the press, and any form of democracy in the world that functions successfully as a democracy is going to protect free speech, including the freedom to criticize government, and any government on earth that starts as a democracy but does not protect freedom of speech will become a dictatorship in short order. That may be what is happening in United Church of God.
You can't have God's way and the world's way in the same organization and expect it to function smoothly. Respect for authority (God's way) and government by voting (the world's way) cannot mix, just like oil and water cannot mix. Trying to govern by the ballot box while allowing those in office to restrict speech is a recipe for division, contentions, hostility, bitterness, strife, and anger. It tempts those in power to abuse their power by unfairly restricting the free flow of information and opinions necessary for the voters to be able to discern when they need to vote against those in office. That abuse then arouses anger in those who are victims of it because they know it is unfair. They then retaliate, and you have a vicious cycle that gets more and more emotionally charged. It brings out the very worst of human nature.
Look at the fruits! Was there ever such anger and hostility between ministers in one Church of God group? Have emotions ever run so high as now? Someone tell me, I'm curious. Was there even such anger when Mr. Tkach was making changes in doctrine in Worldwide?
I see a pattern, that whenever ministers justify voting in UCG, they do not start, as Mr. Armstrong might do, by asking, what does God say, and then turning to the Bible. Instead, they rehearse the decisions they made 14 or 15 years ago and their reasons for their decisions, as if that is the standard. They might talk about "cooperation" or "getting counsel" as if that is what voting is. Or they talk about the bad fruits of one man rule under Mr. Tkach. They might say they want a system of checks and balances so no one could do what Mr. Tkach did.
Well, what about the fruits today in UCG? Is the system working? Is there unity, peace, and doctrinal stability? If those in power want to change doctrine, they can certainly do it. Voting will slow them down, but not stop them. And if over time the majority of people in UCG want to liberalize doctrine and become Protestant, the UCG form of governance will not stop them. They can simply use the accusation of "wrong speech" to push out of the way and expel from the organization anyone who disagrees with what they want to do until they have a large enough majority to authorize the changes they want to make. And they can use their authority to pull in people from the outside, members of traditional churches who are not grounded in the truth of God, to boost their voting ranks, if that is what they want to do.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Should Each Member Promote His Own Opinion?, Chapter 6
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Proving the Truth, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
Showing posts with label Governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governance. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Disunity in UCG and the "Divine Right of Kings"
When Mr. Dennis Luker published an announcement that the Council of Elders had ordered the removal of Mr. Leon Walker as regional coordinator for Latin America, he accused Mr. Walker and "most ministers in Latin America" of causing division in that region. The full text of Mr. Luker's statement can be found here: http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/member-letter-from-dennis-luker/
I find it curious that Mr. Luker would also accuse "most ministers in Latin America." How are Latin American brethren to understand that? Will this not translate into "my minister" in the minds of most brethren in that region? Is such a general and broad sweeping statement like this not likely to offend both ministers and members in that region? Is this a way to promote peace, unity, and reconciliation? For a recent sample of a reaction in Latin America, see:
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4254590-letter-from-larry-roybal-to-the-council-of-elders
Mr. Luker accuses Mr. Walker of "efforts to wrongly influence ballots for the Council of Elders." How do you "wrongly" influence someone's vote? Are not the UCG voters free to vote as they think best? Are not UCG voters free to listen to advice, to give advice, on voting or any other matter as they see fit? Are not UCG voters free to discuss their voting decisions according to the principles given in the Bible of seeking counsel before making decisions (Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6)? Or are only those in power, in elected office, free to give advice and recommendations on how to vote? And if the correct vote is to vote against those in office, would those in office ever advise the voters to vote against them?
Why is it that those in power in UCG think they have a right to block or impede the free flow of information, ideas, and opinion between voters in their organization when those views are against them and in favor of other candidates and other policies?
The answer has to do with the unique blend of ideas and elements that were designed into UCG governance 15 years ago. At least it seems unique to me. I have never heard of this combination of principles before, either in the Church of God or in the world. There is certainly no example of anything like this in the Bible.
United Church of God leaders have built a system that tries to be a blend of God's way and the world's way. They have taken elements of both and combined them to produce United Church of God governance and organization. They pick and choose those parts of God's system they want to use and those parts of the world's system they want to use, like someone ordering dinner from a menu.
So from the world's system, they select voting. They learn from the world's system that voting should be secret. They learn from the world's system about "absentee balloting" so that ministers who cannot or do not travel to the meeting can vote remotely. They learn to have the voters elect a board and have the board select a president (learned from the example of this world's business corporations). They learn not to have the entire board come up for re-election all at once, but different board members at different times (as in the United States Senate, where there are elections every two years, but only a third of the senators can be replaced in one election because the term of office is six years). I do not know the mechanics of how the votes are obtained and counted, but I have no doubt the equipment and the procedures used have been modeled after what the world uses. They also learn and use the concept of "checks and balances" so that no one man can become powerful enough to do much harm (or do much good?). Can anyone in UCG say that they learned about voting systems from the Bible?
And from God's system and from the Bible they select respect for authority and a moral obligation to strive for unity. They select the concept that God Himself, through Jesus Christ, leads the Church of God, and they use that concept to say that God inspires the voting and the selection of the board and the decisions the board makes, thus enhancing the authority of those who have won election.
Before the United States government and other democracies were formed, many governments in Europe were ruled by kings who invoked the "divine right of kings" to rule, based on the scriptures that show that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1-7). This was rejected by those who wrote the United States Constitution. Instead, they invoked the concept of government by the consent of the governed, and they used a concept of checks and balances to limit the power of any one man or group of men. In doing so, they gave up the concept that any president or person in authority could rule by divine right. They also included freedom of speech and press in the Constitution because they understood that the right to vote was useless without the freedom of voters to discuss their votes and exchange information about the issues and those up for election. If those in government can inhibit the expression of dissenting views and control the flow of information, ideas, and opinion, then voting becomes meaningless because the government can withhold from the voters information and opinions that they would need in order to know that those in the government are doing a bad job and need to be replaced and to know who alternative candidates are that they could vote for.
United Church of God has managed to build a fusion of elements of both systems. They want voting, but without the freedom of speech that makes voting effective. They want elections, but they also want to invoke the "divine right of kings" concept by saying that Jesus Christ directly leads the administration of the organization, through voting. Not even the President of the United States can make that claim.
How brilliant! Using the divine right of kings concept, those who are elected can accuse those who disagree with them of disagreeing with God! They can forbid the discussing of voting options among the voters when such discussion goes against those in power. But when they are out of office, they can use the ballot box to appose those in office so they can try to get back in!
If this works, maybe the world can learn something from UCG. Maybe the architects of a United Europe can learn lessons on how to merge church and state, religion with civilian rule, a tradition based on democracy with the "divine right of kings." They can hold elections, then make it a sin for anyone to ever vote against them. Actually, a study of history may show this isn't so new after all.
But this won't work in God's Church. God is not pleased with a mixture of good and evil, the world's ways and His ways (Isaiah 1:13, Ezekiel 20:39, Revelation 3:15). If God wanted a mixture of the world's ways and His ways, He could save this existing world by reforming it from within. He could empower His servants to make this a "better world." But He is not doing that. He is letting this world, this society, this civilization, come to total ruin. He is going to let it come crashing down, totally, completely, as an object lesson, and He is going to build a new civilization, a new world and system based 100% on His ways.
Those in leadership in UCG seem driven to repeatedly reaffirm the validity of their decision to base UCG governance on the ballot box, as if they are becoming nervous about the consequences of that decision. Mr. Holladay did it and now Mr. Dennis Luker has done it. He has said in his letter, referring to the reason for a different form of governance established for United Church of God fifteen years ago, "We have seen the destructive outcomes that 'one man rule' in a Church of God organization can wreak." Is there perhaps a tone of defensiveness here and in other statements by UCG leaders?
By the way, when UCG leaders complain about the evils of "one-man government," are they talking about Herbert W. Armstrong or Joseph Tkach? Or both?
It is not consistent to remind UCG ministers and members of the consequences of "one man" rule under Mr. Tkach without mentioning the consequences, or fruits, of that same "one man" authority under Mr. Armstrong. We would not have the doctrines we have today, doctrines which many leaders in UCG claim they want to protect with "checks and balances," if Mr. Armstrong submitted to a 12-man board of directors elected by 500 voting ministers.
Mr. Armstrong broke away from the authority of Church of God, Seventh Day and reported directly to Christ so He would be free to teach the truth of the Bible including new doctrinal truth he was learning from the Bible.
Mr. Dennis Luker thinks "one man rule" wreaks destructive outcomes in the Church of God.
So does that mean he thinks that the knowledge of the identity of the lost tribes of Israel is a destructive outcome because that knowledge came to us from Mr. Armstrong reporting to Christ directly, not to an elected board? Does that mean he thinks that keeping the holy days is a destructive outcome because we learned that from Mr. Armstrong reporting to Christ directly, not to an elected board? Does that mean he thinks that the knowledge that God is a family we can be born into is a destructive outcome because that knowledge came to us from Mr. Armstrong reporting to Christ directly, not to an elected board? Does that mean he thinks that the knowledge of all the truths that God restored through Mr. Armstrong is a destructive outcome because that knowledge came to us from Mr. Armstrong reporting to Christ directly, not to an elected board?
Mr. Tkach did not scatter the Church of God.
Christ led Mr. Armstrong to restore lost truths, and then He led Mr. Armstrong to appoint a successor who was not firmly grounded in those truths and would allow the organization to go into doctrinal error, to test the Church of God members and ministry, to demonstrate how well we had learned (or had not learned) what Christ taught us through the Bible and through Mr. Armstrong. It was inevitable that we who have retained those truths would leave Worldwide, but HOW and WHEN would we leave, and how would we behave after leaving? That was the test. Would we be faithful to God in our decisions and would we love each other and cooperate to the fullest extent possible? In other words, would we love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves? We did not have to be divided and scattered after leaving Worldwide. Mr. Tkach did not divide us. We divided ourselves by bad decisions made AFTER leaving Worldwide. We divided and scattered ourselves because we had years before become Laodicean in our attitudes.
By appointing Mr. Tkach pastor general of Worldwide, God showed us something about ourselves that He already knew, but we didn't.
In effect, God removed Mr. Armstrong's authority over the ministry and members to let everyone do what he wanted. We see the fruits of everyone doing what he wanted to do, but was not able to do while Mr. Armstrong was alive.
How hard it is for UCG ministers to admit they made a mistake!
But learn they will, one way or another. Every minister in UCG who goes thru an elected office, and then just as his plans are becoming well formed and he is ready to accomplish something good, is removed from office by the whims of the voters, is learning something about the fruits of this world's system of democracy.
The fruits of top-down government through Jesus Christ and through Mr. Armstrong have been good. The fruits of the appointment of Mr. Tkach have been painful in decade that followed, but that appointment was a necessary step in God's plan, to test us and to show us something about ourselves we were too blind to see. The fruits of man's self-rule through the authority of the ballot box in United Church of God are bad and getting worse.
Sooner or later, one way or another, the ministry and members of UCG will learn by the fruits, even if they are not willing to learn from God's word, the Bible. That is one way God is going to teach the world, and it is a way God is teaching the Church.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
Finding the Solution, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
I find it curious that Mr. Luker would also accuse "most ministers in Latin America." How are Latin American brethren to understand that? Will this not translate into "my minister" in the minds of most brethren in that region? Is such a general and broad sweeping statement like this not likely to offend both ministers and members in that region? Is this a way to promote peace, unity, and reconciliation? For a recent sample of a reaction in Latin America, see:
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4254590-letter-from-larry-roybal-to-the-council-of-elders
Mr. Luker accuses Mr. Walker of "efforts to wrongly influence ballots for the Council of Elders." How do you "wrongly" influence someone's vote? Are not the UCG voters free to vote as they think best? Are not UCG voters free to listen to advice, to give advice, on voting or any other matter as they see fit? Are not UCG voters free to discuss their voting decisions according to the principles given in the Bible of seeking counsel before making decisions (Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6)? Or are only those in power, in elected office, free to give advice and recommendations on how to vote? And if the correct vote is to vote against those in office, would those in office ever advise the voters to vote against them?
Why is it that those in power in UCG think they have a right to block or impede the free flow of information, ideas, and opinion between voters in their organization when those views are against them and in favor of other candidates and other policies?
The answer has to do with the unique blend of ideas and elements that were designed into UCG governance 15 years ago. At least it seems unique to me. I have never heard of this combination of principles before, either in the Church of God or in the world. There is certainly no example of anything like this in the Bible.
United Church of God leaders have built a system that tries to be a blend of God's way and the world's way. They have taken elements of both and combined them to produce United Church of God governance and organization. They pick and choose those parts of God's system they want to use and those parts of the world's system they want to use, like someone ordering dinner from a menu.
So from the world's system, they select voting. They learn from the world's system that voting should be secret. They learn from the world's system about "absentee balloting" so that ministers who cannot or do not travel to the meeting can vote remotely. They learn to have the voters elect a board and have the board select a president (learned from the example of this world's business corporations). They learn not to have the entire board come up for re-election all at once, but different board members at different times (as in the United States Senate, where there are elections every two years, but only a third of the senators can be replaced in one election because the term of office is six years). I do not know the mechanics of how the votes are obtained and counted, but I have no doubt the equipment and the procedures used have been modeled after what the world uses. They also learn and use the concept of "checks and balances" so that no one man can become powerful enough to do much harm (or do much good?). Can anyone in UCG say that they learned about voting systems from the Bible?
And from God's system and from the Bible they select respect for authority and a moral obligation to strive for unity. They select the concept that God Himself, through Jesus Christ, leads the Church of God, and they use that concept to say that God inspires the voting and the selection of the board and the decisions the board makes, thus enhancing the authority of those who have won election.
Before the United States government and other democracies were formed, many governments in Europe were ruled by kings who invoked the "divine right of kings" to rule, based on the scriptures that show that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1-7). This was rejected by those who wrote the United States Constitution. Instead, they invoked the concept of government by the consent of the governed, and they used a concept of checks and balances to limit the power of any one man or group of men. In doing so, they gave up the concept that any president or person in authority could rule by divine right. They also included freedom of speech and press in the Constitution because they understood that the right to vote was useless without the freedom of voters to discuss their votes and exchange information about the issues and those up for election. If those in government can inhibit the expression of dissenting views and control the flow of information, ideas, and opinion, then voting becomes meaningless because the government can withhold from the voters information and opinions that they would need in order to know that those in the government are doing a bad job and need to be replaced and to know who alternative candidates are that they could vote for.
United Church of God has managed to build a fusion of elements of both systems. They want voting, but without the freedom of speech that makes voting effective. They want elections, but they also want to invoke the "divine right of kings" concept by saying that Jesus Christ directly leads the administration of the organization, through voting. Not even the President of the United States can make that claim.
How brilliant! Using the divine right of kings concept, those who are elected can accuse those who disagree with them of disagreeing with God! They can forbid the discussing of voting options among the voters when such discussion goes against those in power. But when they are out of office, they can use the ballot box to appose those in office so they can try to get back in!
If this works, maybe the world can learn something from UCG. Maybe the architects of a United Europe can learn lessons on how to merge church and state, religion with civilian rule, a tradition based on democracy with the "divine right of kings." They can hold elections, then make it a sin for anyone to ever vote against them. Actually, a study of history may show this isn't so new after all.
But this won't work in God's Church. God is not pleased with a mixture of good and evil, the world's ways and His ways (Isaiah 1:13, Ezekiel 20:39, Revelation 3:15). If God wanted a mixture of the world's ways and His ways, He could save this existing world by reforming it from within. He could empower His servants to make this a "better world." But He is not doing that. He is letting this world, this society, this civilization, come to total ruin. He is going to let it come crashing down, totally, completely, as an object lesson, and He is going to build a new civilization, a new world and system based 100% on His ways.
Those in leadership in UCG seem driven to repeatedly reaffirm the validity of their decision to base UCG governance on the ballot box, as if they are becoming nervous about the consequences of that decision. Mr. Holladay did it and now Mr. Dennis Luker has done it. He has said in his letter, referring to the reason for a different form of governance established for United Church of God fifteen years ago, "We have seen the destructive outcomes that 'one man rule' in a Church of God organization can wreak." Is there perhaps a tone of defensiveness here and in other statements by UCG leaders?
By the way, when UCG leaders complain about the evils of "one-man government," are they talking about Herbert W. Armstrong or Joseph Tkach? Or both?
It is not consistent to remind UCG ministers and members of the consequences of "one man" rule under Mr. Tkach without mentioning the consequences, or fruits, of that same "one man" authority under Mr. Armstrong. We would not have the doctrines we have today, doctrines which many leaders in UCG claim they want to protect with "checks and balances," if Mr. Armstrong submitted to a 12-man board of directors elected by 500 voting ministers.
Mr. Armstrong broke away from the authority of Church of God, Seventh Day and reported directly to Christ so He would be free to teach the truth of the Bible including new doctrinal truth he was learning from the Bible.
Mr. Dennis Luker thinks "one man rule" wreaks destructive outcomes in the Church of God.
So does that mean he thinks that the knowledge of the identity of the lost tribes of Israel is a destructive outcome because that knowledge came to us from Mr. Armstrong reporting to Christ directly, not to an elected board? Does that mean he thinks that keeping the holy days is a destructive outcome because we learned that from Mr. Armstrong reporting to Christ directly, not to an elected board? Does that mean he thinks that the knowledge that God is a family we can be born into is a destructive outcome because that knowledge came to us from Mr. Armstrong reporting to Christ directly, not to an elected board? Does that mean he thinks that the knowledge of all the truths that God restored through Mr. Armstrong is a destructive outcome because that knowledge came to us from Mr. Armstrong reporting to Christ directly, not to an elected board?
Mr. Tkach did not scatter the Church of God.
Christ led Mr. Armstrong to restore lost truths, and then He led Mr. Armstrong to appoint a successor who was not firmly grounded in those truths and would allow the organization to go into doctrinal error, to test the Church of God members and ministry, to demonstrate how well we had learned (or had not learned) what Christ taught us through the Bible and through Mr. Armstrong. It was inevitable that we who have retained those truths would leave Worldwide, but HOW and WHEN would we leave, and how would we behave after leaving? That was the test. Would we be faithful to God in our decisions and would we love each other and cooperate to the fullest extent possible? In other words, would we love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves? We did not have to be divided and scattered after leaving Worldwide. Mr. Tkach did not divide us. We divided ourselves by bad decisions made AFTER leaving Worldwide. We divided and scattered ourselves because we had years before become Laodicean in our attitudes.
By appointing Mr. Tkach pastor general of Worldwide, God showed us something about ourselves that He already knew, but we didn't.
In effect, God removed Mr. Armstrong's authority over the ministry and members to let everyone do what he wanted. We see the fruits of everyone doing what he wanted to do, but was not able to do while Mr. Armstrong was alive.
How hard it is for UCG ministers to admit they made a mistake!
But learn they will, one way or another. Every minister in UCG who goes thru an elected office, and then just as his plans are becoming well formed and he is ready to accomplish something good, is removed from office by the whims of the voters, is learning something about the fruits of this world's system of democracy.
The fruits of top-down government through Jesus Christ and through Mr. Armstrong have been good. The fruits of the appointment of Mr. Tkach have been painful in decade that followed, but that appointment was a necessary step in God's plan, to test us and to show us something about ourselves we were too blind to see. The fruits of man's self-rule through the authority of the ballot box in United Church of God are bad and getting worse.
Sooner or later, one way or another, the ministry and members of UCG will learn by the fruits, even if they are not willing to learn from God's word, the Bible. That is one way God is going to teach the world, and it is a way God is teaching the Church.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
Finding the Solution, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
Monday, July 12, 2010
What Started It
The split between UCG headquarters and Mr. Leon Walker started when the Council of Elders received copies of email communications between Mr. Walker and some of the pastors under his authority. In his email communications, Mr. Walker expressed his view on a number of issues that would be voted on in the next election by the General Conference of Elders. He seemed to have provided both factual information and some of his personal opinions on the subjects coming up for ballot.
The Council of Elders and the then president Mr. Roy Holladay took issue with many of the things Mr. Walker said, taking the position that what Mr. Walker said was unethical and wrong. According to Mr. Walker, there was a two hour meeting between himself and Mr. Roy Holladay, Mr. Victor Kubik, and Mr. Jason Lovelady in Hawkins, Texas on June 15 to discuss the matter, and the meeting ended cordially. Mr. Walker said he felt all the matters were satisfactorily answered and resolved.
Then on June 16, according to Mr. Walker, Mr. Holladay phoned him and said the Council of Elders requested that Mr. Walker go to Cincinnati the following week to discuss with the Council the same matters Mr. Walker had already discussed in his first meeting in Texas, even though it would mean canceling a trip that had already been arranged and paid for, a change that would cost thousands of dollars. Mr. Walker said he would be glad to come to Cincinnati after his trip, but he did not want to cancel the trip, and Mr. Holladay said he would relay that decision to the Council. Then, according to a UCG document, Mr. Walker was ORDERED on June 20 to discontinue his trip and report to headquarters. His refusal to do so led to the Council of Elders authorizing his removal from his duties in the Latin American region.
One thing has led to another, and no doubt there will be other actions to come.
But it started with email communications between Mr. Leon Walker and a number of pastors that he supervises. Some of the points of information in the emails may have been responses and answers to questions these ministers had raised. For example, they may not have wanted to vote for Council members who were against the relocation to Texas, but they didn't know who those members were, and they wanted to know. Mr. Walker gave them that information.
What is unethical about the asking for or giving of information, opinion, and advice between ministers concerning decisions they need to make, whether the decision is how to vote or some other matter? Beats me! But this was the core issue that started the split.
It appears that UCG headquarters wants to control communications between ministers and inhibit the free flow of information and opinion necessary for ministers to "get all the facts" and to seek safety in a "multitude of counselors" before making a voting decision. That makes sense from headquarters' point of view if they are primarily interested in solidifying their control over United Church of God, but it does not make sense if they want to live by every word of God and teach the rest of the Church to do likewise (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3, Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6). Headquarters has many avenues of official communication to the ministry, but if the ministry is not able to hear and discuss alternative viewpoints, they will hear only one side, the side of those in power. That is not the way to determine the truth and make the best decisions (Proverbs 18:17). We are commanded to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). If anyone is to do that, he needs to try to get all the facts (or as many of them as he can reasonably get in the time available for making a decision) and listen to more than one side in any important decision. You can't do that in an environment of fear and threats for exchanging information and opinions with other people concerning decisions you have a responsibility for making. And voting decisions are decisions every minister in UCG has a responsibility for making, unless, for reasons of conscience, some ministers choose not to participate in the voting process (knowing that voting is wrong).
But ministers who choose to vote have a responsibility to make the best decision they can in their vote, and they have to be able to hear all sides and get all the facts. Everyone who goes through Spokesman's Club has to give a speech for a lesson entitled "Get the Facts." Mr. Armstrong taught this, the Bible teaches it, and common sense teaches it.
I have heard of cases where some Churches of God, not UCG, prohibit their members from reading any literature of other Church of God groups, even if those members need to read other literature to get information for them to make a decision where to attend. It is the same kind of thing.
But this whole unfolding event may work to the advantage of those in power by tending to solidify their power and make it permanent. The recent votes in the General Conference of Elders have been close, perhaps too close for the comfort of those in power. They came into power by a narrow margin, and they could go out of power by a similar narrow margin. But their margin of power will be increased if some of those who disagree with them leave United Church of God and thus become unable to vote against them in future elections.
Mr. Walker has said he is not quitting United Church of God, though he knows he might be fired from employment and expelled. No doubt something along that line will happen. It is a pretty sure bet, regardless of how churches are named, organized, incorporated, registered in different countries, or financed, that Mr. Walker and the ministers who submit to his supervision will not be allowed to cast votes against any current members of the Council of Elders or their recommended proposals in the next General Conference of Elders. And that will provide a safety margin for those in power to stay in office and be able to do what they want to do. So the refusal of Mr. Walker to cancel his trip to report to Cincinnati may work to the advantage of those in power, because it gives them legal justification for using their authority to force the issue in a way that would prevent Mr. Walker and others ministers who might vote against them from remaining on the registry of elders in UCG eligible to cast votes.
Imagine if President Obama and the Congress had the authority to kick out of the United States any citizen found sending an email critical of them to another citizen. It would be unlikely they would ever have to leave office.
Voting or balloting as a system of checks and balances doesn't work if the free flow of information, ideas, and opinions concerning the voting is not protected.
And those who have been voted out of power must know that if any significant number of ministers who agree with them are expelled or choose to quit, their chance of regaining power within UCG is virtually nil. They will never again have the votes.
This is one example of how power politics can work, when you have authority by ballot.
But this isn't just about power. I am sure of that. The real issues haven't surfaced. But they will, sooner or later (Luke 8:17, 12:1-3).
I often wonder what it will take for UCG ministers to be able to admit, even to themselves only, that they made a mistake in 1995. Maybe some of them already have.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Proving the Truth, Chapter 6
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
The Council of Elders and the then president Mr. Roy Holladay took issue with many of the things Mr. Walker said, taking the position that what Mr. Walker said was unethical and wrong. According to Mr. Walker, there was a two hour meeting between himself and Mr. Roy Holladay, Mr. Victor Kubik, and Mr. Jason Lovelady in Hawkins, Texas on June 15 to discuss the matter, and the meeting ended cordially. Mr. Walker said he felt all the matters were satisfactorily answered and resolved.
Then on June 16, according to Mr. Walker, Mr. Holladay phoned him and said the Council of Elders requested that Mr. Walker go to Cincinnati the following week to discuss with the Council the same matters Mr. Walker had already discussed in his first meeting in Texas, even though it would mean canceling a trip that had already been arranged and paid for, a change that would cost thousands of dollars. Mr. Walker said he would be glad to come to Cincinnati after his trip, but he did not want to cancel the trip, and Mr. Holladay said he would relay that decision to the Council. Then, according to a UCG document, Mr. Walker was ORDERED on June 20 to discontinue his trip and report to headquarters. His refusal to do so led to the Council of Elders authorizing his removal from his duties in the Latin American region.
One thing has led to another, and no doubt there will be other actions to come.
But it started with email communications between Mr. Leon Walker and a number of pastors that he supervises. Some of the points of information in the emails may have been responses and answers to questions these ministers had raised. For example, they may not have wanted to vote for Council members who were against the relocation to Texas, but they didn't know who those members were, and they wanted to know. Mr. Walker gave them that information.
What is unethical about the asking for or giving of information, opinion, and advice between ministers concerning decisions they need to make, whether the decision is how to vote or some other matter? Beats me! But this was the core issue that started the split.
It appears that UCG headquarters wants to control communications between ministers and inhibit the free flow of information and opinion necessary for ministers to "get all the facts" and to seek safety in a "multitude of counselors" before making a voting decision. That makes sense from headquarters' point of view if they are primarily interested in solidifying their control over United Church of God, but it does not make sense if they want to live by every word of God and teach the rest of the Church to do likewise (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3, Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6). Headquarters has many avenues of official communication to the ministry, but if the ministry is not able to hear and discuss alternative viewpoints, they will hear only one side, the side of those in power. That is not the way to determine the truth and make the best decisions (Proverbs 18:17). We are commanded to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). If anyone is to do that, he needs to try to get all the facts (or as many of them as he can reasonably get in the time available for making a decision) and listen to more than one side in any important decision. You can't do that in an environment of fear and threats for exchanging information and opinions with other people concerning decisions you have a responsibility for making. And voting decisions are decisions every minister in UCG has a responsibility for making, unless, for reasons of conscience, some ministers choose not to participate in the voting process (knowing that voting is wrong).
But ministers who choose to vote have a responsibility to make the best decision they can in their vote, and they have to be able to hear all sides and get all the facts. Everyone who goes through Spokesman's Club has to give a speech for a lesson entitled "Get the Facts." Mr. Armstrong taught this, the Bible teaches it, and common sense teaches it.
I have heard of cases where some Churches of God, not UCG, prohibit their members from reading any literature of other Church of God groups, even if those members need to read other literature to get information for them to make a decision where to attend. It is the same kind of thing.
But this whole unfolding event may work to the advantage of those in power by tending to solidify their power and make it permanent. The recent votes in the General Conference of Elders have been close, perhaps too close for the comfort of those in power. They came into power by a narrow margin, and they could go out of power by a similar narrow margin. But their margin of power will be increased if some of those who disagree with them leave United Church of God and thus become unable to vote against them in future elections.
Mr. Walker has said he is not quitting United Church of God, though he knows he might be fired from employment and expelled. No doubt something along that line will happen. It is a pretty sure bet, regardless of how churches are named, organized, incorporated, registered in different countries, or financed, that Mr. Walker and the ministers who submit to his supervision will not be allowed to cast votes against any current members of the Council of Elders or their recommended proposals in the next General Conference of Elders. And that will provide a safety margin for those in power to stay in office and be able to do what they want to do. So the refusal of Mr. Walker to cancel his trip to report to Cincinnati may work to the advantage of those in power, because it gives them legal justification for using their authority to force the issue in a way that would prevent Mr. Walker and others ministers who might vote against them from remaining on the registry of elders in UCG eligible to cast votes.
Imagine if President Obama and the Congress had the authority to kick out of the United States any citizen found sending an email critical of them to another citizen. It would be unlikely they would ever have to leave office.
Voting or balloting as a system of checks and balances doesn't work if the free flow of information, ideas, and opinions concerning the voting is not protected.
And those who have been voted out of power must know that if any significant number of ministers who agree with them are expelled or choose to quit, their chance of regaining power within UCG is virtually nil. They will never again have the votes.
This is one example of how power politics can work, when you have authority by ballot.
But this isn't just about power. I am sure of that. The real issues haven't surfaced. But they will, sooner or later (Luke 8:17, 12:1-3).
I often wonder what it will take for UCG ministers to be able to admit, even to themselves only, that they made a mistake in 1995. Maybe some of them already have.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Proving the Truth, Chapter 6
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
Friday, July 9, 2010
Split Beginning in United Church of God
A split is occurring in United Church of God centered around Mr. Leon Walker and the Latin American region of the church. It appears that UCG will lose some ministers and members, but how many is not clear. The situation is still evolving.
There are many details (and opinions) concerning the cause of the split and its progress, which those who are interested can find online (I will give some links below). But here is a brief summary.
Mr. Walker had communicated with several ministers in his area via email informing them about issues and sharing his opinion on those issues, issues which could affect how they vote in UCG. UCG headquarters became aware of that communication, which it did not like, and asked Mr. Walker to cancel a trip he had planned in Latin America and come to headquarters to discuss the matter. Mr. Walker declined, and headquarters fired him as regional director (or coordinator) for the Latin American region. However, Mr. Walker has stated that he intends to continue to supervise the Latin American region, and it appears that a large number of UCG ministers and members in Latin America, probably a majority, intend to support Mr. Walker in this controversy and accept his continued supervision. UCG is separately incorporated in Latin America, and according to a statement by Mr. Walker, he was made director of that area by Mr. Armstrong in 1979, and in July of 1995 he and the ministers under his supervision joined with UCG as a group, and he has supervised that area since.
Mr. Dennis Luker has given a sermon talking about government in UCG, in which he pleads for unity and warns those who do not cooperate with UCG headquarters.
There have been letters, posts, explanations, etc. on both sides. Here are some links for those who are interested:
COGwriter blog (Robert Thiel):
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-not-united-in-latin-america/
Inside United: Realtime (an official UCG blog) - earliest posts are listed first:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/changes-in-latin-american-administration/
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/mario-seiglie-gives-update-from-chile/
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/seiglie-mario-da-actualizacion-desde-chile/ (Spanish language)
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/member-letter-from-dennis-luker/
(contains a link to a .pdf file that gives more detail)
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/dennis-luker-presidente-carta/
(Spanish language)
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/luker-sermon-link/
You can find a link to the sermon given by Mr. Luker here:
http://members.ucg.org/content/jesus-christ-head-church
UCG Current Crisis blog - contains some posts by Mr. Walker explaining his side:
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4180272-letter-from-the-latin-ministry-to-the-coe
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4091850-letter-to-the-council-regarding-the-removal-of-mr-walker-as-spanish-director
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4092830-reply-from-the-coe-to-the-latin-elders-and-administration
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4132204-mr-walker-s-reply-to-the-accusation-of-orchestrating-block-voting-
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4176364-mr-walkers-reply-to-mario-seiglie-s-update-from-chile
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4177976-email-mr-walker-to-mr-luker-attached-letter-is-posted-above-
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4178073-letter-from-mr-walker-to-mr-luker
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4198725-leon-walker-response-to-the-background-to-the-situation-with-leon-walker-and-latin-america-
The Shining Light blog - posts below give information and opinion about events in UCG:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=214
http://theshininglight.info/?p=219
http://theshininglight.info/?p=224
http://theshininglight.info/?p=242
http://theshininglight.info/?p=252
http://theshininglight.info/?p=256
http://theshininglight.info/?p=259
It is easy to get bogged down in the details of the accusations, defenses against accusations, and counter-accusations that fly around.
It is not a surprise that there is a split, but what has caught me a little by surprise is how fast it is happening.
It still has not been made apparent what the core issues that divide the two camps in UCG are. It cannot just be personalities and positions. I do not believe that the ministry in UCG would be so carnal as to be split like this without some substantive issues at stake, even if those issues are not visibly on the table for the general membership yet.
There have been some hints, but I won't comment till I find something more substantial.
I have listened carefully to Mr. Luker's sermon. Towards the end he talks a little bit about UCG's efforts to preach the truth to the public, and he seems very enthusiastic. Assuming his zeal is real, I appreciate it. As I point out in my book, Preaching the Gospel, there is a tremendous need for the Church to get a warning message to our nations before the tribulation begins, and I rejoice whenever any Church of God group makes the effort to do that.
To be successful, the TV program and literature must be strong and hard-hitting, must "cry aloud" and must tell the people of this country their sins, and must warn them of the punishment that is coming if we do not repent as a nation. To do this, it must teach the viewers our identity as part of the children of Israel and how Bible prophecy shows that the great tribulation will come primarily on the English-speaking nations in the lifetimes of most people alive today. We must not pull our punches and try to preach a soft message, something smooth, that will be agreeable to most viewers. If we do that, our message will be useless as a warning.
Moreover, to be successful, there must be consistency between what we preach and what we practice. We need to practice what we preach so that God will bless our efforts. We must practice what we preach so viewers will find our message credible and our practices will not be a stumbling block for our message. Part of the message must include the good news of the soon-coming return of Jesus Christ to replace all the man-devised governments of this world with God's government over all the earth. But how can we say that it is "good news" that the various forms of man's government on the earth will be abolished, including the democracies of this world, if we hold to one of those forms of government in the Church?
After Christ returns, elections and voting will be abolished. Why should UCG practice a form of government that will be abolished by Christ, and then tell the world it will be "good news" when Christ abolishes that form of government?
Much of the sermon is a defense of UCG's system of governance, but not much is from the Bible. I will have more to say about that in future posts.
Mr. Luker in his sermon implied that he is prepared to take strong action against ministers who will not accept the form of governance as it stands right now and accept the authority of the present Council of Elders and work with him and the Council to bring unity in the Church, and suggested a peaceful separation for those who cannot do that.
The separation of Mr. Leon Walker from the authority of UCG headquarters may be only the beginning of the leaving of many other ministers before next Passover.
More to follow...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
God's 7,000 Year Plan -- Are We in the Last Days?, Chapter 1
The Feast of Tabernacles - the Millennial Rule of Christ, Chapter 2
The Ezekiel Warning, Chapter 3
Why the Gospel Must Still Be Preached to the World, Chapter 4
Practicing What We Preach, Chapter 6
There are many details (and opinions) concerning the cause of the split and its progress, which those who are interested can find online (I will give some links below). But here is a brief summary.
Mr. Walker had communicated with several ministers in his area via email informing them about issues and sharing his opinion on those issues, issues which could affect how they vote in UCG. UCG headquarters became aware of that communication, which it did not like, and asked Mr. Walker to cancel a trip he had planned in Latin America and come to headquarters to discuss the matter. Mr. Walker declined, and headquarters fired him as regional director (or coordinator) for the Latin American region. However, Mr. Walker has stated that he intends to continue to supervise the Latin American region, and it appears that a large number of UCG ministers and members in Latin America, probably a majority, intend to support Mr. Walker in this controversy and accept his continued supervision. UCG is separately incorporated in Latin America, and according to a statement by Mr. Walker, he was made director of that area by Mr. Armstrong in 1979, and in July of 1995 he and the ministers under his supervision joined with UCG as a group, and he has supervised that area since.
Mr. Dennis Luker has given a sermon talking about government in UCG, in which he pleads for unity and warns those who do not cooperate with UCG headquarters.
There have been letters, posts, explanations, etc. on both sides. Here are some links for those who are interested:
COGwriter blog (Robert Thiel):
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-not-united-in-latin-america/
Inside United: Realtime (an official UCG blog) - earliest posts are listed first:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/changes-in-latin-american-administration/
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/mario-seiglie-gives-update-from-chile/
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/seiglie-mario-da-actualizacion-desde-chile/ (Spanish language)
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/member-letter-from-dennis-luker/
(contains a link to a .pdf file that gives more detail)
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/dennis-luker-presidente-carta/
(Spanish language)
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/luker-sermon-link/
You can find a link to the sermon given by Mr. Luker here:
http://members.ucg.org/content/jesus-christ-head-church
UCG Current Crisis blog - contains some posts by Mr. Walker explaining his side:
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4180272-letter-from-the-latin-ministry-to-the-coe
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4091850-letter-to-the-council-regarding-the-removal-of-mr-walker-as-spanish-director
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4092830-reply-from-the-coe-to-the-latin-elders-and-administration
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4132204-mr-walker-s-reply-to-the-accusation-of-orchestrating-block-voting-
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4176364-mr-walkers-reply-to-mario-seiglie-s-update-from-chile
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4177976-email-mr-walker-to-mr-luker-attached-letter-is-posted-above-
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4178073-letter-from-mr-walker-to-mr-luker
http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4198725-leon-walker-response-to-the-background-to-the-situation-with-leon-walker-and-latin-america-
The Shining Light blog - posts below give information and opinion about events in UCG:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=214
http://theshininglight.info/?p=219
http://theshininglight.info/?p=224
http://theshininglight.info/?p=242
http://theshininglight.info/?p=252
http://theshininglight.info/?p=256
http://theshininglight.info/?p=259
It is easy to get bogged down in the details of the accusations, defenses against accusations, and counter-accusations that fly around.
It is not a surprise that there is a split, but what has caught me a little by surprise is how fast it is happening.
It still has not been made apparent what the core issues that divide the two camps in UCG are. It cannot just be personalities and positions. I do not believe that the ministry in UCG would be so carnal as to be split like this without some substantive issues at stake, even if those issues are not visibly on the table for the general membership yet.
There have been some hints, but I won't comment till I find something more substantial.
I have listened carefully to Mr. Luker's sermon. Towards the end he talks a little bit about UCG's efforts to preach the truth to the public, and he seems very enthusiastic. Assuming his zeal is real, I appreciate it. As I point out in my book, Preaching the Gospel, there is a tremendous need for the Church to get a warning message to our nations before the tribulation begins, and I rejoice whenever any Church of God group makes the effort to do that.
To be successful, the TV program and literature must be strong and hard-hitting, must "cry aloud" and must tell the people of this country their sins, and must warn them of the punishment that is coming if we do not repent as a nation. To do this, it must teach the viewers our identity as part of the children of Israel and how Bible prophecy shows that the great tribulation will come primarily on the English-speaking nations in the lifetimes of most people alive today. We must not pull our punches and try to preach a soft message, something smooth, that will be agreeable to most viewers. If we do that, our message will be useless as a warning.
Moreover, to be successful, there must be consistency between what we preach and what we practice. We need to practice what we preach so that God will bless our efforts. We must practice what we preach so viewers will find our message credible and our practices will not be a stumbling block for our message. Part of the message must include the good news of the soon-coming return of Jesus Christ to replace all the man-devised governments of this world with God's government over all the earth. But how can we say that it is "good news" that the various forms of man's government on the earth will be abolished, including the democracies of this world, if we hold to one of those forms of government in the Church?
After Christ returns, elections and voting will be abolished. Why should UCG practice a form of government that will be abolished by Christ, and then tell the world it will be "good news" when Christ abolishes that form of government?
Much of the sermon is a defense of UCG's system of governance, but not much is from the Bible. I will have more to say about that in future posts.
Mr. Luker in his sermon implied that he is prepared to take strong action against ministers who will not accept the form of governance as it stands right now and accept the authority of the present Council of Elders and work with him and the Council to bring unity in the Church, and suggested a peaceful separation for those who cannot do that.
The separation of Mr. Leon Walker from the authority of UCG headquarters may be only the beginning of the leaving of many other ministers before next Passover.
More to follow...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
God's 7,000 Year Plan -- Are We in the Last Days?, Chapter 1
The Feast of Tabernacles - the Millennial Rule of Christ, Chapter 2
The Ezekiel Warning, Chapter 3
Why the Gospel Must Still Be Preached to the World, Chapter 4
Practicing What We Preach, Chapter 6
Sunday, April 18, 2010
The Replacement of UCG's President Clyde Kilough
The ruling Council of Elders (COE) of United Church of God an International Association (UCG) has requested and received the resignation of the president of the UCG, Clyde Kilough. He has been replaced as president by the chairman of the COE, Roy Holladay, who will serve as interim president until a new president is appointed by the Council. Several other men holding administrative positions have also resigned, including Jim Franks and Larry Salyer, who are replaced on an interim basis by Victor Kubik and Peter Eddington respectively. Letters from Mr. Holladay explaining these changes can be found at the UCG members site. Portions of letters may also be found at Robert Thiel's COGwriter blog.
This is not unexpected. There has been a power shift going on in UCG between two opposing camps. As those familiar with UCG governance and politics know, the 12-man Council of Elders is elected by the vote of the General Conference of Elders (GCE), which is the collective body of about 500 ordained ministers in UCG. In recent elections, the GCE has replaced those who have held power and influence on the Council of Elders for a long time with new council members who have different priorities and perspectives than the men they replaced. The 500 man General Conference of Elders has been approximately evenly divided in their support for the two camps with a thin majority for the new men who have taken control.
It is not hard to find out, from various blogs and communications, which leaders are aligned with which camps. The divisions seem fairly sharp, and it seems there have been feelings of bitterness and hostility, which prompted a letter December 28 from the Council to the general ministry pleading for a spirit of unity, and warning of the danger of a spirit of division within the UCG ministry.
What is harder to determine are the exact issues that divide the two camps. Those issues have never been openly acknowledged to the membership and the the Church of God as a whole.
One issue was the proposed move of headquarters to Dallas. First the decision was made to move to Dallas, and then, after money was spent preparing for that move, the decision was reversed.
But I find it hard to believe that was the only, or even the primary, issue.
Is it the priority given and money spent on preaching the gospel to the public? Is it a matter of how tightly local congregations and pastors are controlled from headquarters? Is it cooperation with other Church of God fellowships? Is it possible doctrinal change, such as a change in the doctrine that the United States and other western nations are descended from the lost ten tribes of Israel, or some other doctrine? No one I found is open and clear about exactly what issues divide the two camps. This is not just a matter of personalities.
But while the issues that are the focus of the current divisions are not clear, the REASON for the spirit of division that exists is clear. And it goes back to the start of UCG as a church in 1995.
Herbert W. Armstrong began to fellowship with the Church of God Seventh Day around the time of his conversion in 1927. While still a lay member, he wrote up papers proposing changes to doctrine based on his independent research in the Bible, and sent those papers to the COG7D leadership, including a paper on the identity of Israel. The leadership of that church never accepted the new doctrines Mr. Armstrong discovered in the Bible. Eventually, Mr. Armstrong and the COG7D parted company, and around early 1934 Mr. Armstrong started a work that led to the formation of the Worldwide Church of God, which he led till his death in 1986.
Mr. Armstrong taught God's government in the Church from the top-down, what some would call "one-man rule". Mr. Armstrong did not report to a ruling board of men or any body of men who vote, or "ballot", to select a leader. Mr. Armstrong understood, from the Bible, that democracy, the selection of the leadership by those under the authority of the leadership, is not God's way. He understood that he personally was responsible to and under the authority of Jesus Christ, not any group of men. This was an important doctrine to Mr. Armstrong.
So when he was ill and knew his death was near, he did not leave the selection of a replacement to a voting board of men, but in the name of and by the authority of Jesus Christ appointed Joseph Tkach to succeed him as Pastor General of the Church.
During the decade that followed, Mr. Tkach changed most of the important doctrines of Worldwide. Those who remained faithful to the doctrines taught from the Bible by Mr. Armstrong left Worldwide at various times and formed a multitude of fellowships, with almost all, except one, following Mr. Armstrong's judgment that right Church governance is from the top down.
United Church of God was organized by a number of leading ministers, including David Hulme and Roy Holladay, in the spring of 1995.
Here is what Mr. Holladay wrote in his April 13 letter explaining the recent changes: "As collectively established in the beginning of our fellowship 15 years ago, the Council of Elders is directly and solely responsible for oversight and setting direction and policy for the Church. This is quite a different structure from the one we experienced in our former church affiliation where only one or two people at the top made all of the important decisions. We learned through painful experience where that led. The United Church of God, we collectively decided, would be different. We adopted as one of our primary governing principles Proverbs:24:6: 'In a multitude of counselors there is safety.'
"To put in perspective the now-past situation, allow me to review a few more points of important history. Fifteen years ago we collectively chose a very different structure of governance on the physical level, emphasizing and recognizing of course that the living Head of the spiritual Church is Jesus Christ Himself. The highest authority in our physical organization is the General Conference of Elders, which is all of the nearly 500 elders of the United Church of God who choose to participate."
Mr. Holladay quotes Proverbs 24:6, but it is misapplied if it is used to justify placing authority in the hands of 500 voting ministers. Proverbs 24:6 has to do with the giving of advice, not a matter of authority. Mr. Armstrong used the principle properly when he would get advice from those under him before making a decision. But always the authority for the decision came from Christ through Mr. Armstrong, not through the men who advised Mr. Armstrong.
What was the "painful experience" Mr. Holladay referred to which led to their decision to overturn Mr. Armstrong's judgment that government in the Church must be from the top down and not by the voting of men? It was the division and scattering of the Church of God caused by the doctrinal changes made by Mr. Tkach. It was Mr. Tkach's authority over Worldwide, the authority of one man not restrained by any council or board that could vote him out of office, that gave him the power to make massive doctrinal change, change not supported by most of the ministry and members, in only ten years.
In order to avoid that kind of thing repeating itself, UCG ministry wanted a system of checks and balances so that no one man had the power to make doctrinal changes without the approval of most of the ministry. So they set up governance with the whole body of ministers having the authority to select, by voting (or "balloting"), a 12-man governing board. That board would then select a management team led by a president.
The idea was that the vesting of power in the hands of the whole ministry would prevent doctrinal heresy that could divide and scatter the church once again.
But there are several problems with that approach.
First of all, democracy will not prevent the introduction of unbiblical doctrine, it only slows it down. This can be seen in other church organizations that are governed by the voting of men. It may become apparent in UCG as time goes on.
Secondly, while making doctrine subject to the will of the entire ministry may make it harder for any man to introduce false doctrine, it also makes it harder for correction to doctrine and new knowledge to be taught from the Bible. The UCG ministry likes to look at what happened from 1986 to 1995, when the principle doctrines taught by Mr. Armstrong were overturned, but they do not look at how those doctrines came to be in the first place. Mr. Armstrong was able to discover those doctrines in the Bible and teach them to the Church precisely because he reported directly to Christ and not to a voting board. Had he stayed with Church of God Seventh Day, we would not have those doctrines (unless God used someone else). Had those doctrines been subject to the voting of men, we would not have them today.
Thirdly, as I point out in my December 19 and January 1 postings in this blog, democracy is a guarenteed recipe for division. You cannot separate the two. I said above that the reason for the spirit of division that exists in UCG is clear. It is a direct effect of rule by ballot. You will ALWAYS have division, eventually, if rule is by ballot.
Why?
For one thing, the whole issue of authority is confused. Who is in charge? Does the 12-man board govern the 500 ministers, or do the 500 ministers govern the 12-man board? If someone asked me, I would have said the 12-man board is the highest authority, but Mr. Holladay in his letter said, "The highest authority in our physical organization is the General Conference of Elders, which is all of the nearly 500 elders of the United Church of God who choose to participate." (By the way, the reason not all elders "choose to participate" is probably that some of them have a conscience problem with voting, knowing that it is wrong according to the Bible.)
The 12-man Council of Elders governs the 500 ministers, but the 500 ministers are the "highest authority" over the 12-man board. Does this sound like "self-government"? Do the members of the 12-man board report to Christ or to the 500 ministers who vote them into office? Is there a conflict of interest here?
When UCG started, some said it was governed by a "Spirit-led consensus". I suppose they meant that God led the 500 ministers to vote for the right members of the Council of Elders and to approve the right proposals that the ministry votes on. But if that is the case, why would God lead UCG to spend money on a move to Dallas, then cancel the move? And why is the GCE so evenly divided in their voting?
But as I point out in my previous blog postings about four months ago, there is another reason, the most important reason, why balloting MUST lead to division and will ALWAYS lead to division.
Proverbs:24:6 teaches us to get counsel from others before making a decision whenever possible. The 500 ministers who vote must be able to freely discuss their differences, not only differences among themselves, but differences between themselves and those holding elected office. They must be free to criticize, and WILL criticize, the men they elect. But this very criticism weakens those in authority and causes division.
It becomes a vicious cycle.
And the whole Church of God is watching this play out in UCG.
A fourth problem with UCG's governance is that they made the decision to overturn Mr. Armstrong's judgment based on human observation rather than God's Word.
As anyone knows who is familiar with my writings in my book, Preaching the Gospel, I do not say that Mr. Armstrong's teachings cannot be changed. Mr. Armstrong himself corrected his own doctrines when he saw by the Bible that they were wrong, and he would have us do the same, I am sure. But before changing a doctrine or judgment Mr. Armstrong taught based on the Bible, the Church should do a thorough Bible study on the subject and prove from the Bible whether that doctrine is right or wrong. And only after proving from the Bible that the doctrine or judgment is wrong or has no basis in the Bible should the doctrine be changed.
UCG has never done that with the doctrine of government from the top down. There is no record or authorization in the Bible that indicates that God rules through the voting of men. If you know of any, show it to me. Acts 1:15-26 is NOT an example of voting, as I point out in my book.
The decision on governance in 1995 was made based on human reason and observation, not the Bible.
It boils down to how to determine truth. That controversy has been going on since Lucifer disbelieved God and chose to experiment for himself with vanity to see if it brought him greater happiness. God must have warned Lucifer, and all the angels, of the dangers of sin, BEFORE Lucifer sinned. And if Lucifer committed the first sin, then there was no one to tempt him, so he didn't sin from personal weakness. I don't think Lucifer deliberately chose a path that would bring him long term misery. But he didn't believe God's warnings. He probably wanted to see for himself, to experiment, if thoughts of vanity and self-exaltation would make him happier.
So rather than trust God to tell the truth and to lead him in the way that produces happiness, Lucifer chose the method of experimentation, observation, and interpretation of results. After he sinned, he became Satan, the Devil.
He taught that same method to Adam and Eve. Eve SAW the fruit (Genesis 3:6). She observed that it was good for food and pleasant to the eyes, just as UCG leaders observed that Mr. Tkach used his one-man authority to make massive doctrinal changes. She interpreted what she saw, just as UCG leaders interpreted what they saw happen in Worldwide to mean that government should not be from the top down, but there should be a system of balloting to prevent any one man from becoming too powerful. And Eve disbelieved God, just as UCG leaders did not trust God's teaching about government in the Bible.
Solomon was another man who experimented. You can read of how he experimented, and observed, and interpreted, in the book of Ecclesiastes. See Ecclesiastes 2:1-11. But his experimenting did not bring him happiness, but frustration and depression, as you can read in the whole book of Ecclesiastes, and he also became unfaithful to God (1 Kings 11:1-13). Contrast this with the example of Abraham, who believed what God told him even when it was contrary to what he observed (Romans 4:3, James 2:23, Genesis 15:4-6).
Today, one of the greatest controversies in the United States is the evolution-vs-creation controversy. I have debated this issue in many blogs and forums, and those who are hard-core atheists and evolutionists will not accept any idea or knowledge that cannot be verified by the scientific method of experimentation, observation, and interpretation of results. For them, the scientific method is not just the best path to truth, but the ONLY path to truth.
But God's method for us to learn truth is to trust His wisdom and integrity enough to believe and obey what He says. As we believe and obey Him, he gives us more wisdom to understand His will and the Bible so we can believe and obey Him more.
The apostles Peter and Paul did not depend on the voting of men for their appointments. You will not find a single example in the Bible of God's authority flowing through the voting of men. Democracy is one of Satan's forms of government, and you can see the results of it in the division and steady weakening of the United States. And it should be obvious that there will be no balloting in the Kingdom of God.
Did God lead Mr. Armstrong to name Mr. Tkach, and if so, why? I answer those questions in chapter 5 of my book.
God Himself is performing an experiment for all mankind. This is not an experiment for God to learn what is true. It is a demonstration experiment, to teach mankind what God already knows is true. It is like experiments in high school chemistry labs, where the students perform a text-book experiment so they can see what happens, but the writers of the textbooks already know the results.
The seven thousand year plan of God is a demonstration to show mankind that man cannot govern himself, and that God's way works best. For six thousand years, mankind has been following the pattern set by Adam and Eve, and set by Satan before that, of learning by experimentation and observation, and then interpreting the results to decide for oneself what is best. But God's way is different. God reveals by His Word, APART from experimentation and observation, what is best, and He commands us to believe Him. Mankind is writing the lesson in death and suffering that the scientific method, when used as a substitute for God's revelation, does not bring long-term good.
I think the same thing is happening in UCG. When God scattered the Church of God for our Laodicean attitude, He allowed one major fellowship to practice governance by the voting of men. I think that just as He is allowing Satan to rule this world for 6,000 years to demonstrate that Satan's way does not work, so He is allowing one major fellowship to govern itself by the voting of men to demonstrate once and for all that democracy does not work, that it causes division, and that it does not prevent doctrinal error.
What is happening in UCG is a mirror-image of what is happening in the United States Congress. They are both the same system, and as our political divisions are weakening our country, so the political divisions in UCG are weakening the Church.
But we must be different if we are to learn the way of life we will practice in the Kingdom on God.
The issue of governance by ballot vs. government from the top down is not going to go away. Government was top down under Mr. Armstrong, and it is because of that top down government that UCG has most of the doctrines that it has. And since 1995, it has been trying to preserve those doctrines by abandoning the principle of government that made those doctrines possible and which is taught in the Bible. It won't work. There is an inconsistancy here, I think what someone in Worldwide once called "cognitive dissonance". You can ignore it, sweep it under the rug, pretend you can solve UCG's problems by appealing to the members and ministry for love and unity, but it won't work. When the foundation is cracked, you cannot solve the problems by patching the building. You have to start over organizationally, from the bottom up, no matter how painful that will be. It will be painful, because it involves admitting to a 15-year mistake, which most people are not willing to do.
I have no doubt that some in United Church of God will do this, and others will not. That is part of the testing process that God is putting the whole Church of God through since the death of Mr. Armstrong.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
A Lesson from the Autobiography, Chapter 6
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
Finding the Solution, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
The Inconsistencies of Saying We Can't Change Herbert W. Armstrong's Doctrine, Chapter 6
Faith, Chapter 6
Evolution versus the Creation Account in Genesis, Chapter 1
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
God's 7,000 Year Plan -- Are We in the Last Days?, Chapter 1
The Feast of Tabernacles - the Millennial Rule of Christ, Chapter 2
This is not unexpected. There has been a power shift going on in UCG between two opposing camps. As those familiar with UCG governance and politics know, the 12-man Council of Elders is elected by the vote of the General Conference of Elders (GCE), which is the collective body of about 500 ordained ministers in UCG. In recent elections, the GCE has replaced those who have held power and influence on the Council of Elders for a long time with new council members who have different priorities and perspectives than the men they replaced. The 500 man General Conference of Elders has been approximately evenly divided in their support for the two camps with a thin majority for the new men who have taken control.
It is not hard to find out, from various blogs and communications, which leaders are aligned with which camps. The divisions seem fairly sharp, and it seems there have been feelings of bitterness and hostility, which prompted a letter December 28 from the Council to the general ministry pleading for a spirit of unity, and warning of the danger of a spirit of division within the UCG ministry.
What is harder to determine are the exact issues that divide the two camps. Those issues have never been openly acknowledged to the membership and the the Church of God as a whole.
One issue was the proposed move of headquarters to Dallas. First the decision was made to move to Dallas, and then, after money was spent preparing for that move, the decision was reversed.
But I find it hard to believe that was the only, or even the primary, issue.
Is it the priority given and money spent on preaching the gospel to the public? Is it a matter of how tightly local congregations and pastors are controlled from headquarters? Is it cooperation with other Church of God fellowships? Is it possible doctrinal change, such as a change in the doctrine that the United States and other western nations are descended from the lost ten tribes of Israel, or some other doctrine? No one I found is open and clear about exactly what issues divide the two camps. This is not just a matter of personalities.
But while the issues that are the focus of the current divisions are not clear, the REASON for the spirit of division that exists is clear. And it goes back to the start of UCG as a church in 1995.
Herbert W. Armstrong began to fellowship with the Church of God Seventh Day around the time of his conversion in 1927. While still a lay member, he wrote up papers proposing changes to doctrine based on his independent research in the Bible, and sent those papers to the COG7D leadership, including a paper on the identity of Israel. The leadership of that church never accepted the new doctrines Mr. Armstrong discovered in the Bible. Eventually, Mr. Armstrong and the COG7D parted company, and around early 1934 Mr. Armstrong started a work that led to the formation of the Worldwide Church of God, which he led till his death in 1986.
Mr. Armstrong taught God's government in the Church from the top-down, what some would call "one-man rule". Mr. Armstrong did not report to a ruling board of men or any body of men who vote, or "ballot", to select a leader. Mr. Armstrong understood, from the Bible, that democracy, the selection of the leadership by those under the authority of the leadership, is not God's way. He understood that he personally was responsible to and under the authority of Jesus Christ, not any group of men. This was an important doctrine to Mr. Armstrong.
So when he was ill and knew his death was near, he did not leave the selection of a replacement to a voting board of men, but in the name of and by the authority of Jesus Christ appointed Joseph Tkach to succeed him as Pastor General of the Church.
During the decade that followed, Mr. Tkach changed most of the important doctrines of Worldwide. Those who remained faithful to the doctrines taught from the Bible by Mr. Armstrong left Worldwide at various times and formed a multitude of fellowships, with almost all, except one, following Mr. Armstrong's judgment that right Church governance is from the top down.
United Church of God was organized by a number of leading ministers, including David Hulme and Roy Holladay, in the spring of 1995.
Here is what Mr. Holladay wrote in his April 13 letter explaining the recent changes: "As collectively established in the beginning of our fellowship 15 years ago, the Council of Elders is directly and solely responsible for oversight and setting direction and policy for the Church. This is quite a different structure from the one we experienced in our former church affiliation where only one or two people at the top made all of the important decisions. We learned through painful experience where that led. The United Church of God, we collectively decided, would be different. We adopted as one of our primary governing principles Proverbs:24:6: 'In a multitude of counselors there is safety.'
"To put in perspective the now-past situation, allow me to review a few more points of important history. Fifteen years ago we collectively chose a very different structure of governance on the physical level, emphasizing and recognizing of course that the living Head of the spiritual Church is Jesus Christ Himself. The highest authority in our physical organization is the General Conference of Elders, which is all of the nearly 500 elders of the United Church of God who choose to participate."
Mr. Holladay quotes Proverbs 24:6, but it is misapplied if it is used to justify placing authority in the hands of 500 voting ministers. Proverbs 24:6 has to do with the giving of advice, not a matter of authority. Mr. Armstrong used the principle properly when he would get advice from those under him before making a decision. But always the authority for the decision came from Christ through Mr. Armstrong, not through the men who advised Mr. Armstrong.
What was the "painful experience" Mr. Holladay referred to which led to their decision to overturn Mr. Armstrong's judgment that government in the Church must be from the top down and not by the voting of men? It was the division and scattering of the Church of God caused by the doctrinal changes made by Mr. Tkach. It was Mr. Tkach's authority over Worldwide, the authority of one man not restrained by any council or board that could vote him out of office, that gave him the power to make massive doctrinal change, change not supported by most of the ministry and members, in only ten years.
In order to avoid that kind of thing repeating itself, UCG ministry wanted a system of checks and balances so that no one man had the power to make doctrinal changes without the approval of most of the ministry. So they set up governance with the whole body of ministers having the authority to select, by voting (or "balloting"), a 12-man governing board. That board would then select a management team led by a president.
The idea was that the vesting of power in the hands of the whole ministry would prevent doctrinal heresy that could divide and scatter the church once again.
But there are several problems with that approach.
First of all, democracy will not prevent the introduction of unbiblical doctrine, it only slows it down. This can be seen in other church organizations that are governed by the voting of men. It may become apparent in UCG as time goes on.
Secondly, while making doctrine subject to the will of the entire ministry may make it harder for any man to introduce false doctrine, it also makes it harder for correction to doctrine and new knowledge to be taught from the Bible. The UCG ministry likes to look at what happened from 1986 to 1995, when the principle doctrines taught by Mr. Armstrong were overturned, but they do not look at how those doctrines came to be in the first place. Mr. Armstrong was able to discover those doctrines in the Bible and teach them to the Church precisely because he reported directly to Christ and not to a voting board. Had he stayed with Church of God Seventh Day, we would not have those doctrines (unless God used someone else). Had those doctrines been subject to the voting of men, we would not have them today.
Thirdly, as I point out in my December 19 and January 1 postings in this blog, democracy is a guarenteed recipe for division. You cannot separate the two. I said above that the reason for the spirit of division that exists in UCG is clear. It is a direct effect of rule by ballot. You will ALWAYS have division, eventually, if rule is by ballot.
Why?
For one thing, the whole issue of authority is confused. Who is in charge? Does the 12-man board govern the 500 ministers, or do the 500 ministers govern the 12-man board? If someone asked me, I would have said the 12-man board is the highest authority, but Mr. Holladay in his letter said, "The highest authority in our physical organization is the General Conference of Elders, which is all of the nearly 500 elders of the United Church of God who choose to participate." (By the way, the reason not all elders "choose to participate" is probably that some of them have a conscience problem with voting, knowing that it is wrong according to the Bible.)
The 12-man Council of Elders governs the 500 ministers, but the 500 ministers are the "highest authority" over the 12-man board. Does this sound like "self-government"? Do the members of the 12-man board report to Christ or to the 500 ministers who vote them into office? Is there a conflict of interest here?
When UCG started, some said it was governed by a "Spirit-led consensus". I suppose they meant that God led the 500 ministers to vote for the right members of the Council of Elders and to approve the right proposals that the ministry votes on. But if that is the case, why would God lead UCG to spend money on a move to Dallas, then cancel the move? And why is the GCE so evenly divided in their voting?
But as I point out in my previous blog postings about four months ago, there is another reason, the most important reason, why balloting MUST lead to division and will ALWAYS lead to division.
Proverbs:24:6 teaches us to get counsel from others before making a decision whenever possible. The 500 ministers who vote must be able to freely discuss their differences, not only differences among themselves, but differences between themselves and those holding elected office. They must be free to criticize, and WILL criticize, the men they elect. But this very criticism weakens those in authority and causes division.
It becomes a vicious cycle.
And the whole Church of God is watching this play out in UCG.
A fourth problem with UCG's governance is that they made the decision to overturn Mr. Armstrong's judgment based on human observation rather than God's Word.
As anyone knows who is familiar with my writings in my book, Preaching the Gospel, I do not say that Mr. Armstrong's teachings cannot be changed. Mr. Armstrong himself corrected his own doctrines when he saw by the Bible that they were wrong, and he would have us do the same, I am sure. But before changing a doctrine or judgment Mr. Armstrong taught based on the Bible, the Church should do a thorough Bible study on the subject and prove from the Bible whether that doctrine is right or wrong. And only after proving from the Bible that the doctrine or judgment is wrong or has no basis in the Bible should the doctrine be changed.
UCG has never done that with the doctrine of government from the top down. There is no record or authorization in the Bible that indicates that God rules through the voting of men. If you know of any, show it to me. Acts 1:15-26 is NOT an example of voting, as I point out in my book.
The decision on governance in 1995 was made based on human reason and observation, not the Bible.
It boils down to how to determine truth. That controversy has been going on since Lucifer disbelieved God and chose to experiment for himself with vanity to see if it brought him greater happiness. God must have warned Lucifer, and all the angels, of the dangers of sin, BEFORE Lucifer sinned. And if Lucifer committed the first sin, then there was no one to tempt him, so he didn't sin from personal weakness. I don't think Lucifer deliberately chose a path that would bring him long term misery. But he didn't believe God's warnings. He probably wanted to see for himself, to experiment, if thoughts of vanity and self-exaltation would make him happier.
So rather than trust God to tell the truth and to lead him in the way that produces happiness, Lucifer chose the method of experimentation, observation, and interpretation of results. After he sinned, he became Satan, the Devil.
He taught that same method to Adam and Eve. Eve SAW the fruit (Genesis 3:6). She observed that it was good for food and pleasant to the eyes, just as UCG leaders observed that Mr. Tkach used his one-man authority to make massive doctrinal changes. She interpreted what she saw, just as UCG leaders interpreted what they saw happen in Worldwide to mean that government should not be from the top down, but there should be a system of balloting to prevent any one man from becoming too powerful. And Eve disbelieved God, just as UCG leaders did not trust God's teaching about government in the Bible.
Solomon was another man who experimented. You can read of how he experimented, and observed, and interpreted, in the book of Ecclesiastes. See Ecclesiastes 2:1-11. But his experimenting did not bring him happiness, but frustration and depression, as you can read in the whole book of Ecclesiastes, and he also became unfaithful to God (1 Kings 11:1-13). Contrast this with the example of Abraham, who believed what God told him even when it was contrary to what he observed (Romans 4:3, James 2:23, Genesis 15:4-6).
Today, one of the greatest controversies in the United States is the evolution-vs-creation controversy. I have debated this issue in many blogs and forums, and those who are hard-core atheists and evolutionists will not accept any idea or knowledge that cannot be verified by the scientific method of experimentation, observation, and interpretation of results. For them, the scientific method is not just the best path to truth, but the ONLY path to truth.
But God's method for us to learn truth is to trust His wisdom and integrity enough to believe and obey what He says. As we believe and obey Him, he gives us more wisdom to understand His will and the Bible so we can believe and obey Him more.
The apostles Peter and Paul did not depend on the voting of men for their appointments. You will not find a single example in the Bible of God's authority flowing through the voting of men. Democracy is one of Satan's forms of government, and you can see the results of it in the division and steady weakening of the United States. And it should be obvious that there will be no balloting in the Kingdom of God.
Did God lead Mr. Armstrong to name Mr. Tkach, and if so, why? I answer those questions in chapter 5 of my book.
God Himself is performing an experiment for all mankind. This is not an experiment for God to learn what is true. It is a demonstration experiment, to teach mankind what God already knows is true. It is like experiments in high school chemistry labs, where the students perform a text-book experiment so they can see what happens, but the writers of the textbooks already know the results.
The seven thousand year plan of God is a demonstration to show mankind that man cannot govern himself, and that God's way works best. For six thousand years, mankind has been following the pattern set by Adam and Eve, and set by Satan before that, of learning by experimentation and observation, and then interpreting the results to decide for oneself what is best. But God's way is different. God reveals by His Word, APART from experimentation and observation, what is best, and He commands us to believe Him. Mankind is writing the lesson in death and suffering that the scientific method, when used as a substitute for God's revelation, does not bring long-term good.
I think the same thing is happening in UCG. When God scattered the Church of God for our Laodicean attitude, He allowed one major fellowship to practice governance by the voting of men. I think that just as He is allowing Satan to rule this world for 6,000 years to demonstrate that Satan's way does not work, so He is allowing one major fellowship to govern itself by the voting of men to demonstrate once and for all that democracy does not work, that it causes division, and that it does not prevent doctrinal error.
What is happening in UCG is a mirror-image of what is happening in the United States Congress. They are both the same system, and as our political divisions are weakening our country, so the political divisions in UCG are weakening the Church.
But we must be different if we are to learn the way of life we will practice in the Kingdom on God.
The issue of governance by ballot vs. government from the top down is not going to go away. Government was top down under Mr. Armstrong, and it is because of that top down government that UCG has most of the doctrines that it has. And since 1995, it has been trying to preserve those doctrines by abandoning the principle of government that made those doctrines possible and which is taught in the Bible. It won't work. There is an inconsistancy here, I think what someone in Worldwide once called "cognitive dissonance". You can ignore it, sweep it under the rug, pretend you can solve UCG's problems by appealing to the members and ministry for love and unity, but it won't work. When the foundation is cracked, you cannot solve the problems by patching the building. You have to start over organizationally, from the bottom up, no matter how painful that will be. It will be painful, because it involves admitting to a 15-year mistake, which most people are not willing to do.
I have no doubt that some in United Church of God will do this, and others will not. That is part of the testing process that God is putting the whole Church of God through since the death of Mr. Armstrong.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
A Lesson from the Autobiography, Chapter 6
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
Finding the Solution, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
The Inconsistencies of Saying We Can't Change Herbert W. Armstrong's Doctrine, Chapter 6
Faith, Chapter 6
Evolution versus the Creation Account in Genesis, Chapter 1
Our Attitude and Approach Towards God's Word, Chapter 1
God's 7,000 Year Plan -- Are We in the Last Days?, Chapter 1
The Feast of Tabernacles - the Millennial Rule of Christ, Chapter 2
Friday, January 1, 2010
UCG Council of Elders letter
The United Church of God Council of Elders sent a letter to the UCG ministry December 28, 2009, according to Ambassador Watch (Gavin Rumney blog, an anti-COG website). The entire text of the letter can be found at his site in his December 31 posting. Note: the posting itself does not include anti-COG opinion, but the comments section does, in case you want to avoid it.
The letter is an appeal for unity and cooperation in the face of a spirit of division and contention growing in UCG at this time.
Many of the UCG ministers seem to be aligned into two camps with different opinions on a variety of matters. There has been a recent change in the leadership of UCG because of the last election.
I won't try to go into details of the matters in which they differ. The move to Texas was one matter, and there may be many others.
The letter addresses the problem of division in a strong way, and much of what is written is good. It is a warning in effect that unless the ministry as a whole builds a spirit of cooperation instead of contention, great spiritual damage will be done to the Church, and though it was not stated explicitly, I think there is an implied warning that if the spirit of division continues to grow, it will fragment United Church of God at some point.
I want to comment on one cause of the division, and some lessons that can be learned.
This letter refers repeatedly to the decision in 1995 to establish governance by the election of a ruling Council of Elders by the general ministry by ballot, which is a different form of governance than the Church had before. And the letter goes on to describe a pattern of divisiveness and contention which has grown to become the dominant spirit in United Church of God.
I believe I can show that there is a connection between the two. One is a contributing cause of the other.
I can understand why United Church of God chose this system of governance. I was attending Worldwide at the time United Church of God formed. I didn't leave Worldwide until after UCG had formed, and then I attended with them for a while. At the time UCG started, there did not seem to be any alternative to governance by ballot. There was no one leader with the standing in the eyes of the ministry to assume leadership without election by the ministry at large. I think the motive for governance by ballot was a desire for unity and cooperation and to keep the ministry together. There may have also been some concern that a system of checks and balances was needed so that no one man had the authority to change doctrine without the consent of the majority of the ministers, as had happened in Worldwide.
But the fruits of that decision have become apparent over time.
It has been instructive. I actually understand certain principles of democracy better than I did before, even as it applies to the United States government, from watching events in UCG. In other words, watching the spirit of division grow in UCG has helped me better understand why the United States is so divided in its politics and government.
There is a biblical principle that those under authority should respect and submit to those over them in authority. That is how government works. Part of that respect and submission includes not openly criticizing those who hold an office of authority in front of those under that office. When you do that, you weaken the authority of the office and make it more difficult for leaders to lead.
But in order for democracy to function, there must be freedom to criticize. Those who vote by ballot must be free to discuss their voting decision with others, even when those discussions include harsh criticism. I understand now why the freedoms of speech and press in the Bill of Rights are vital to the functioning of democracy in the United States. It does no good to give the people the authority to vote their leaders out of office if those in office have the power to squelch dissent and free expression. Without the free flow of information and opinion, government leaders can stiffle information critical of themselves or favorable to their opponents. But the price that is paid is that of division and factionalism. We see that in the political arena in the United States. And we can see it in the United Church of God.
This kind of factionalism will always grow in a democracy.
Why does this happen whenever those under authority elect those over them by ballot?
You have an immediate conflict of interest. Authority is weakened when those under the authority harshly criticize those above them, but such criticism must be allowed in order for the body doing the voting (General Conference of Elders) to exchange information and views to make decisions on how to vote. Then such criticism begets more criticism as those who are criticized retaliate. It is an unstable system of governance that weakens and becomes more divided over time.
The letter contrasts what is occurring now in UCG with what would not have been allowed in Worldwide or in the individual congregations.
"We would never have allowed this in our former association!" - That is because the former association was not ruled from the ballot box.
"We would never allow it in the congregations that we pastor." - That is because the members of a congregation do not elect their pastor by ballot.
"In what some of our members like to call the 'real world' in which they work, such breaches of confidentiality, slander and lack of organizational cohesiveness would be dealt with immediately by appropriate disciplinary action for those responsible." - That is because the typical workplace is not a democracy. The workers do not elect their bosses by ballot.
"Why should we be different and why should the unity once a hallmark of God’s people be different now?" - Because UCG has chosen a form of governance based on voting of those under authority to elect those over them in authority. The natural effect of that is increasing division over time.
All the Churches of God and their members are now seeing the fruits play out of the 1995 decision by UCG ministers to establish a body based on the authority of the ballot box.
God is letting us all learn lessons from this example.
What is the alternative to governance by ballot in the absense of a strong leader with the prestige to hold the church together without voting?
Suppose those pastors leaving Worldwide in the spring of 1995 had not formed a single organized corporation at all. Suppose those pastors had simply pastored their congregations, collecting tithes and offerings from the members of their congregations, trusting God for the finances and guidence they needed. Some ministers might organize independently, and some might attach themselves to another man they respected and trusted. You would have ended up with many small churches, some with one minister, some with three or four ministers with one man in charge, but each leader of a group would look directly to God for supervision and support. That is what Herbert W. Armstrong did when he left the employment of Church of God Seventh Day. There would have been no voting.
Wouldn't this have created greater division? Absolutely not.
It would have become evident which pastors had a true spirit of cooperation, and those pastors would have cooperated and helped each other in many ways, not by legal requirement, but willingly, as brothers help brothers in a family. And over time, God would show by the fruits which man He chose to lead the other pastors, and as the fruits of love, wisdom, courage, truthfulness, and effectiveness of that man became evident, the other pastors and the whole Church could have gathered to that man. In effect, it would be Christ who would chose the man by showing by the fruits which man He blessed. That man would receive authority by the election of God, not by the election of men.
It might take longer that way to sort things out, but if that had been done starting in 1995, by now the man God had chosen might be in charge and we would not have the division in UCG we see today.
You will always have factions and divisions in a democracy as different sides struggle for control. I think this will become increasingly evident over time.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Should Each Member Promote His Own Opinion?, Chapter 6
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
The letter is an appeal for unity and cooperation in the face of a spirit of division and contention growing in UCG at this time.
Many of the UCG ministers seem to be aligned into two camps with different opinions on a variety of matters. There has been a recent change in the leadership of UCG because of the last election.
I won't try to go into details of the matters in which they differ. The move to Texas was one matter, and there may be many others.
The letter addresses the problem of division in a strong way, and much of what is written is good. It is a warning in effect that unless the ministry as a whole builds a spirit of cooperation instead of contention, great spiritual damage will be done to the Church, and though it was not stated explicitly, I think there is an implied warning that if the spirit of division continues to grow, it will fragment United Church of God at some point.
I want to comment on one cause of the division, and some lessons that can be learned.
This letter refers repeatedly to the decision in 1995 to establish governance by the election of a ruling Council of Elders by the general ministry by ballot, which is a different form of governance than the Church had before. And the letter goes on to describe a pattern of divisiveness and contention which has grown to become the dominant spirit in United Church of God.
I believe I can show that there is a connection between the two. One is a contributing cause of the other.
I can understand why United Church of God chose this system of governance. I was attending Worldwide at the time United Church of God formed. I didn't leave Worldwide until after UCG had formed, and then I attended with them for a while. At the time UCG started, there did not seem to be any alternative to governance by ballot. There was no one leader with the standing in the eyes of the ministry to assume leadership without election by the ministry at large. I think the motive for governance by ballot was a desire for unity and cooperation and to keep the ministry together. There may have also been some concern that a system of checks and balances was needed so that no one man had the authority to change doctrine without the consent of the majority of the ministers, as had happened in Worldwide.
But the fruits of that decision have become apparent over time.
It has been instructive. I actually understand certain principles of democracy better than I did before, even as it applies to the United States government, from watching events in UCG. In other words, watching the spirit of division grow in UCG has helped me better understand why the United States is so divided in its politics and government.
There is a biblical principle that those under authority should respect and submit to those over them in authority. That is how government works. Part of that respect and submission includes not openly criticizing those who hold an office of authority in front of those under that office. When you do that, you weaken the authority of the office and make it more difficult for leaders to lead.
But in order for democracy to function, there must be freedom to criticize. Those who vote by ballot must be free to discuss their voting decision with others, even when those discussions include harsh criticism. I understand now why the freedoms of speech and press in the Bill of Rights are vital to the functioning of democracy in the United States. It does no good to give the people the authority to vote their leaders out of office if those in office have the power to squelch dissent and free expression. Without the free flow of information and opinion, government leaders can stiffle information critical of themselves or favorable to their opponents. But the price that is paid is that of division and factionalism. We see that in the political arena in the United States. And we can see it in the United Church of God.
This kind of factionalism will always grow in a democracy.
Why does this happen whenever those under authority elect those over them by ballot?
You have an immediate conflict of interest. Authority is weakened when those under the authority harshly criticize those above them, but such criticism must be allowed in order for the body doing the voting (General Conference of Elders) to exchange information and views to make decisions on how to vote. Then such criticism begets more criticism as those who are criticized retaliate. It is an unstable system of governance that weakens and becomes more divided over time.
The letter contrasts what is occurring now in UCG with what would not have been allowed in Worldwide or in the individual congregations.
"We would never have allowed this in our former association!" - That is because the former association was not ruled from the ballot box.
"We would never allow it in the congregations that we pastor." - That is because the members of a congregation do not elect their pastor by ballot.
"In what some of our members like to call the 'real world' in which they work, such breaches of confidentiality, slander and lack of organizational cohesiveness would be dealt with immediately by appropriate disciplinary action for those responsible." - That is because the typical workplace is not a democracy. The workers do not elect their bosses by ballot.
"Why should we be different and why should the unity once a hallmark of God’s people be different now?" - Because UCG has chosen a form of governance based on voting of those under authority to elect those over them in authority. The natural effect of that is increasing division over time.
All the Churches of God and their members are now seeing the fruits play out of the 1995 decision by UCG ministers to establish a body based on the authority of the ballot box.
God is letting us all learn lessons from this example.
What is the alternative to governance by ballot in the absense of a strong leader with the prestige to hold the church together without voting?
Suppose those pastors leaving Worldwide in the spring of 1995 had not formed a single organized corporation at all. Suppose those pastors had simply pastored their congregations, collecting tithes and offerings from the members of their congregations, trusting God for the finances and guidence they needed. Some ministers might organize independently, and some might attach themselves to another man they respected and trusted. You would have ended up with many small churches, some with one minister, some with three or four ministers with one man in charge, but each leader of a group would look directly to God for supervision and support. That is what Herbert W. Armstrong did when he left the employment of Church of God Seventh Day. There would have been no voting.
Wouldn't this have created greater division? Absolutely not.
It would have become evident which pastors had a true spirit of cooperation, and those pastors would have cooperated and helped each other in many ways, not by legal requirement, but willingly, as brothers help brothers in a family. And over time, God would show by the fruits which man He chose to lead the other pastors, and as the fruits of love, wisdom, courage, truthfulness, and effectiveness of that man became evident, the other pastors and the whole Church could have gathered to that man. In effect, it would be Christ who would chose the man by showing by the fruits which man He blessed. That man would receive authority by the election of God, not by the election of men.
It might take longer that way to sort things out, but if that had been done starting in 1995, by now the man God had chosen might be in charge and we would not have the division in UCG we see today.
You will always have factions and divisions in a democracy as different sides struggle for control. I think this will become increasingly evident over time.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Should Each Member Promote His Own Opinion?, Chapter 6
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Church of God Governance
Since the death of Herbert W. Armstrong, the Church of God has been scattered and split into many fellowships. The largest of these is United Church of God, but though they are the largest, they are not the most effective in preaching the gospel to the public, and they suffer from internal strife and divisions.
One pastor of that Church asked a friend, "What are we doing wrong? What can we do to revitalize the Work?" That is a good question. But I think the right answer is hard to take.
UCG kept most of the doctrines taught by HWA, but changed the doctrine of hierarchical government and built a system of balloting by the ministry to elect a board to govern the Church. They may have done this because they saw no alternative. But there was an alternative, and there still is, even for UCG pastors today.
Some in UCG may think that the Bible does not teach government from the top down, but it does. Some may have observed the fruits of one-man rule from Mr. Tkach and concluded that a lesson to be learned is the dangers of top-down government, but there is an explanation for that too. But in any case, the fruits of what is happening in UCG show the disadvantages of democracy, and it shows that UCG governance is a democracy, not a "spirit-led consensus." If it were really a spirit-led consensus, it would be hard to explain why God's Spirit would lead most of the voting ministry to approve a move to Texas, then after money was spent for such a move, disapprove it. It should be apparent that the same kinds of divisiveness, factionalism, and politicking that exists in American politics and government exist in UCG governance. You cannot revitalize the work in that kind of environment.
The Bible teaches us not to weaken the office of those in authority over us by openly criticizing them among ourselves, thus tending to show that an alternative elders' forum should not be used to harshly criticize those in power. On the other hand, the Bible teaches us to seek counsel before making a decision, and this means that those who vote must engage in discussions about those in authority to know whether to vote for or against them, and if those discussions are honest there will sometimes be harsh criticism. You cannot follow both of these principles if you have governance by ballot.
Democracy cannot work if criticism is stiffled. Having a system where those under authority select who will be over them in authority virtually guarantees negative criticism of the type that some say exists in the alternative elders' forum.
The contradiction is not between the two biblical principles of respecting authority and seeking counsel before making a decision. The contradiction is between the principles of the Bible and government by voting in the Church.
By placing themselves under the authority of a body of 500 voting ministers, the leadership and ministry have rejected the authority of Christ over the adminstrative work of the Church. That is one of the real sources of the trouble in United Church of God.
What is the solution for UCG ministers today?
When Herbert Armstrong faced disagreement with the ruling powers in Church of God Seventh Day, he has the courage to refuse further salary and trust God for his livelihood, according to his autobiography. Few ministers have that kind of courage or faith today, it seems.
Some pastors in UCG may be afraid to be independent, that is, to pastor their congregations independent of an elected body and trust God to provide them with sufficient member tithes from their congregation, and to report hierarchically to Christ until Christ can make it known by the fruits who He has selected to lead the Church. But if the UCG pastors had done that from the beginning, from the time they left Worldwide, by now it would probably be known who has shown the fruits of wisdom, faith, love, and courage required to lead the Church, and who God has blessed with success in doing His work, and the different pastors could have gathered to that man.
The passage of time is showing, and I think will continue to show, that democracy in the Church of God does not work.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Should Each Member Promote His Own Opinion?, Chapter 6
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
One pastor of that Church asked a friend, "What are we doing wrong? What can we do to revitalize the Work?" That is a good question. But I think the right answer is hard to take.
UCG kept most of the doctrines taught by HWA, but changed the doctrine of hierarchical government and built a system of balloting by the ministry to elect a board to govern the Church. They may have done this because they saw no alternative. But there was an alternative, and there still is, even for UCG pastors today.
Some in UCG may think that the Bible does not teach government from the top down, but it does. Some may have observed the fruits of one-man rule from Mr. Tkach and concluded that a lesson to be learned is the dangers of top-down government, but there is an explanation for that too. But in any case, the fruits of what is happening in UCG show the disadvantages of democracy, and it shows that UCG governance is a democracy, not a "spirit-led consensus." If it were really a spirit-led consensus, it would be hard to explain why God's Spirit would lead most of the voting ministry to approve a move to Texas, then after money was spent for such a move, disapprove it. It should be apparent that the same kinds of divisiveness, factionalism, and politicking that exists in American politics and government exist in UCG governance. You cannot revitalize the work in that kind of environment.
The Bible teaches us not to weaken the office of those in authority over us by openly criticizing them among ourselves, thus tending to show that an alternative elders' forum should not be used to harshly criticize those in power. On the other hand, the Bible teaches us to seek counsel before making a decision, and this means that those who vote must engage in discussions about those in authority to know whether to vote for or against them, and if those discussions are honest there will sometimes be harsh criticism. You cannot follow both of these principles if you have governance by ballot.
Democracy cannot work if criticism is stiffled. Having a system where those under authority select who will be over them in authority virtually guarantees negative criticism of the type that some say exists in the alternative elders' forum.
The contradiction is not between the two biblical principles of respecting authority and seeking counsel before making a decision. The contradiction is between the principles of the Bible and government by voting in the Church.
By placing themselves under the authority of a body of 500 voting ministers, the leadership and ministry have rejected the authority of Christ over the adminstrative work of the Church. That is one of the real sources of the trouble in United Church of God.
What is the solution for UCG ministers today?
When Herbert Armstrong faced disagreement with the ruling powers in Church of God Seventh Day, he has the courage to refuse further salary and trust God for his livelihood, according to his autobiography. Few ministers have that kind of courage or faith today, it seems.
Some pastors in UCG may be afraid to be independent, that is, to pastor their congregations independent of an elected body and trust God to provide them with sufficient member tithes from their congregation, and to report hierarchically to Christ until Christ can make it known by the fruits who He has selected to lead the Church. But if the UCG pastors had done that from the beginning, from the time they left Worldwide, by now it would probably be known who has shown the fruits of wisdom, faith, love, and courage required to lead the Church, and who God has blessed with success in doing His work, and the different pastors could have gathered to that man.
The passage of time is showing, and I think will continue to show, that democracy in the Church of God does not work.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
Should Each Member Promote His Own Opinion?, Chapter 6
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
A Brief History of the Scattering of the Church, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
