|
[[[[[Tom Robinson Response to Joel Meeker Letter (Feb. 10, 2010)]]]]]
[[[[[Joel Meeker recently wrote a letter explaining his departure from the United Church of God in terms of sins and unethical behavior on the part of United’s leaders. His letter has been posted on the Internet and circulated far and wide—causing disturbance as far away as Australia. With the letter circulating locally in the St. Louis area, where Joel lived before moving to the UCG home office, I thought it prudent to answer the letter in point-by-point fashion. I know of facts relevant to the issues he raises, and I have discussed some of the issues with Joel. Also, where I don’t know the answers, I think it needs to be pointed out that accusations need to be backed up with evidence—and we have not been given sufficient evidence to establish that United’s leaders are guilty, particularly to the level that would justify a split in the Church. Prior to the split, I did not take sides in the conflict, as I respected men on both sides and did not have enough information to decide between their claims—and I believed both sides were seeing each other’s statements and actions in the worst possible light. While I know more now, I still maintain that there is a lack of needed information from both sides. Yet the proper response for those lacking needed information is to remain in the fellowship of United and not divide the Church. Frankly, the position of lacking needed information is that of the vast majority of those in the Church—including the vast majority of those who have left United. Even with many who claim to be in the know, even ministers, upon examination it is revealed that they do not know much of anything of relevant substance themselves—only what they’ve heard from others who’ve heard it from still others. And there is usually not much that is concrete—only vague generalizations of misdeeds. And the supposedly concrete matters are often mischaracterized, leaving out information or conflicting with statements from the other side. I will say that I have come to learn of information that I believe exonerates United’s leaders of some of the charges that have been raised against them. This is not to say that I agree with all they’ve done. I do not. Nevertheless, I’ve already been accused of taking sides. And in an important way I guess I have: I have not joined those who have left (believing, based on the available information, that it’s right to stay and wrong to leave). Essentially, those who left forced me to choose against their side. That’s because, in striving to be on GOD’S side, we must all do our utmost to maintain unity unless there is a biblically justifiable reason for dividing. Anyway, I was told by a number of ministers at United’s ministerial conference that Joel’s letter is making waves in their areas and was asked to share it more broadly. So I am doing that. I want to make it clear up front that this is not meant to be any kind of swipe at Joel personally. I have considered him a friend. Rather, Joel’s remarks are expressive of widely held sentiments, and the construction of his letter made it easy to tackle items one by one (although still rather time-consuming, as any such answers of this nature are). Anyway, as to my response, I’ve inserted comments within Joel’s letter below (in quintuple brackets and highlighted—although the highlighting may be lost with subsequent forwarding and posting). Feel free to pass this on to anyone you feel would be helped by it. --Tom Robinson]]]]]
January 2011
Dear friend, Thank you for your note and your questions about what has been happening in the United Church of God (UCG), and why I left.As you have visited http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com, you have access to much of the pertinent information in the form of primary documents. I will respond with my own perspective here.
[[[[[I like Joel and have, as stated, considered him a friend, but I have many problems with what he’s written and feel the need to address these matters. Scripture says, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses” (1 Timothy 5:19). This is a high standard that I believe is not being met in much of what is going around. Now some will say that a few ministers have told them that United leaders are bad guys or doing bad things. But that’s not enough. The standard of evidence is that these ministers be witnesses to the things they are saying. And that’s just the starting point—to be able to even “receive” the evidence. It doesn’t say “BELIEVE an accusation from two or three witnesses.” The evidence must be weighed and the matter, with sound reason, judged. This is especially so when there is conflicting testimony.]]]]]
First of all
thank you for your trust in asking for my thoughts in this difficult
time. I need to let you know in the interest of transparency, that I was
fired from UCG a few weeks back for being open with members of the
French association, and warning them of spiritual danger I see in
remaining with UCG under its current leadership. You will want to know
why I felt it important to do that when it would obviously lead to my
dismissal and the removal of my credentials by the leadership of the
United Church of God. [[[[[As related to me, Joel was fired not for “being open with members of the French association, and warning them...of remaining with UCG” (the latter of which is problematic enough), but over evidence that he was actively attempting to break the French association away from UCGIA. I had at first heard this from only one person on the Council but was able to hear further testimony on the matter at the UCG ministerial conference. At the suggestion of other Council and administration members, I spoke to people who were directly involved with the situation in France, who gave me a detailed account of recent events. In early December 2010, Joel was still a UCGIA employee and president of EDU-France (i.e., the UCG in France). I was told that at this time he met with with French association members and verbally proposed an amendment to the Rules of Association of EDU-France to remove the requirement that its president be a minister in good standing of UCGIA. This, he is reported to have told them, was to allow him to remain their pastor even if he was no longer employed by UCGIA. The retired elder in France then sent an email to Joel stating that such action would in effect be hijacking EDU-France and that he would have to ask UCGIA president Denny Luker for help in the matter—which he eventually did on December 21. (Such action would have left those in France who wanted to remain with UCGIA cut off without an official organization there, as it’s a hard and lengthy process to incorporate as a religious organization in France due to strict laws against foreign “sects.”) Denny then contacted Joel about the matter, but, as Denny stated to me, Joel said the French elder “misunderstood.” This was apparently subterfuge, because at this time or immediately afterward, again while still a UCGIA employee, Joel wrote a letter to French association members on December 23 seeking a vote to dissolve the French association! He stated that the French work should not go independent, so he would suggest alternate affiliation. Thus, Joel was clearly working against UCGIA while a UCGIA employee. He even stated within the letter that when this action became known he would likely be fired. And he was—after this letter was translated and sent to the UCG administration and to Larry Darden, the church's attorney. I spoke with Larry, and he verified this as well. And by email Larry confirmed to me: “Joel sent the letter to UCG members in France (and other francophone countries served by France) while he was still employed by UCGIA (he was discharged and credentials revoked AFTER the COE saw his letter of December 23). The letter was a ‘smoking gun’ with respect to his intention to leave UCG and try to engineer taking the assets of EDU-France with him using an ‘Extraordinary’ meeting of member[s] of that entity.” I have a copy of the Dec. 23 letter in French and the translation into English and am able to provide these as evidence of what took place. Again, in light of this letter, it is utterly stunning that Joel would merely say he was fired for being open with the French association and giving them a warning. He obviously did a lot more than that.]]]]]
The question I
and others are often asked is “Where is the smoking gun?” in
what's wrong in UCG. That is usually assumed to be of necessity
“doctrinal,” as if a compromise of some theoretical type with a doctrine
is the only valid reason for leaving a church association. In other
words someone would have to teach that we will officially change a
doctrine (the Sabbath is obsolete, the law of God is done away, God is a
Trinity, etc.) before there would be a really serious issue.
Everyone makes mistakes, we are told, therefore wrong and damaging
behavior or decisions from our leadership are not reason to take the
drastic step of leaving a church association. The president and the
Council would have us believe this, and they repeat that the current
crisis is not about doctrine, therefore there is no reason to take
any action. They claim this is just a disagreement among men with no
spiritual overtones. So trust them; they’re sincere and they’re in
authority, so trust them. However, we must remember that doctrine
is more than a theoretical belief, and more is required of Church
leadership than simply thinking proper thoughts and teaching proper
theory. [[[[[I myself have asked for the “smoking gun,” so to speak, but not thinking that it must be strictly doctrinal. What I have actually asked, even directly of Joel when he was here for his parents’ anniversary, is “What specific sins have United’s leader’s committed, and can you prove it?” I have yet to hear a clear answer on this—with actual evidence presented. (Much of the time, the point is over discernment of wrong attitudes. But as these are manifested through word and deed, specific examples or patterns should still be documentable. Instead, those of us who don’t see are accused of “lack of discernment.”) And even with evidence of sin, that does not mean the Church should split over it. Wrongdoing can be a reason to dissociate from someone, though dissociating from the church organization we are part of would be an extremely last resort. Of course, it must first be established that there is clear wrongdoing, that there is no way to deal with it over a reasonable amount of time, and that it rises to the level of necessitating a split in the Church. Joel could not even give me an answer as to what these guys have done wrong. I said, “You’ve been in the halls and at meetings with these guys. You should be able to tell me what they’ve done wrong.” He nodded but didn’t have an answer. I said, “Well maybe you can’t say because of confidentially issues, which I think is a big part of our problem.” I asked something like, “How can I be asked to believe these guys have done wrong without specific examples?” He said, “Well, let me just say that these are guys who will say one thing and then do another.” I responded, “OK, give me an example of THAT—just one!” He was not able to do so, and I have found this to be the case with others. They will complain about some incidents but not be able to specifically define, and especially prove, the wrongs that were done. Joel did say that my need for evidence was fair and then said, “That’s coming. I believe that’s coming.” Which, of course, is plainly weird. Why was it “coming”? Why couldn’t he offer any himself if he was already dead set against these guys? When it did come in the form of the “three documents,” the so-called evidence was just a compilation of accusations—again without specifics and again without proof (the writers of the documents even refusing to identify themselves, which is staggering). Anyway, I find it ironic that Joel complains that United’s leaders are telling us to just “trust them,” when the ministers who left are doing that very thing by not giving specific accusations and offering real proof.]]]]]
I will first
give a short answer as to why I felt I had to be open about the danger
of staying with UCG, and then give a more detailed explanation.
[[[[[Again, he states that UCG’s leaders have violated ethics and even God’s laws. But he was not able to give me specifics or proof—and he does not really do so in what follows either. There are a couple of things they do point to, but these have been answered already, and it amazes me that they continue to hammer at these. Let me say here that I think it’s quite possible that UCG’s leaders have done wrong. In fact, there are some things I can think of myself, but these are not reasons to split the Church. What egregious things have been done that could not be dealt with within the system we have in United? United’s leaders can be changed.]]]]]
This brings us to the second point: when confronted with evidence of their unethical and sinful behavior, this Council and administration have refused to repent. They refuse even to call themselves into question. They will generally admit “we all make mistakes; I make mistakes” but they don’t admit to any particular violations of any rule or law. Rather, their answer is always to quote the UCG constitution or bylaws to claim “we are in charge, and we interpret the rules.” That is almost the only part of the UCG governing documents that they quote: the Council is “in charge,” the Council has oversight, the Council interprets, the Council decides. I believe everyone agrees that the Council is “in charge” and “decides” but only to the extent allowed by the association’s governing documents and the law of God. The Council and administration cannot lawfully exceed those limits. But they have done so and continue to do so.
[[[[[If the Council and administration have been “confronted with evidence of their unethical and sinful behavior,” this would seem to imply a list of specific infractions and proof of them. Where is this list and the proof? I have yet to see it. If it’s in what has been disseminated thus far, to call it evidence is a mischaracterization. Regarding whether some things are rule violations or not, it is true that the Council holds the power to interpret and decide on this. But if the ministry at large is unhappy with the Council’s interpretation, they can change the Council through ballot over time.]]]]]
The Rules of Association, for example, that must guide relationships between UCGIA, the US corporation, and national associations in other countries have been completely junked; there is no longer even a pretense of abiding by that document, the respect of which is required in the UCG Constitution and Bylaws. Constitution article 3.2.2.4 states clearly “The Council of Elders shall conduct itself in accordance with Scripture, this Constitution, the duly adopted corporate Bylaws, the Rules of Association of the UCG and applicable law.” But the Council has not and does not.
[[[[[“Completely junked”? I have zero evidence of this. Joel pointed out to me a rule violation with regard to Latin America, wherein the institution of new UCG congregations in countries with existing congregations still claiming to be UCG (as the ministers were not decredentialed) was not authorized. This was decried as a rule violation, when it was necessitated by those breaking away. The answer, in order to UPHOLD the Rules of Association and yet maintain organizational integrity, was to decredential the ministers breaking away—which was then decried as heartless and evil by the other side.]]]]]
They seem to want us to accept the idea that in UCG there is government of men directly under God, in the mold of a Pastor General with unlimited authority. The Council of Elders, goes this reasoning, are the men that have either been chosen specifically by God or at least have been duly elected with God’s permission, and therefore to dissent from their decisions is rebellion against God’s government. The president appears to believe this, and says so often in his letters. The Council repeats this in its various communications.
[[[[[First of all, there IS a government of men in the Church directly under God. When has there NOT been? Secondly, it’s absurd to claim this is in the mold of a ‘Pastor General with unlimited authority.’ The COE has never claimed unlimited authority. Even Mr. Armstrong did not claim unlimited authority, and he was the closest to actually having it. Thirdly, does God NOT have a role in placing leaders in the Church? And fourthly, I have seen no evidence of UCG leadership maintaining that dissent from COE decisions equates to rebellion against God’s government. Certainly, UNDERMINING Council decisions or SOWING DISCORD regarding Council decisions would be viewed as rebellion against duly constituted authority—and rightly so. I find this charge ironic as well, because it seems that the new group desires a more authoritarian structure than United—with a longer term president and a leadership with very little turnover, allowing power to be more easily consolidated and maintained. (Of course, time will tell on that one.)]]]]]
One should note that the men who make up the current Council did not hold this point of view about our Church government before they were in power. They actively worked against previous Council and GCE decisions, and several of them admit to having criticized their predecessors on the Council and in the administration. That was acceptable back then, but they would have us believe it is now rebellion against God.
[[[[[They “actively worked against previous Council and GCE decisions”? When? As I must guess, I take this to refer to the rescind of the move to Texas, where this whole mess really began. I don’t want to get into all this here except to say that I believe the initial vote was taken after the dissemination of wrong information (and I view problems with what both sides did in this situation). The point Joel makes here that “several of them admit to having criticized their predecessors on the Council and in the administration” as “acceptable back then” but “now rebellion” is not a fair comparison. Darris McNeely, for instance, admits to having criticized Council decisions in the past—but this was only privately to family and close friends. He did not openly criticize the Council in front of his congregation or spread dissent by telling numerous people or write on divisive Internet forums under a fake name. To equate these things is disingenuous.]]]]]
But more
importantly, UCG was not and is not organized to have a government of
“special” men directly under God. We didn’t feel when we organized
that God had led us to see any particular men as directly chosen by Him
to be our leaders. Rather we were to govern and be governed
collegially, and so set up a framework of rules, under which
each elder would have certain abilities and authorities and also certain
responsibilities. [[[[[Again, I find this ironic because I believe a government of “special” men directly under God is the very thing that the new church organization desires. But again, time will tell.]]]]]
Some are
chosen to be officers or operations managers, to whom are given certain
responsibilities and prerogatives, within certain limits. [[[[[The complaint that “checks and balances are not being respected or obeyed by the Council and the administration” is somewhat odd when one considers the role of checks and balances. They are to prevent people from assuming too much power and abusing it. In order to work, checks and balances do not need to be respected or obeyed. In fact, they are intended to rein in those who might lack appropriate respect and obedience. For instance, if the Council and administration are acting inappropriately, the check and balance of the GCE ballot can bring a change to both over time. If a minister is decredentialed wrongly by the Council, the check and balance of the Elder Appeals Committee of the GCE can reinstate them. The ones who are not respecting the checks and balances are those who have left! They did not wait for further GCE votes or elder appeal decisions. I was stunned to learn that Leon Walker, Larry Roybal, Saul Langarica, Arnold Mendez and Jack Hendren had all actually initiated the elder appeal process but then on their own initiative withdrew before the appeal process had run its course—and an attempt was made to send Arnold’s case to the entire GCE for a vote, which was quite outside our checks and balances process. So again, it is those who have left who have not respected our checks and balances.]]]]]
[[[[[This has been answered several times. But there are some things to point out. First, why did the Council feel “compelled to officially investigate” this matter if they were guilty in it? The charge raised was that this forum was used to orchestrate votes, particularly block voting of Council members. But it’s been noted that the forum was shut down before it would have been able to impact such voting. The former president, Clyde Kilough, was specifically asked a couple times if he or the administration had any evidence of the forum being used to orchestrate votes, and he admitted that they did not. So what would a supposedly impartial investigation by others have revealed? They would have asked the people involved the same questions—and they would have gotten the same answers. Investigators would not have been permitted to rifle through private emails on people’s computers—because no valid probable cause was presented for such a search. So this whole issue seems moot. If the guys were guilty, we would not know either way. And why should we presume guilt—when, again, no evidence has been presented to show that? Note that Joel declares the Council guilty of bearing false witness “in the spirit if not the letter” because of giving an IMPRESSION of impartiality. In other words, he saying they’re guilty of the spirit of lying even if they’re not technically lying. This is outrageous to me, especially after my discussion with Joel regarding Leon Walker. Leon had been accused of orchestrating block voting, and there was documented evidence in the form of emails that seemed to show that. But Joel dismissed that. Furthermore, when I asked for evidence of wrongdoing by UCG leaders, I said that my problem was that I had what appeared to be evidence of lying on the part of Leon Walker, whom Joel was proclaiming as a man of unimpeachable character. I said, “Well, in one email Leon said ‘I don’t answer to the Council, I answer to the president.’ But when the president changed, he said, ‘I’ve never answered to the president.’ So one of his statements is false.” Joel answered, “I can’t defend that.” And I said, “Well you’ve GOT to defend that if you’re going to stand behind him as being right in this situation. There needs to be an answer for that.” Joel admitted that this was fair but couldn’t justify it. I did come up with a way in that conversation to maybe justify Leon—that maybe by saying he answered to the president he just meant as a courtesy, not line authority, and Joel agreed that this was probably the case. Interestingly, this justification made it’s way into one of the three documents, and I wonder if that’s because of my discussion with Joel. But in looking at Leon’s statement again, I don’t think the justification works. He actually said in the first email, “I am responsible to answer to the president.” That speaks to duty, not just courtesy. So I am still left with evidence that Leon must have been lying in one of his statements. Thus, Joel will say a group of men are guilty of breaking God’s law through giving a mere impression of something, but he will not say the same about an explicit self-contradiction on the part of Leon Walker.]]]]]
[[[[[If Joel defended his Elders Forum posting as exposing the unfruitful works of darkness, it’s no wonder he got in trouble. Again, there has been no evidence presented that the private forum amounted to any such thing. Moreover, what Joel wrote evidently WAS “leaking ‘executive session’ information.” Scott Ashley told me that the information came from a Council retreat that he was part of just after his election to the Council but prior to his term beginning, and this retreat was explicitly stated to be a confidential meeting—as personnel matters were being discussed and it allowed all present to speak freely. Information from this meeting was evidently shared with Joel that shouldn’t have been—and, despite knowing that, he passed it on to the entire ministry. I personally object to so much being kept confidential, as I think it goes against biblical directive, but that is the policy all have agreed to—including Joel. As to his punishment, I have always thought it ridiculous. But I was recently told that Clyde Kilough worked out this discipline as a way to keep Joel from more severe punishment like complete suspension or termination. I don’t know if that’s true, and I’m not sure we can find out due to HR policies. If it is true, then placing sole blame on the present Council and administration is certainly wrong. As to why Joel’s punishment was not lifted, I’ve been told that it was because he was not repentant, still maintaining the rightness of what he’d done and participating in further problems, which I won’t go into, not having all the facts on these. I think it’s fair to say that Joel was maintaining his rightness in what he’d done, as he’s still maintaining it here.]]]]]
[[[[[Again, Joel was quick to dismiss the possibility of wrongdoing on Leon’s part. That is clearly unwise, as we are not to place undue trust in man. Joel told me that the Council was lying about Leon, and I responded that it seemed to me that they believed what they were saying, so it would not be lying. So then he said that it was the spirit of murder—character assassination. I pointed out that if a minister is doing something wrong, 1 Timothy 5:20 says the leaders are to rebuke him before the rest—which is never done in the Church except after it’s too late and sides have formed in the dispute (when no one is willing to listen to the other side). I think the Council’s information came too late, but that does not mean they should not have declared it if it was factual—especially since the Church could split over the matter. I’ve also pointed out on this matter that in Global we produced an even longer record of wrong against Rod Meredith (we did not consider this an offensive diatribe, but Dr. Meredith certainly did). Larry Salyer helped to create and signed this—rightfully so, in my opinion.]]]]]
[[[[[I just don’t agree with this characterization. United’s leaders have, in my opinion, adequately explained this situation. I highly recommend listening to Aaron Dean’s Q&A in regard to this and many other situations.]]]]]
[[[[[Again, I don’t believe the Council attempted to require the acceptance of the exclusion of innocent brethren and ministers. There was no such exclusion, except for that forced by Leon and the ministers who would not even talk with United except upon the precondition of reinstating Leon over the Latin American region—an unreasonable demand.]]]]]
5. When church pastor Jack Hendren explained to members in his area the false nature of the accusations against Mr. Walker, he was ordered to appear before Council delegates. He was informed that he had to support the Council in what it had done in regard to Mr. Walker and to agree to the suspension of an elder in his area who also maintained that Mr. Walker had been unfairly treated. When he stated he could not do so in good conscience, he was fired. This is the Council demanding that ministers violate their consciences or face termination.
[[[[[Just astounding to read this synopsis for what it leaves out. I’ve spoken with both Jack Hendren and Scott Ashley, who was sent down to deal with the situation. (Both of these guys have been friends of mine.) Here’s what happened: Jack had a congregational meeting in his area and told the members the Council was acting sinfully in the matter of Leon Walker and Latin America—and he said a lot more besides. A man who was present told Jack that he needed to inform the Council of what he’d said, which Jack did. He was not then, as Joel says, “ordered to appear before Council delegates.” Rather, the Council sent Melvin Rhodes and Scott Ashley down to hold a Q&A with the congregation and to meet with Jack and with Arnold Mendez. Melvin and Scott gave split sermons and afterward had the Q&A. They basically presented the Council’s side of what had happened, but, oddly, no one asked any questions at this meeting (except one about something unrelated Melvin said in his sermon). After, Scott and Melvin had a cordial meeting with Jack and his wife and another with Arnold and his wife. Scott and Melvin, though, were not able to engage them in a discussion about present matters. They did tell Arnold, as he had already been told a couple times before, to stop posting inflammatory statements against UCG leadership on the Internet. Come to find out later, Jack had explicitly told his congregation to ask no questions at the Q&A. I asked Jack about this and he said, “Yes, I told them this was the Sabbath, and it was not the time or place to get into an argument.” I replied by saying something like, “Jack, I completely disagree with you on this. If you had not been telling members the truth, this was their opportunity to hear from the other side. And if you had been telling the truth but they weren’t sure, this would be their opportunity to hear things for themselves—to really interrogate these guys and see what they could learn.” He didn’t give me an answer on that. Anyway, Arnold did post further inflammatory statements on the Internet, and Jack got a call from ministerial services—Vic Kubic, I think—telling him he needed to suspend Arnold. Jack refused, and he was then asked to come to meet in Cincinnati. When he went to Cincinnati, he was asked if he would support the Council and administration—meaning not go out and undermine them and spread dissent against them in his congregations. He was never told he “had to support the Council in what it had done in regard to Mr. Walker”—either in Cincinnati or by Melvin and Scott. (You can still support an organization even if you disagree with particular decisions—even a lot of decisions.) Moreover, at the Cincinnati meeting, Jack informed leaders that he recognized their authority in the corporate organization but he did not accept their spiritual authority in the body of Christ. He said that their sinful actions disqualified them from that. OK, guess what? With all of that, Jack was told he could no longer serve as a minister in the United Church of God. What a surprise! Indeed, Jack had a problem with United’s system of governance—and it was clear to me from talking with him that he wanted to be out from under this system. Yet he had agreed to the system. With this more accurate synopsis in mind, look again at how Joel has described this situation above. Who is, by giving a certain “impression” in recounting events, violating the 9th commandment “in the spirit if not the letter”? I don’t mean to say that Joel is intentionally lying. I just mean that the same measure he is using in judgment can be measured back to him, which should be sobering to him and to all of us. Of course, maybe Joel does not know the facts on this. If so, that would just illustrate how people, even ministers, have made decisions based on what they’ve heard rather than what they know. But it’s sad that someone would pass this on in writing to others as a basis for dividing the Church without actually knowing the facts.]]]]]
6. The behavior of a family in Chile became an issue when it was learned that their family-owned school remained open for business on the Sabbath (Friday evening after sunset) and on certain Holy Days. This is the family of Mrs. Mario Seiglie, wife of a current Council member. The church President and the Chairman of the Council published a “white paper” titled “How do members of the United Church of God observe the Sabbath Day?” In claiming to give doctrinal instruction on the topic, the paper stated the family did not violate the Sabbath by having their employees work on the Sabbath and Holy Days. This paper did not go through the required doctrinal review prior to publication, and repeated protests by the Doctrine Committee of the Council were ignored for three weeks. The Doctrine Committee by policy must review all material of a doctrinal nature. The paper was finally withdrawn from the Church website, with the explanation that it had been posted too quickly. Months later, the Council finally did state that members should not have employees work for them on the Sabbath, but the white paper has never been repudiated and no statement of rejection or apology has been issued for it.
[[[[[I objected to the Sabbath paper for a few reasons. The main problem, in my opinion, is that it reproduced the family’s explanation of their situation without qualification—leaving the impression that this represented United’s position. But it never stated that this was United’s position. Joel says, “the paper stated the family did not violate the Sabbath by having their employees work on the Sabbath and Holy Days.” The paper did not say this, so that’s just false. Also, the paper was not intended to spell out the Church’s doctrinal position. Rather, the writers were trying to provide some context and deflect from what they saw as an issue that had been blown out of proportion as a distraction against the real issue of what Leon Walker had done. Leon is the one who publicized this situation as a swipe against Mario in one of his early responses to what the Council had written. But, like I said, I objected to the paper. And I think it backfired in a big way, blowing the situation up way further—even providing those opposed to the Council with an inroad to make the issue one of difference over fundamental doctrine. Moving on here, it should be pointed out that Joel is also wrong in saying there was a required doctrinal review. Evidently the president and chairman letters have never gone to reviewers. Then there’s this statement that Joel makes: “The Doctrine Committee by policy must review all material of a doctrinal nature.” This too is false. The various publications of the Church each go through a team of at least three reviewers—and these teams are approved by the doctrine committee. But the doctrine committee is not required to review the publications. With regard to the Bible Reading Program, which I produced, and, as Scott informs me, the Good News as well, we have typically sent these to the doctrine committee as a courtesy. But we never get any comments back. Indeed, with regard to the Bible Reading Program, I believe the doctrine committee members typically did not review it. Only when something is not able to be resolved among regular reviewers and editors is the doctrine committee specifically asked to review the issue—and then they do. There are also a few other times we have specifically requested doctrine committee review, such as with the Fundamental Beliefs booklet. Clearly, the doctrine committee has never deemed it their responsibility to review all material of a doctrinal nature. And, as mentioned, the president and chairmen letters never went through doctrinal review. All this being said, I do think it would have been good if the letter had gone to such a review. But that’s different from claiming something nefarious or even improper happened here.]]]]]
7. A similar “white paper” was published, titled “Fasting, Prayer and the Will of God.” This paper was written to defend the behavior of elders, including Council members. After the initial decision to relocate the office to Texas, which was preceded by a Church-wide day of fasting and prayer, these elders almost immediately began an effort to overturn the decision. This caused concern and upset among quite a number of elders who felt they had asked, through fasting and prayer, for God to guide the decision. The white paper was a rather muddled defense of the effort to rescind the decision to move, by claiming that fasting and prayer don’t really allow Christians to know God’s will. This represented a substantial change in our teaching about fasting. It is still posted and public in spite of not having been reviewed by the Doctrine Committee, and in spite of protests by the Doctrine Committee.
[[[[[I thought there was some poor choice of wording in this paper, but it did not say that fasting is not a means to discerning God’s will. Rather, it said that whatever resulted after a fast, such as a vote, was not necessarily and automatically a revelation of God’s will. And that is true. It’s not a substantial change in our teaching at all. Fasting will help us to draw close to God, and He may indeed, because of this, bless us with a clearer revelation of His will in some matter. In fact, we can legitimately have faith in God’s guidance. But we don’t always get specific answers. And maintaining that the outcome of a vote must be God’s will is just presumptuous. How do we even know all the factors that go into a churchwide fast? What if 60% were fasting with wrong motives and 40% were fasting with right motives? Would the collective vote then be God’s will? The move to Texas passed by only a handful of votes. And this is to be taken as God’s will? Many say yes, because only a majority is required for passage. But some who voted to move later voted to rescind because they discovered they had been given wrong information before the first vote. Was God responsible for them having the wrong information so as to cast their misinformed vote in the first instance? This kind of reasoning is just goofy. Could it be that God’s “answer” was to allow the vote to barely pass one way and then show the need for a rescind as a way to reveal the problem in people’s thinking. You know, sometimes when we in fasting ask God to help us see our faults He does just that—maybe even with a 2x4 upside the head! Here’s a real irony. Many are still arguing that the first vote to move to Texas was God’s will because it was preceded by fasting. Many of the same people will then turn around and claim that United’s Council of Elders is illegitimate—the product of orchestrated block voting. Yet the vote for Council members was also preceded by a fast—as is always the case with Council elections. So why do these people not recognize the Council as being in place through God’s will? They are being inconsistent. I don’t know about protests by the doctrine committee, but I do think these should have been respected if they were presented.]]]]]
[[[[[I have deeply respected Larry over the many years I’ve known him and consider him a longtime friend, but I can’t agree with the position he’s taken. As to what Joel has written, he is again leaving out important facts. First, as Larry wrote in his email about this, he prefaced his congregational meeting with a sermon about the shepherd needing to protect the flock from wolves (and this was before United’s leaders used this term of those spreading dissension). Then in the meeting, he presented these two papers as indicating a doctrinal shift in the Church by the leadership--and he told them that if he was not there the next week they would know why, implying that he'd be fired over this. I told Larry, “Look, if you’re going to get up in front of a congregation and imply that the leaders of the Church are wolves, you’ve got to know that they’re going to come down on you with a hammer, and that’s just how it is. When you were the head of the ministry, if a minister in the field said the leaders at headquarters were wolves, you would have removed them too.” He replied to me, “Yes, if I were in their position I would do the same thing.” Later Vic Kubic told me that he had a “friendly termination meeting on the phone with Larry,” and remarked, “He even told me that if he were in my position he would do the same thing.” And I was told by a friend that another man told him that Larry said the same thing to him. Clearly there’s a theme here. I don’t believe Larry is saying that it was right in a godly sense to terminate him. Rather, I think that he means that the corporate system that United has, and that Global and Worldwide had before that, would demand this—and so the problem is with the system. This is quite similar to Jack Hendren’s position, I believe. They both think that the bylaws and corporate rules have been elevated above Christian principles, and I think they both wanted to be out from under the system and the abuse they deem that it permits. But as I said with regard to Jack, that is the system that has been agreed to—to which Larry and Jack both agreed. And the system does have mechanisms in place for dealing with problems that were not made use of. Moreover, I don’t think the new church organization will be any different in this regard. Most of those who went there don’t seem to be of this mind, and those seeking a new kind of associative system will likely be sorely disappointed. Once again, time will tell on that.]]]]]
9. It has been documented that the Council has excluded some of its members from discussions and decisions. Some Council members were not informed that discussions would be held, and decisions were reached outside of official meetings without the participation of all members. This is highly illegal.
[[[[[I’m not sure exactly what this is referring to, but I take it to include one or both of two things. As to not being sure of what it’s referring to, here again is the problem of just throwing out vague generalities. Despite mention of this being documented, nothing specific is recounted here. Why? Indeed, why should this be the basis for anybody’s decision? Who made the claim? How can it be investigated without knowing that or even what the specific claim is regarding? That being said, from discussion with Scott Ashley I think this probably is in reference to events surrounding Clyde Kilough’s removal as president, as this has been registered as a complaint before. Scott says that when Council members in a performance review meeting presented Clyde with problems they had with what he’d been doing, he kept asking for specific examples. Later, a number of Council members who were together outside official meetings, having this fresh on their minds, discussed this matter and they came up with specific examples to give him. Scott says there were no “decisions reached,” as Joel says—just recollections of examples, which Clyde had asked for. There does not seem to be anything illegal in this. What would be the crime? Alternatively, Joel might be talking about something mentioned in one of the three documents—regarding an ethics committee meeting to which not all of the committee members were invited. That charge is supremely vague, as there is no mention of what the supposed meeting was over or who was involved. The source of the report is not named, so it’s not subject to direct challenge. Again, how is this a basis for splitting the Church? It astounds me.]]]]]
10. All
three corporate officers placed an item on the General Conference of
Elders agenda for 2010. The item was the proposal of forming a GCE
task force to examine our governing structure and possibly suggest
improvements to the GCE for its consideration. Bylaw 7.9.2 states
that any one officer may place an item on the agenda, but the Council
intervened and removed the item, claiming it violated the Bylaws and the
Council’s authority. Several lawyers have stated that it did not
violate the Bylaws but the Council removed it anyway. [[[[[I myself have said that we need governance review on the scale proposed in the resolution, but I believe that what happened here was not appropriate. Nothing of this magnitude had ever been slipped into the agenda this way. It was always minor administrative matters. Even if technically allowable, this resolution was highly irregular and was clearly an end-run around Council authority. The three officers later said that it was intended that the Rules and Roles Committee of the Council would be heavily involved with this new committee, but you would never know that from reading the resolution itself. As to whether it violated the Bylaws, it seems to me that it did. The resolution called for the establishment of a committee by the GCE that would in turn establish another committee. Yet in our governing documents, only the Council of Elders is given the authority to create committees and fund their operations. There are a couple of committees of the GCE, but these were established by the COE as called for in the Bylaws. Joel says several lawyers stated it did not violate the Bylaws. However, the testimony of these lawyers was not presented with the resolution. More importantly, the Church’s lawyer Larry Darden and other attorneys said it did violate the Bylaws. And the COE, the Church’s board, acted on the legal counsel of the Church’s attorney. What is so sinister about that? Pertinent to this is something Larry Darden noted in an email about the Council removing the resolution. He stated: “A precedent was set for such action in 1998 when THAT Council (which included COGWA leaders Franks, Kilough as well as Walker and McCullough) blocked the distribution of the (then) Treasurer’s own version of the Budget, Operations and Strategic Plans. That Council majority, over the objection of the minority, determined that it was in conflict with our Bylaws. Mr. Hulme, who was then on that Council as well, complained that said Officer had a ‘right’ to put that forward as a (parallel) agenda item (but that Council majority disagreed). The Council is the body that ‘interprets’ the Bylaws.”]]]]]
There are many other issues and violations of internal rules and the law of God. As stated above, where there is repentance there is forgiveness. Groups of elders have gone to the Council and administration numerous times to bring to their attention violations of men’s law and God’s law. But in every case, these pleas for action and redress have been rejected out of hand. We have gone to the Council and administration numerous times in the spirit of Matthew 18.
[[[[[Again, if these groups of elders have numerous times presented “violations of men’s law and God’s law,” then where is the list of these? If it’s contained in this letter and in the three documents, then there is no real evidence of such violations.]]]]]
Matthew 18:15-17 states “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”
In response to brothers in the ministry coming to them humbly with sincere concerns over sin, they have not responded in a spirit of humility and receptiveness, but rather in a spirit of “exercising dominion” (i.e. Matthew 20:25), claiming that their authority as Council members precludes them having to attend to these concerns. Paul told Timothy “we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully” (1Timothy 1:8). Laws and rules can either be used properly or they can be misused and distorted. The Council and administration have been misusing rules and laws to the point of outright violation. And they suspend, expel and fire those who will not support their abuses.
[[[[[I might also say that FACTS “can either be used properly or they can be misused and distorted.” For instance, if only part of the facts are given and other relevant facts are not presented, then what is put forward is half-truth, which is in essence falsehood.]]]]]
I have reached the conclusion that the attitude and approach displayed by the current Council and administration is not that of seeking the will of God in submission to His law, but rather seeking their own will, and using selected provisions of human documents as justification. This will be a spiritual danger to any who continue to follow them. 2 Corinthians 6:14 warns “For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness?” I believe the above examples among many others prove that, though they claim otherwise, the current leadership of UCG is practicing lawlessness. This is why I’m convinced it is no longer fitting or right to remain part of the United Church of God, an International Association.
[[[[[The above examples PROVE that United’s leadership is PRACTICING LAWLESSNESS? They prove no such thing. I maintain that there is no proof given! And without proof, the accusation of practicing lawlessness is truly outrageous.]]]]]
I hope this clarifies why I have taken the actions I have and why I believe it is time to leave UCG. Of course each of us must act on his or her personal conviction and conscience, and we will all give account before our Maker, so I certainly think no ill of those who wait or make a different choice. I'm glad you're investigating for yourself so you can make an informed decision.
Very
sincerely, [[[[[It does not clarify why. Look, I will say again, “What specific sins have these men committed, and can you prove it?” None of what has been presented here proves anything. Accusations are not proof. Assumptions about people’s motives are not proof. Eyewitness testimony of actual wrongdoing is proof. Documents where individuals contradict themselves is proof. I have that from only one side in this—referring to what Leon Walker has written. Where are the contradictions of the other side? The only one anyone can ever come up with is where a Council statement said it was unanimous when the minority on the Council claimed it was only conditionally unanimous if Leon Walker was OK with it. This again is not proof and no contradiction at all, as we have instead in this case conflicting testimony. And reason tells me that it’s most likely that this was a misunderstanding rather than a lie by a group of ministers. You really would have to believe these guys are totally evil for eight of them to be able to get together and say, “OK, we know this is not true, but this is what we’re going to say.” Who would propose that in a ministerial meeting? One person may lie outright, but a group of eight ministers agreeing to do so? That just sounds crazy. You would really have to prove that. This being said, I should repeat that I do not think United’s leadership is sinless. I believe they have fault in this crisis and that they've mishandled things. But do I think they are evil people I must depart from? No. I will say that it’s possible that they are guilty of egregious evil beyond what I know. But that’s the point. It would be beyond what I know. There’s a standard of evidence that must be met before I should even consider such a thing—and that standard has not been met at all, much less enough evidence to convict them as a group and then withdraw from them. I hope that people will indeed investigate and make a truly informed decision. Let me also say that I have tried my best to be accurate here, but someone may of course be able to find a mistake or unfair conclusion on my part. I hope that if such a mistake is found it will not be used in an attempt to discredit or distract from all that I’ve stated. —Tom Robinson]]]]] |