Should COGWA Members Proselytize UCG Members?

"Proselytize." In preparing this post, I had to look that word up in a dictionary to know how to spell it. Here is a definition I found: "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause." I like the word "recruit" better - it is easier to spell, pronounce, and understand.

Apparently that is becoming an issue with Church members who attend COGWA visiting UCG services and trying to recruit UCG members into coming to COGWA services.

Should this be done?

The true Church of God is a spiritual body, not an organization. It is the collective body of all those people who have the gift of God's Holy Spirit dwelling in them. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:13). "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Romans 8:9). This is what Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong taught and it is what the Bible teaches.

So you can have converted members of the true Church of God attending services sponsored by different organizations.

I assume there are many converted Church members in both UCG and COGWA. I have no reason to think otherwise.

It is unfortunate that organizations in the true Church view each other competitively, but that is often the case. Probably, this is a characteristic of the era we are in. If we are in the Laodicean era, and I think we are, Christ does not praise the whole Church of God for the spiritual state we are in.

Two Church of God organizations that are hostile to each other may both be wrong, or one may be right and the other wrong, but they can't both be right. There is some fault somewhere.

Does it matter between UCG and COGWA which fellowship a member attends with? Is it important?

It might very well matter and be important.

As I point out in my book, Preaching the Gospel, members have a right, and a duty, to judge matters they need to judge in order to make a decision they have the responsibility for making. In order to attend services and pay tithes and offerings, they have to make a decision about fellowships, where to attend and which to support, and to do that they have to judge.

And in judging a matter to know God's will before making a decision, we should get the facts and try to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21, Proverbs 18:17).

It is not wrong for Church of God members to discuss these things (Proverbs 27:17, Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6). Depending on the situation, talking with other members may be part of doing research to get necessary information needed to make a decision.

But should COGWA members go to UCG services and in conversation with UCG members criticize UCG leadership, policies, and teachings?

I think not.

There must be a certain respect shown to the office of the ministry (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13). Such ministers do have a certain authority over the services they conduct and the meeting places for those services (Hebrews 13:17). As much as possible, we are to speak the same thing (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), and God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Brethren want to be able to meet in peace, not contention. We are commanded to avoid those who cause division, and UCG pastors have the authority to enforce this principle (Romans 16:17).

I do not think it is wrong for a member who attends COGWA to visit a UCG meeting (if the pastor allows), and to respectfully answer questions from members about COGWA, but without criticizing UCG. But there must be a balance. COGWA members should behave as guests and seek to be peaceable. Perhaps a UCG member may want to know in more detail from a COGWA member why he left UCG, but in that case such a conversation is better conducted outside of UCG services, such as over the telephone, but not in a UCG meeting place where other members who simply want to meet in peace can overhear. Members should show respect to other members by avoiding words that can offend unnecessarily, and should not openly contradict and criticize the ministers of the services they are attending (Luke 17:1-2, Matthew 18:6-7).


More to come...


Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:

When and How to Judge, Chapter 5

Should Each Member Promote His Own Opinion?, Chapter 6

Do We Overcome Sin by Our Power or by God's Power?

Do We Overcome Sin by Our Power or by God's Power?

I think the answer, based on the Bible, is both.

Our own power is not sufficient. We need God's help to overcome. But we must make the effort.

If we think it is only by our power, we deceive ourselves and think that we are self-sufficient. If we think it is only by God's power, we may wait for God to do everything for us and not go all out 100% to do our part, to make the effort. We have to strive with all our might to overcome sin, then trust God to give us the extra help we need to succeed.

God's Spirit gives us the understanding of God's law. God does this by opening our minds to understand the Bible and by helping us see how to apply Bible instruction to the circumstances of our life. Without that help from God, we would be deceived like the world and not understand God's law and its correct application. But we must make the effort. Even then, our effort may not be sufficient to break bad habits, overcome addictions, and put sin out of our lives, but we need to pray for God's help and keep trying with all our might, trusting God to give us the victory in the end.

Here is a quote from my book, Preaching the Gospel:

"I have heard some speakers say that a problem some people have in trying to overcome addictive sins is that they are not able to do it because they are trying to do it by their own power. When I hear this, I am never quite sure what the speaker means. Sometimes the speaker may say that we need to quit trying to overcome sin by our own power. But I find no verse in the Bible that says, 'Don't try to overcome sin by your own power.'

"Certainly we should ask God for help to overcome. But we must also do our part by trying as hard as we can. It is not a matter of doing it by God's power or our own. It is both. God helps us in our trials by giving us power and help in ADDITION to what we are able to do for ourselves. For example, if I am unemployed, I may pray and ask God to help me find a job, but then after praying I should do my part by diligently looking for a job.

"God wants us to make the maximum effort we can. Jesus Christ said, 'If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire' (Matthew 18:8-9). Jesus is speaking figuratively. He does not want us to physically mutilate or injure our bodies, for the Bible also says, 'Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are' (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). Our bodies belong to God, and we should protect and take care of our health. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus is speaking figuratively to illustrate how great our effort should be to overcome sin, even to the point of giving up things we may love to avoid the temptations of sin. An example of how to apply this might be a person who has a problem with over-drinking giving up alcohol altogether, because trying to drink alcohol in moderation is a temptation for that person to drink in excess.

"When Jacob wrestled with God, God refused to bless him until Jacob proved his willingness to strive with all his might to obtain the blessing, even when in pain (Genesis 32:22-31).

"An example of the balance between our effort and the additional power God gives us can be found in the life of Samson. After he lost his strength because his hair was cut and the Philistines put out his eyes, he was in the temple of the Philistines where they were assembled. 'Then Samson called to the Lord, saying, "O Lord God, remember me, I pray! Strengthen me, I pray, just this once, O God, that I may with one blow take vengeance on the Philistines for my two eyes!" And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars which supported the temple, and he braced himself against them, one on his right and the other on his left. Then Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" And he pushed with all his might, and the temple fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So the dead that he killed at his death were more than he had killed in his life' (Judges 16:28-30). Note the sequence. First Samson asked God to give him strength. Then he pushed 'with all his might'. He asked God for help, then he made maximum effort to push on the pillars.

"Did Samson do it by God's power or his own strength? I think the answer is, both. Most of the actual physical power came from God, but I don't think God would have supplied that power if Samson was not trying as hard as he could. And part of it was Samson's strength, even if it was only 1%. Samson did his part with whatever strength he had, and God supplied the additional strength that he needed to succeed.

"There may also be a lesson in this for preaching the gospel. As a Church, we need to strive with ALL our might to preach the gospel to the world, and then God can give us the extra help we need to succeed. When God sees that individual members are striving hard to sacrifice to support the preaching of the gospel and the Ezekiel warning to the public out of a motive of love, He can bless us with more power to do so. But if we are only making a half-hearted effort, I think God will help us less until our attitude improves."


Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:

How to Obtain More of God's Help in Breaking Bad Habits, Chapter 7

Why Did the Split Occur?

Less than a year ago, a split began in United Church of God. That split is generally complete. A little more than half of the full-time paid pastors in UCG and less than half of all UCG ministers (including local elders) have left UCG and formed Church of God a Worldwide Association. Preliminary indications are that about 40% of UCG's membership (or less) have begun attending COGWA, and that may grow in time. Thus the split seems to be about right down the middle. This is not a case of a small splinter group leaving UCG.

Why did this split occur?

At one time we were together in one fellowship. Most of us in the Churches of God, especially older members, were together in Worldwide Church of God when Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was alive. Then we were split and divided into many Church of God groups after Mr. Armstrong died.

It is easy to look back and understand the immediate cause of that first split. Worldwide was split over doctrine. Those who were leading Worldwide in the decade after Mr. Armstrong's death, Joseph Tkach Sr., Joseph Tkach Jr., Michael Feazell, Greg Albrecht, and others, led that organization and those who were willing to follow them into traditional Protestant doctrines. Those who wanted to retain the older teachings of Worldwide, for whatever the reason (personal tradition and habit, family and friends connections, loyalty to Mr. Armstrong, or faith in God's word, the Bible), left and formed or joined many Church of God fellowships, including many of the main organizations that exist today.

Doctrine was the obvious direct cause of the splitting and scattering of ministers and members in Worldwide from 1987 through 1995.

But what was the cause of the split of UCG in 2010-2011? Is the reason so obvious?

If you had to sum it up to an interested outsider in just one or a few sentences, what would you say?

If your co-worker at the office in the cubicle next to you overheard a phone conversation you had with a Church member, or if a neighbor overheard you talking with your wife in the backyard about the split, or someone not knowledgeable about what happened asked you, "Did your church split?", and "Why did they split?", how would you explain it?

During the time the split was developing, I had assumed that there must be some hidden agenda of one side or another or a cause that was driving the split, something that was known to the ministry but carefully hidden from the membership and outsiders. I thought that before the split was complete the hidden agenda or cause would become clearly known. Well, if there is something like that, it has not become clearly known, not to me, except vaguely, like one can see part way through a fog. There may be hints and clues here and there that need to be interpreted, but nothing as clear and obvious as the cause of the break-up of Worldwide 1987-1995.

There can certainly be more than one cause or force driving the UCG split.

It is important to try to understand because we should learn the lessons God wants us to learn from what we go through in this life. We should learn not to repeat mistakes. We should ask ourselves why this happened and seek wisdom about this. This is also appropriate as we approach the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. This is a season for self-examination and repentance. We should seek to understand why this occurred because if mistakes were made, we need to learn from them, to repent as needed, and to avoid those mistakes in the future.

What do you think were the primary causes of the split?

Opinions among bloggers, writers, and ministers who have written and spoken about this vary.

Bob Thiel (COGwriter) in the Church of God News blog has said that he felt that vanity, ego, and personality conflict have been strong forces driving this split.

James Malm in Shining Light blog has taught that one of the driving forces has been doctrine. He believes that the leaders of UCG want to liberalize and water-down doctrine and/or obedience to God's commandments, and that those ministers leaving UCG to go to COGWA want to set up a hierarchical governance system based on the WCG/LCG model, and that the seeds of this split were in UCG from the beginning of its formation. This seems to coincide with the view of Dixon Cartwright of the Journal who seems to feel that one side (UCG) wants to move away from the influence of Mr. Armstrong and the other side (COGWA) wants to retain the influence of Mr. Armstrong.

Joel Meeker in his letter in the UCG Current Crisis site may represent the view of many ministers leaving UCG. He states that the present UCG leadership has not only shown a pattern of repeated violations of the rules of UCG that the entire ministry had agreed to follow when UCG was set up, but that they have also repeatedly violated God's law in their actions, and that these violations have destroyed the trust that is necessary for effective cooperation as well as the legitimacy of the authority of UCG's leaders, to the point that the ministers leaving UCG cannot support those violations of the law of God and UCG rules. He feels that is it spiritually dangerous to continue to follow leaders who show a pattern of lawlessness in their administration. This may explain why some ministers felt they had to leave, but it does not explain WHY the split occurred. If it is true that UCG leaders violated laws, WHY did they violate laws? If they mistreated certain ministers, WHY did they mistreat those ministers? They did not mistreat their own allies in this controversy. It was all part of HOW the split occurred, but is not an explanation for WHY the split occurred.

Those may indeed be contributing reasons, but I have long maintained that a primary driving force for division is the form or structure of governance that UCG adopted since its formation. That form of governance, governance by the authority of the ballot-box, is a recipe for division and strife. It magnifies small differences of opinion that could otherwise be reconciled or lived with peacefully. It tends to encourage politics and the taking of sides in a controversy. It can take a small cause and magnify it till it splits an organization.

The voting process creates an arena for ministers to battle it out with the ballot box, to fight for their ideas, to try to help their side win, which is directly contrary to the spirit of Proverbs 17:13. Ministers feel a responsibility to vote wisely and to offer wise and helpful counsel to others who vote and who want to practice the principle of seeking a multitude of counsel before making an important decision (Proverbs 11:14). They feel a responsibility to seek wise counsel in how to vote and to "get all the facts". The voting process also sets up a state of mind that tells the ministry that the leaders are responsible to them. So some advise the voting for or against this or that, and that magnifies and intensifies differences and tends to line people up in opposite camps.

But the worst and most insidious effect of ballot-box governance is that it can motivate those who have been elected to leadership positions to get rid of potential opposition voters before the next election so they can stay in office.

Imagine if President Obama had the authority to drive out citizens of the United States who disagree with him or to remove their voting rights before the next election. Would he use that power? Would any president?

I think that at some point many or most of the members of the Council of Elders wanted those who disagreed with them, who are the ones with the authority to vote them out of office, to just leave. In other words, if you don't agree with us, leave. Leave peacefully if possible, but leave. Don't stay in UCG and vote against us and vote us out of power. Just get out. We will help you to leave and give you a push.

That is a direct effect of ballot-box governance, because the voting process creates the fear that those who disagree will vote against those in office. Those in office do not want that. They do not want to be voted out or voted against.

Desire for power may be a motive here, but not even that necessarily. The motive can be a sincere motive to protect what are thought to be right policies and decisions. UCG council members may want to stay in office because they believe their leadership, policies, and decisions are right and good for UCG. Only God can read minds and know if the leadership wants to stay in power for their own personal desire for power and money or because they think it is best for the Church.

But either way, making leaders subject to being voted out of office by those under their authority can be a motive for those leaders to use their authority to push opposition voters out of the organization. And I think this has been a big contributing cause for the split. Without ballot-box governance, there would still be differences of opinion, but they could better be managed and reconciled without a full-blown split.

Look at the history of how this split started.

It started with an accusation of wrong-doing against Leon Walker for giving information and advise about voting. That in turn led to his being fired by the Council, and that led to the removal of many Latin American ministers who supported him.

It all started with an email about voting.

There was also an issue about the Sabbath doctrine. That issue was magnified with a document published by UCG leadership that "stirred the pot" and created concern on the part of many ministers and members because it implied that it was ok under certain circumstances for a Church member to employ people to work on part of a sabbath day. That paper became a divisive influence, and I think UCG leaders knew that it would be. Members went to their pastors about it and pastors often had to take a stand one way or another. UCG leadership later clarified their position on that issue, stating that it is NOT ok to employ someone to work on a sabbath day, but they only issued that clarification AFTER the split had passed the point of no return. It certainly gives the appearance that UCG leaders intended that paper to create division so they could separate out those ministers who were not deeply committed to supporting the UCG leadership no matter what. If that was their purpose, they succeeded.

So here is a recipe for division.

Start with differences of opinion on a variety of issues. These could include how much money to allocate to preaching the gospel, relocating headquarters, cooperation with another Church of God fellowship, interpretation of the law of the Sabbath, details of governance, etc. People might line up in a variety of ways in these issues where some who are on the same side on one issue would be on different sides on another issue. It would be a real mix, not necessarily two well-defined sides. This creates an environment for growth of division, but not yet - other things are needed. It is like a bread mix with flour, water, sugar, salt, but without the yeast.

So add personal ego and animosities. These are like seeds that can grow, or like yeast in bread.

But yeast doesn't grow very fast in a cool environment. So add a structure of governance with elections every year to turn up the heat. Then the personal animosities can grow, feeding on differences of opinion. The structure of governance then accelerates the division. Small things become big. Towards the end, the division can be deliberately maximized by those in power in order to sway future voting results in their favor.

Look at how small this started. Leon Walker shared some facts and views in an email with some Latin American ministers about how they might vote in an upcoming election. Then he did not cancel a trip to meet at headquarters when he had already met with headquarters' representatives and was willing to meet again after his trip. So for the sake of a delay in meeting with Mr. Walker of perhaps a few weeks, UCG leaders split the whole Church of God organization right down the middle.

I don't think small things like this would be so magnified without a process of balloting.

I am sure there is not just one cause for this division and split. Nor is there just one leader on either side. Many people are involved on both sides. Even one person can have many reasons for taking one course of action or another, and the reasons and causes for what happened multiply with many individuals making decisions for many reasons.

Since most ministers in COGWA elected to resign from UCG, they face the responsibility of explaining to their members why they had to resign, and collectively, those individual explanations may help paint a picture of a cause of the split, at least from the point of view of those ministers.

Doctrine is probably part of it. Even if the purpose of the sabbath paper was not to change doctrine at this time but to put pressure on some ministers to leave UCG, that tactic would not work if there was not a difference in doctrinal views between the two camps. And probably personal ego, vanity, and selfishness played some part. We all have human nature.

There was a difference of opinion regarding a move of headquarters to Texas, and there may be a difference of opinion regarding the relationship with Living Church of God. Prior to the proposal to move to the Dallas area, Clyde Kilough and Jim Franks, UCG leaders who held office at that time, had visited Living Church of God headquarters and met with Roderick Meredith, Richard Ames, and other LCG leaders in late 2006. Mr. Kilough and Mr. Franks are now with COGWA.

But I believe a large, contributing cause of the split was democracy in action, democracy of such a form and structure that it enabled small differences of opinion to be magnified and to become a catalyst for a struggle for power that split the organization right down the middle.

There is an irony in that the justification for using balloting to govern the Church is that it is an implementation of the scripture that says, "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14). Did government by voting provide "safety" in this case? Did UCG leadership behave as if they were receiving and following a multitude of wise counsel?

It appears that the whole system of UCG's governance has failed. This split is the proof. Splits usually occur because of an important issue. This split apparently occurred because of NO clear, outstanding issue. That is the big news.

There is no outstanding issue, as there was in Worldwide in 1995, which can be clearly identified as the cause of the split. The Sabbath paper was a minor issue. The doctrine has not been changed. Whether the UCG leadership intends to change the Sabbath doctrine in the future, the fact is they have not changed it so far. The move to Dallas is minor. Who cares where headquarters is located? The mistreatment of some ministers is not the issue. The division was the CAUSE of the mistreatment, not the other way around.

Members could understand in 1995. I do not think they understand today. To the membership, it must look like their ministers simply could not get along with each other. The members seem to set a better example of Christian tolerance and fellowship than some of the ministers. Yet the members must suffer because of the division. And if there is no clear cause, how can COGWA start in an atmosphere of enthusiasm for the future?

In 1998 Global Church of God was split because of disagreement between Mr. Roderick Meredith and board members Larry Salyer and Raymond McNair. Mr. Salyer and Mr. McNair gained control of the corporation and its assets and copyrights. But 75-80% of the ministry and membership stayed with Mr. Meredith and they formed Living Church of God. I remember that at the time I thought that Mr. Salyer and Mr. McNair were simply unable to give any good reason for separating from Mr. Meredith. And it may have been the lack of a clear and understandable reason for the separation that contributed to the lack of credibility of Mr. Salyer and Mr. McNair with about 80% of the membership.

UCG was formed in 1995 by ministers coming out of Worldwide Church of God over doctrinal differences. At that time, they chose the name "United Church of God" and they chose a form of governance based on the authority of decisions made by balloting, a structure of governance they hoped would prevent a repeat of the split that had occurred in Worldwide. But that form of governance did not prevent a split, and the church governed by that structure has not lived up to its name. It has undergone two major splits, one with David Hulme in 1998 and now a greater split with the ministers who have formed COGWA. I think the evidence shows that the ballot-box structure of governance chosen for UCG has been a major contributing cause of the latest split.


I have added a few blogs to my Church of God Blogs site (see sidebar for link at left). John Carmack's "Church of God Perspective" blog is back up and running. It was down for a while as he switched from Blogger to Wordpress.


More to come...


Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:

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

How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7

X-UCG Ministers Are Staying Together

UCG Split Mostly Complete

The split that began last June with the firing of Leon Walker is mostly complete. About 1/3 of the total ministry, but more than half of the professional ministry, has left United Church of God (UCG) to form and join with Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA).

I have brought the alphabetical list of ministers up to date in my post Where UCG Ministers Stand with latest information about resignations from UCG and affiliation with COGWA based on contact names in the COGWA congregation page. Names added or updated include Bill Swanson, Reuel Dima, Eschun Plange, Ofori Amanfo, Benjamin Agyopong, Adonijah Blay, Joseph Baah, Floyd Satterwhite, Heamasi K.Ta'ufo'ou, Eddie Johnson, Peter Hawkins, Howard Wills, Paul Cebrian, Kambani Banda, Jerry Shachoongo, Richard Rand, Walter Hawk, Frank McCrady Sr., Roy Dove. Morgen Kriedemann, Tony Levy, Neil Becker, Neville Smith, Behrman Doucet, Jim Chapman, Eriz Dizon, Norman Julag-ay, Florante Siopan, David Witt, Charles May, James Capo, and Gary Black.

Here is a link to the COGWA listing of congregations and people to contact:
http://cogwa.org/congregations

There have been a few new letters from former UCG ministers in the "Resignation Letters" section of UCG Current Crisis site. One that I want to mention is the letter from Joel Meeker. It is worth a read if you want to understand the position of many ministers leaving UCG. Whether you agree with it or not, I think it expresses the view of many leaving UCG more clearly than many other documents. It also helps to show the view on UCG governance that many UCG and X-UCG ministers have had. Link:
http://www.freewebs.com/ucgcurrentcrisis/resignationletters.htm

With the split mostly complete, I want to say that it is to the credit of the UCG and COGWA ministry that no one has violated 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 by filing any lawsuits over alleged libel or violations of law concerning alleged violations of the constitution or bylaws of the United Church of God corporation.


X-UCG Ministers Are Staying Together

X-UCG ministers are staying together in one large fellowship, not fragmenting into many small independent groups and congregations. Larry Salyer, Jack Hendren, and Graemme Marshall were for a time not listed in the COGWA website, but later they were added. I have not found Leon Walker listed as part of any leadership team in COGWA or as a person to contact in the list of congregations page in the COGWA website, but I am sure he is affiliated with COGWA as a regional director of some kind over the Latin American region.

Most of the resignations and firings from UCG that will happen have happened, yet I know of no X-UCG ministers who have set up their own small independent group. Maybe a few have, but I do not know about it yet. It appears that all of those leaving UCG are going to COGWA.

Also, I know of no case where a minister leaving UCG has gone with Living Church of God (LCG) or with any other organized fellowship that existed before the UCG split started. Some members may be doing that, however.


X-UCG Ministers Give COGWA a Vote of Confidence

Although the split is largely complete, and most of those who are leaving UCG have already done so, a trickle of ministers have continued to leave UCG and go with COGWA until the present time, even many weeks after COGWA was formed by the main body of ministers that was with COGWA from the beginning. The fact that ministers have been resigning from UCG and going to COGWA continuously since COGWA formed, though at a slowing rate, indicates a vote of confidence in the way it is forming. There are ministers who did not step out and cut their ties with UCG through the time COGWA formed, but did afterwards. It is as if they were waiting to see how things shaped up before burning their bridges. But then, after COGWA got a good start and they could see how it was coming together, they elected to make their move. This indicates they like what they see at COGWA and believe it will succeed, and this suggests that COGWA will be strong and viable.

This may be an early sign that those in a position to know feel that COGWA will grow stronger in time and UCG will grow weaker. It reminds me of the situation in the split between the house of David and the house of Saul in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 3:1). COGWA now has the most experienced and most able ministers, more than half the paid ministry from UCG, and over time more UCG members will gravitate to a more professional ministry, especially since they can listen to sermons from the COGWA website and compare the speakers in COGWA with their own local UCG pastor, who may be an unpaid elder working part time. Those ministers who have held back, waiting to see how things developed before burning their bridges with UCG, are not holding back anymore. They have seen COGWA and they like what they see. COGWA is now a serious group, and it will be a magnet for UCG members. The fact that the majority of paid pastors in UCG have gone with COGWA is an early indication that indeed COGWA expects, based on early trends, to receive enough tithe income to pay the salaries of those full-time ministers who wish to go with them. It is a visible indicator of what is not directly visible: the early habits and trends of brethren in attending and contributing to COGWA.


Is Split Mostly at the Pastor Level, Not Member Level?

It seems the decisions being made about going to COGWA or staying with UCG are mostly being made at the pastor level, not at the membership level. A pastor decides where he will go. Probably, most members (but not all) follow their pastor. So the shape of the split is being decided primarily by individual pastors. And this means that not all members of every area have had a good choice between two fellowships if they want to attend with most of the members in their local area. Some cities are areas now served primarily by a UCG pastor, some primarily by a COGWA pastor, but not both, until both UCG and COGWA can fill the gaps.

So if you are a UCG member living in a city where the pastor has stayed with UCG, there may not be much of a COGWA congregation in your city you can attend with. Or, if you are a UCG member living in a city whose pastor has gone with COGWA, the majority of the congregation may have stayed with their pastor, and there may not be much of a UCG congregation you can attend with. But in some cities, there may be both a sizable UCG congregation and a sizable COGWA congregation, and in that case you have more of a choice.

But both churches are working to fill the gaps, to provide ministerial care to every area. This means the existing ministerial manpower is stretched. Their workload has increased and they will be doing much more traveling. And the level of care of the members may suffer as a result. Members who have seen their pastor every Sabbath might now see him every other Sabbath because on alternate Sabbaths he has to drive to speak to an area whose original pastor is now with the other group.

Question: Are congregations themselves being divided and split, or are congregations remaining intact and staying with UCG or going to COGWA as a whole congregation? Are there cases where local congregations are split down the middle with half staying with UCG and half going with COGWA?

In the long term however, each family and member will make a decision where to go. As UCG and COGWA provide ministers for every area, members will have more choices, and some members may elect to attend with LCG or some other existing group. UCG members will learn more details about COGWA from connections with family members and friends who attend there and they will sample sermons and literature as it becomes available on the COGWA website.

Something that can become an issue will be members visiting the other group's local congregation. For example, a member of a UCG congregation might visit a local COGWA congregation, then come back to services with UCG and tell all his friends what a wonderful sermon he heard in COGWA. How will the UCG pastor react to that? Will such visiting be discouraged? Will it be forbidden?


Prospects for COGWA Long Term Growth

It remains to be seen how much and how fast COGWA will grow over the months and years ahead. It is possible they may attract more and more members. They will need to attract more members to be able to pay adequate salaries to all the full-time ministers who want to be with COGWA and still do an effective work of preaching the gospel to the public, which they want to do.

I already mentioned that UCG members may be attracted to COGWA by the level of care and instruction they can get from the professional and experienced ministry there. COGWA has a larger body of experienced and able ministers, and many UCG members will want to be served by them.

COGWA may have the higher moral and ethical ground in matters relating to the split, and as the dust settles, more and more UCG members will realize this.

I think the present UCG leadership bears the greater responsibility here for splitting the UCG organization. They drove the X-UCG ministers out. It was UCG's initiative, not that of the ministers who are leaving UCG. This split started when Leon Walker was fired. I think the idea that UCG leaders fired Leon Walker for disobeying orders to report to headquarters is a smoke screen, not the real reason. They could have disciplined him another way, and they could have tried to work things out with him. UCG leaders like to say that even in a business corporation you will be fired for not obeying orders. Most of these men have never worked in business corporations, but businesses generally treat their key executives better than they treated Leon Walker. A business does not give up a valuable employee that easily. Mr. Walker was not fired for refusing to meet with UCG leaders. He had already met with their representatives and was apparently willing to meet with them again. He simply refused to cancel a trip to serve the churches under his care, a trip which he regarded as important.

UCG leaders also erred in publishing a document on the Sabbath that appeared to teach the idea that it is ok for a church member to own and operate a business that employs people to work on a sabbath day. That document became a source of division, and UCG leaders did not clarify the issue until after the split had been largely accomplished. They have behaved in many respects as if they wanted this split to occur.

COGWA is going through tough times financially right now. They have more than half the paid ministers but probably not more than half the tithe-paying membership of UCG before the split. But I think there may be a steady flow of members from UCG to COGWA. As this occurs over the next year or two, COGWA attendance and income will grow and UCG will shrink. It remains to be seen if this happens quickly enough and to the necessary degree to enable COGWA to keep all the full-time ministry leaving UCG and also preach the gospel. But they say they are able to do it.

COGWA is trying to include as many X-UCG ministers as possible, but by doing so it is including in their ranks ministers of divergent views and varying degrees of faithfulness to God. Right now, COGWA has unity because all these ministers have been united in their differences with the UCG leadership. They are in a honeymoon period, but opposition to UCG leadership policies will not keep them united forever. As they become more settled, they have to strive to keep the spirit of cooperation they have and they have to start off with a right form of governance, or they too will experience internal division to one degree or another. There will always be differences of opinion, but a structure of governance that encourages politics and magnifies divisions can create the same kind of problems in COGWA as it did in UCG.


COGWA Governance

The permanent structure of governance for COGWA has not yet been determined. The leadership team of COGWA is considered temporary until permanent governance is established.

COGWA has several options. They can organize just like UCG, with yearly or frequent re-occurring elections. They can organize like UCG, but with a council elected for life, elections by the ministry just for replacements of those who die or resign. They can choose ALL positions for life, including chairman and president. They can have elections, not by ministry, but by Council members to approve replacements to their Council. Or they can have elections for limited terms, but not so often, perhaps elections every 4 years or 7 years, or something like that, to reduce the politicking that goes on.

Probably, they will not choose a structure of governance with rules exactly like UCG, unless they want the same result (I am sure they do not).

One option I had thought was a possibility before was that one or several ministers leaving UCG might elect to form small, independent churches consisting of one or a small number of local and regional congregations. Those autonomous groups could then cooperate to serve common needs such as songbooks, Feast sites, etc. So far, that has not happened.

There is an apparent effort on the part of COGWA leaders to include as many as possible of all the ministers leaving UCG. They want one large, centralized organization, not a loose association of small groups. They have published letters in their website giving instructions for how funds should be handled by local congregations. You can read these for yourself, but what I get out of it is that they are discouraging any local incorporation. A local bank account is ok, but not autonomous organization.
Link:
http://cogwa.org/members/entry/january-20-2011-member-letter

As far as I know, the issue of allowing local, independent, incorporated churches to be in COGWA in an association status vs. one large, centrally controlled organization was never put up for a vote in the January conference in Louisville, Kentucky. They voted on the name of the Church and they voted to approve the temporary leadership teams, but not on the possibility of member congregations having some independence from the main organization.


UCG, COGWA Estimated Attendance and Finances, and Other UCG/X-UCG News

Various estimates and claims about finances, number of members attending, and number of ministers in UCG and COGWA have been made in various blogs, and the numbers have been changing, which is expected. Things will somewhat stabilize by the summer I think. In this section I will give links to various posts in blogs that discuss this, and I will add my estimate for the decrease in UCG income.

If COGWA finances do not rise to meet the needs of the paid ministry leaving UCG, some of those ministers will have to organize independently or go with another group such as LCG if they are able. For most ministers who have worked full time in the ministry, getting a regular job in the world to support themselves and their families is not a satisfactory option. It is not that they have no marketable skills in the workplace. They have been called to the ministry by God and they are obligated to serve God in the office they have been called to.

When a paid minister in UCG loses his salary, he almost has to organize independently or find an existing Church of God to employ him. His duty to Christ requires he carry out his ministry full time, because that is what he has been called to do, but he cannot do that if he has to support himself with a job outside the ministry (1 Corinthians 9:14).

Some few ministers may yet organize independently or join some other existing organization rather than stay with UCG or go to COGWA as the months go by. But so far, no.

The links to news items below are for the last several weeks.

First, how much has UCG income dropped since the split?

Bob Thiel (COGwriter) in Church of God News blog reported that UCG treasurer Aaron Dean estimates that United Church of God income for the year from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 will be $18,500,000, down from an income of $23,870,107 for the previous one year period. That is a decrease of 22.5%.
Link:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucgs-aaron-dean-reports-finances-ac-reports-another-ministerial-loss/

But UCG income currently must be down much more than that. The decrease of 22.5% is for a whole year, the early part of which was before the main split. There was a period when a reconciliation was hoped for by many brethren, and this period of hope lasted through the Feast. From July 1 through October 31, a period of four months, income may have only been down slightly from the year before. Most ministers who have gone with COGWA were still in UCG at that time. After the Feast, the division and splitting continued, finally resulting in the formation of Church of God, a Worldwide Association in January this year.

There is no way to know exactly how much lower the income is currently in the month of March or for February compared with the same month a year ago. Mr. Dean would have that information, but he is not announcing it. But for what it is worth, here is my ballpark rough estimate.

To keep it simple, I will assume no seasonal variation in income from month-to-month during the comparison period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. I will assume an income from July 1, 2010 thru October 31, 2010 (4 months) about equal to the same period the previous year. It might have gone down a little, but this was before it became evident that UCG would definitely split, and most UCG members were probably paying their tithes to UCG. I will assume a gradual decrease from November 1 through January 31 (3 months) as many members realized they may leave UCG. Finally, I assume that most members who have stopped tithing to UCG did so by around the end of January after COGWA had formed. This would indicate a leveling off of income and a steady though reduced income from February 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011, 5 months.

Based on the above assumptions, the figure for the percentage reduction in income now and for the 5 months February 1 through June 30 that would give the 22.5 % decrease for the whole year is 41.5%, as I have calculated with a spreadsheet using my stated assumptions. So I am estimating that current UCG income is down 41.5% from last year for February, March, and the coming months through June 2011. And since this is just a rough estimate, I will round out the decrease in income to "about 40 percent", or in other words, I am estimating that UCG is only receiving about 60% of the income it was receiving this time last year.

Bob Thiel reports that COGWA gives the number of their ministers at 170, their membership at 8,000, and the number of congregations at 232. If COGWA has gained those 8,000 members from UCG, then UCG has lost roughly 40% of their members or more, which fits with my income estimate above.
Link to post with 170 ministers and 8,000 membership figures:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/cogwas-clyde-kilough-and-fragmentation/
Link to post with figure of 232 congregations, also estimates of the rankings in size of various Churches of God:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/pcgcpgwa-third-largest-cog/
Another link to a post about the 232 congregations figure:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/cogwa-now-lists-232-congregations/

COGwriter reports UCG lost 173 ministers, link:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucg-loses-6-pastors-in-ghana-now-a-total-loss-of-173-ministers-and-elders/

COGwriter report that UCG lost 53% of its PAID ministry, more than half, links:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/tongas-heamasi-k-taufoou-makes-166-ucg-ministerial-losses-whats-the-message/

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/ucgs-good-news-and-beyond-today-dropping/

COGwriter reports about United Church News published information about UCG new hires and that UCG has lost 1/3 of its total paid and unpaid ministers (pastors and local elders). So UCG has lost a disproportionate number of full-time pastors compared to all ministers including local elders. It has retained about 2/3 of all ministers, but less than half of full-time paid pastors and ministers. Link:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/united-news-out/

A COGWA member letter says that COGWA has hired 59 people, most ministers:
http://cogwa.org/members/entry/february-11-2011-member-letter

An update from Victor Kubik gives some information about UCG loses, number of ministers, new hires, etc. Link:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/update-from-victor-kubik/

Shining Light blog has posted about some new pastor assignments in UCG, link:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=2313

COGwriter blog mentions the problem of gaps in coverage of congregations by COGWA ministers. I expect that these gaps will gradually be filled to a degree, but not completely. Link:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/cog-news/cogwa-acts-like-it-is-a-continuance-ucg-congregational-gaps/

UCG Current Crisis blog has published financial information about International Ambassador Outreach (IAO). Link:
http://www.freewebs.com/ucgcurrentcrisis/apps/blog/show/6285741-press-release-iao-financial-reporting-as-of-12-31-10

Here are links to posts about the COGWA conference including voting for the name of the Church, the temporary governance team, and particular leadership positions and assignments. COGWA site links:
http://cogwa.org/members/entry/january-14-2011-member-letter

http://cogwa.org/blog/entry/behind-the-scenes-at-the-louisville-conference

Here is a COGWA member letter from Clyde Kilough reporting that they have funds sufficient for their needs and they are dedicating the first holy day offering entirely to preaching the gospel to the public. I think dedicating the first holy day offering to the preaching of the gospel is an excellent idea. Members can know that their sacrifice will go directly to helping others by getting a warning message and the gospel out to those who need to hear it, and the leadership can gauge the zeal of the membership for the gospel by the size of the offering compared to the offerings for other holy days. Link:
http://cogwa.org/members/entry/march-15-2011-member-letter

COGWA has a statement of beliefs in its website now. Link:
http://cogwa.org/about/fundamental-beliefs

COGWA has published a member letter giving instructions for local handling of funds. My interpretation of this is that COGWA wants to discourage independent organization and incorporation of local X-UCG congregations. They want a measure of centralized control. Link:
http://cogwa.org/members/entry/january-20-2011-member-letter

UCG has provided links to videos of its recent conference and Council of Elders meetings. Link to announcement of videos from the ministerial conference:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/video-available-ministerial-conference/
Link to videos page:
http://coe.ucg.org/videos
Link to post announcing videos from Council of Elders meetings:
http://realtimeunited.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/video-reports-from-council-of-elders-meetings/

The Shining Light blog has quoted a letter from Mr. Melvin Rhodes. In it, Mr. Rhodes states that Christ is the head of United Church of God. While I agree that Christ is the head of the Church, that is, the collective body of all those who have God's Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:23, Romans 8:9), in my opinion, Christ is not the head of United Church of God as an organization. I think UCG rejected Christ as their head when they chose to place themselves under the authority of the voting of men rather than under the authority of Jesus Christ. And it seems to me that their commitment to the form of governance they agreed to in 1995 is greater than their commitment to Christ. Council members are required to make a commitment to support the decisions of the Council and this can bring them into conflict with the commitment they made at baptism to God the Father and to Christ, and this is probably why some Council members had to resign to keep a clear conscience with God. Evidence of the strength of UCG's commitment to their form of ballot-box governance is their refusal to even consider changing it in the light of more information and experience. Their decision in 1995 is set in stone for them, like the Ten Commandments. Link to Shining Light post that quotes Mr. Rhodes letter:
http://theshininglight.info/?p=2217

I found a good post in the COGwriter blog in which Bob Thiel states that the legacy of Herbert W. Armstrong is willingness to believe the Bible. I agree. Link:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/herbert-w-armstrong-died-25-years-ago/


More to come...


Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:

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

How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7

Earthquake Strikes Japan, Could the West Coast of the United States Be Next?

A 9.0 earthquake struck Japan, killing thousands with the quake and a tsunami. The earthquake centered about 80 miles offshore of Japan, not far from Tokyo. There has been at least two explosions at nuclear power reactors, and with at least one reactor there is danger of a meltdown. At at least one facility, the level of radiation in the surrounding area was at least 1000 times the normal level, requiring the evacuation of more than 300,000 people. 1,000 bodies of those killed in the tsunami have washed ashore, and the death toll is expected to exceed 10,000. This is the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded.

Japan is an important ally of the United States in that region and has the third largest economy in the world. This quake comes just about three weeks after a devastating 6.3 earthquake hit Christchurch, New Zealand. Both quakes were part of the system known as the Pacific Ring of Fire, and they involve the same or bordering plates. One expert has said that large quakes change the stress characteristics of the earth's plates and therefore a large earthquake in one place can trigger other quakes somewhere else.

The west coast of the United States is thus at greater risk now, since it is part of the same ring of fire system and it also is vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis. The same system that caused the earthquakes that struck Japan and Christchurch, New Zealand can also strike California, Oregon, and Washington. The west coast of the United States is ripe for a strong earthquake, and the recent earthquakes that have occurred in the "ring of fire" region may have increased the stress in the area of our west coast states, making a major earthquake there more likely.

At the same time, the west coast, called the "left coast" by some critics of its liberal policies, has in some ways been on the cutting edge of liberalism and the promotion of wrong values, especially California. It is possible that God may decide to give this country a wake-up call by allowing serious damage or devastation by earthquakes to that area of the United States.

Pasadena, California has been the headquarters of the Worldwide Church of God and Ambassador College during most of Herbert W. Armstrong's ministry, and as a result there are many Church of God members of various fellowships living in southern California, and unless such a quake struck during the Feast of Tabernacles when most members would be away from their homes, they would need God's protection in the case of a large earthquake, and God is certainly able to protect them. For Church of God members, our trust must be in God. A number of Churches of God have been or are currently headquartered in California. Global Church of God / Living Church of God (Roderick C. Meredith) had its headquarters for many years in San Diego, California before moving to Charlotte, North Carolina. Church of God, an International Community (David Hulme) has its headquarters in Pasadena. Church of God Southern California is also headquartered in Pasadena. Church of God-eim (Steven LeBlanc) is headquartered in Modesto, California. These are just examples, there may be many others.

California is in trouble financially because of its high level of government spending and budget deficits. The economic loss produced by an earthquake of the kind that struck Japan could push that state over the edge into bankruptcy.

A disaster coming to California, Oregon, or Washington could spell a disaster to the economy of the United States in more ways than one, especially if California is hit hard. As one of the largest and most important states in the United States, damage to the California economy would also damage the American economy. But also, that state is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy because of its overspending. A natural disaster would push it over the edge. Now, normally, there would be great resistance on the part of much of America to bailing California out of its budget mess, and rightly so, since Californians made that mess out of their irresponsible actions and since the United States cannot afford to bail out states. I am sure President Obama and the liberals would like to bail them out, but they would arouse the wrath of much of the rest of the country if they tried. But President Obama and the liberals would have the excuse to bail out California if it faced bankruptcy because of an earthquake. They could play upon the sympathies aroused by pictures and accounts of the suffering and devastation. It wouldn't matter if the financial crisis would be due 90% to irresponsible policies and only 10% due to the earthquake. They could pin it all on the earthquake. So besides having to deal with the direct damage to the nation's economy, paying for a bailout of the state of California could be the last straw for the national budget and national debt. That might push us over the line of no return.

Revolution in Egypt

The United States has lost an ally among Arab nations surrounding Israel, and some in our country think that is a cause for celebration. Hosni Mubarak has been a force for peace in the Middle East. He has maintained peace with Israel, and now he has been removed in the name of "democracy".

The youth of Egypt, concerned about unemployment and government corruption, started the revolution. Theirs was a mostly secular movement. The strongest power in opposition to Mubarak, the well-organized Islamic Brotherhood, waited a few days to see the strength of this youth movement, and then joined it, but kept their pro-Islamic image somewhat in the background. The two movements together toppled the regime. Mubarak was forced to step down, and army leaders established a temporary government intended to eventually lead to real democracy.

The Army is in administrative control right now, but the loosely organized youth movement and the well-organized Islam Brotherhood have strong influence, and the Army leaders cannot go too far against the wishes of those groups because the military leaders cannot order their men to do what they are not willing to do, such as fire on the crowds.

Although there are various factions and forces within the Islamic Brotherhood, it is anti-Israel and similar in some ways to the rulers of Iran. They have been repressed by Mubarak for a long time. They existed since the 1920s and carried out some attacks against British forces in Egypt during World War II, and some in the party may have tried to have friendly relationships with Hitler and the Nazis.

Mubarak was holding the Muslim Brotherhood in check. When he was weakened, the Muslim Brotherhood moved in to help support the revolution. They actually had greater organization and numbers, and by adding their strength, they gave the revolution the added power to succeed. During this time, they voluntarily restrained their members from fully displaying their Islamic loyalties and agenda. The revolution was started as a secular movement by young, mostly secular activists, and the Islamic Brotherhood adopted that image in helping the activists.

Now that Mubarak is gone, the restraint on the Islamic Brotherhood is gone, and they can seek power in Egypt.

But the alliance between the young, secular activists and the Islamic Brotherhood is not a natural alliance. It is a temporary alliance of convenience. Both were in opposition to Mubarak. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It is their common enemy, Mubarak, who united them. But with Mubarak gone, they will not stay united. They have different agendas.

Basically, the Islamic Brotherhood took advantage of the revolution started by the secular activists, and now I think they have gained dominance in that revolution. The secular activists had the energy, but the Islamic Brotherhood has the experience and organization and discipline.

Struggles for power are not won by people in their twenties. They may be fought by people in their twenties, but older men win in the end, men who were fighters themselves when they were in their twenties perhaps but now have more cunning based on experience, and more organization. Hitler became leader of what was the beginning of the Nazi party when he was about 29, but he didn't finally win top power in Germany till he was in his late forties and early fifties.

The Islamic Brotherhood is not itself united in ideology. There are different forces within it, which is typical of many movements. Those forces will battle within it and within Egypt to gain power. One such force is a movement to establish a strongly anti-Israel Islamic state like Iran. That force can find alliances with similar forces
outside Egypt. A strong man within that movement may gain control over Egypt and suppress any competing forces.

The Army itself has various forces within it, but it will be hard for them to be strong against the Islamic Brotherhood.

I find parallels between what happened with Nazism in Germany and what is happening with the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. Hitler won power because he was determined and kept unity in his party while his opposition was divided and weak-willed. Islamic extremists in Egypt may win the same way. They will be strong-willed, united, shrewd, and ruthless. They will be peaceful when it is their advantage to be peaceful and violent when it is to their advantage to be violent. They will take advantage of every weakness of their opponents, dividing them, using them, pitting them against each other, etc.

I think they will be peaceful while they work within a process of democracy to gain power. They will gain as much power as they can thru the ballot box, and they will win a share of power in the government. But when they have gone as far as they can that way, I think they will use terror and assassination to eliminate their enemies and gain total power. They will use the secular activists till they have enough power in government to weaken the government. They will woo and ally with the army as much as they can, in the beginning. But I think they will kill off key opposition leaders and terrorize the rest when the time comes for them to take total control.

They will do well in elections because they have more organization than any other legitimate political party.

The youths who have started the revolution and opened the door for the Islamic Brotherhood have no idea who and what they are dealing with. They have enthusiasm, technical skills, and perhaps good intentions. But they are naive and they are being used. They think they are building a long-lasting, peaceful democracy. I think otherwise.

Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA)

Many X-UCG ministers are meeting in Louisville, KY today through Tuesday to organize a permanent Church of God fellowship for most ministers leaving UCG. That Church has already been organized, temporarily, as Church of God, a Worldwide Association. Here is a link to their website:
http://www.cogwa.org/

The stated purpose of the conference is to approve a short-term temporary administrative and governance structure and to lay the foundation for a process that will be used to build a permanent administrative and governance structure over the next several months.

How will this new organization be governed? I have no doubt it will be governed via the ballot-box, just as UCG has been. This is Indianapolis 1995 all over again, organized and run by many of the same ministers who helped organize UCG. But the details will change. They will seek to learn from mistakes and to learn from 15 years of experience in governance by voting, experience they did not have in 1995. They will try to make changes in the details of the rules to prevent politics from dividing the Church as it has done with UCG in the last six months (or several years, depending on how you figure it). But they have not yet learned from their big mistake, using voting to select leaders at all.

The reason I think they will set up governance by ballot box is that there is no one leader who has the standing to take charge and lead without confirmation by voting. None of the main leaders of those leaving UCG, not Leon Walker, not Clyde Kilough, not Larry Salyer, not Jim Franks, not anyone you can name has the authority to govern from the top down in the eyes of the other ministers. So they will have to use voting to select a board, or a council, or a leader.

There are two ways those leaving UCG could organize. One is to organize as a loose, cooperative association of small independent groups. The association would have no authority over the pastors and small groups but would provide a forum for mutual cooperation. How would the small groups be governed if the association has no authority over them? It would be up to the pastors individually to decide how they would organize their local fellowships. Some might organize with local voting, letting themselves be elected by local elders or even by the membership. Others might govern from the top down, reporting to Christ or reporting to another pastor who reports to Christ. Over time, God could bless the one He has chosen and will make known who that is by the fruits, and others could join him. So you could start out with small groups ruled from the top down, no voting, and over time those groups could combine under the leader who is bearing the fruits of God's blessing.

The other way is to organize as a large fellowship from the beginning that will include most of the ministers leaving UCG. In that case, governance would have to be by ballot box as in UCG.

There may have been an attempt by some to organize the first way. That may be what COGA was intended to be. But now, the ministers are trying to organize one large group, not many smaller groups. Why? It may be that they quickly saw that members would not readily support small groups, but are more likely to support a large group. So this decision may be driven by the desire to have as many members as possible.

The COGA route may not have been working to attract members. UCG members are not willing, many of them, to leave a large well-established UCG to go to a small, ineffective group that is loosely associated with a collection of other small groups.

So the January 9-11 meetings are for the purpose of organizing a large, stable, strong COG that members coming out of UCG can take seriously. But to do that they will have to use ballot-box governance again. For them, organizing out of a meeting this way, there is no other option. There just isn't time to wait for fruits to show whom God has chosen to lead all the other ministers, and there is no one with the stature and prestige to lead from the beginning.

But there will be differences in details. As I speculated in my last post, one difference may be the term of office of a board member. It may be that voting decisions by the general ministry to vote a man into office as a board member will be permanent, and that board members will be elected "for life" and not have to face being removed from office in a future election. But while this may help to solve the one problem of the potential for a board to drive ministers out of the organization to avoid being voted out of office by those ministers, it will not solve the main problem with ballot-box governance.

The examples in God's word teach that He shows whom he has chosen for office in the Church of God by appointment, by fruits, or by both, but not by the voting of men. You either follow those chosen by men or those chosen by God. The leaders of UCG are those who are chosen by men. The leaders of COGWA, if they organize under ballot-box governance, will be those chosen by men.

The problem with letting men chose the leaders, by voting, is that those men who vote are not best qualified to know who should lead. They do not know the hearts of men. God must choose, not man.

The leaders of UCG who have caused this division were the very leaders chosen by the voting of men, showing that the collective ministry does NOT have the wisdom to know who to vote for.

Voting to select leaders has been likened to the principle of getting counsel and advice (Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6). But there is a difference. Counsel and advice does not carry authority. A leader can consider the advice, but it is still his decision whether to follow it or not, and sometimes the advice and counsel of the majority can be bad. Look at the examples of David, when he rejected the advice of the man who told him to slay Saul (1 Samuel 26:7-12), or when he rejected the advice of his men when they advised him not to rescue some of the people of Israel from the Philistines (1 Samuel 23:1-5). David was right to reject that advice and follow God. David had a faithfulness and a spiritual discernment that his advisors did not have, which is why God chose him (1 Samuel 16:1, Acts 13:22). Men observe what they see, and even Samuel, a righteous man of God (Jeremiah 15:1) and a prophet of God (1 Samuel 3:19-20) would have chosen someone other than David (1 Samuel 16:4-7). If Samuel was not qualified to choose the leader, how can 150 or 500 voting ministers be qualified to choose a leader? God must choose the leader, and He does not do that by the voting of men.

I have no objection to voting or polling to get opinions before a leader makes a decision. What I object to is giving the majority the power to force its will on the minority as happens when you give authority to a process of voting.

So we are likely to have two groups now, the original UCG made smaller and the new COGWA. If John Carmack's estimate is correct that 60% of the paid ministry has left UCG (see my last post), then UCG will save about half or more of the money they have been spending on minister's salaries. Add to that the savings of not supporting the poor Latin American congregations, and UCG may be able to do very well financially even on diminished tithe income. While 60% of the paid ministers are leaving, much less than 60% of the UCG members are leaving, at least in the beginning. However, more members may leave when they realize they will be pastored by less-experienced men who have been unpaid, part-time, local elders.

COGWA will have most of the paid ministers leaving UCG, but proportionally fewer members to support them. I think they can get by if they are frugal, but will not have much extra income for preaching the gospel to the world.

I think over time, COGWA will grow in membership while UCG will shrink somewhat. The experienced, full-time paid ministry in COGWA will simply be able to better serve the needs of the members, and members will see that. But COGWA will not have the income to do much of a work of preaching the gospel to the world.

Then, after the dust settles, we will see something that we have often seen in COG organizations. The leaders of each organization will boast about how much unity they have. That is, the leaders of UCG will then tell the brethren that there is wonderful unity now in United Church of God, and the leaders of COGWA will tell their members that they are now blessed with wonderful unity and peace in COGWA.

I wrote about this in my book, Preaching the Gospel. Here is a quote from the section titled "Church Government" in chapter 7:

"Is God's Church divided? Yes, it is. That is a fact. God's Church is divided into many pieces. And all the time that the division and a competitive, hostile, unloving attitude exists between the pieces, many pieces boast how much unity that particular piece has with itself! A small piece of a divided Church will say, 'What wonderful unity and harmony we had at our last ministerial conference'. That piece has 'unity', that is, until that piece divides into still smaller pieces. Then each of the smaller pieces can also boast that it has such wonderful unity within itself.

"But is there unity between the pieces? Is there unity of the whole? Not now. Not with most of the pieces. Not until different groups and organizations begin to show at least a minimum of respect and esteem for one another.

"I think we need to understand that unity within a Church of God organization is not real unity if that organization is hostile to other Church of God organizations that teach and practice the same doctrines from the Bible. Unity within one piece is not unity in the Church. Some ministers want members to identify with the 'piece' they are in, but that is wrong. Our identity is with God and with Christ and with the WHOLE body of Christ, every man or woman who has the Spirit of God. Obviously some members and ministers have fallen under the influence of serious doctrinal errors, but if a person has the Holy Spirit, that person is still a member of the Church that we should identify with, and we should help them correct their errors. Competitiveness is not going to correct anything. Some speakers like to use props. I can imagine a speaker bringing his own piece of pottery to the podium, showing the audience how beautiful and unified it is, then smashing the pottery next to the podium and holding up one of the larger pieces and saying, 'See what unity this one piece has with itself. There are absolutely no cracks or divisions in this one piece. What a perfect example to show that God's one true Church is not divided.' "

See links below for the source of this quote.

What I wrote above came true in United Church of God. They used to boast of unity, and they have put the world "united" in their name. And now they have just split. And the "unity" that will seem to exist from now on in UCG will not last. It cannot last. The same process of voting that has contributed to this split will work its magic to create disunity over time in what is left of UCG. The Council may seem unified now, but over time, maybe another 15 years, new divisions will develop, even among those who are on the same side now. It is built-in to the system.

And the same disunity will develop in COGWA if they organize under ballot-box governance.


More to come...


Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:

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

How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7