The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters                   

As 1994 drew to a close, so too did the scope and doctrinal structure of the Worldwide Church of God as we had known it. Previously clumsy efforts to overturn long-established beliefs were now out in the open, and global turmoil boiled toward a destructive crescendo in all parts of the church.

Today, when one walks or drives around the former “city on a hill” in Pasadena, little remains of the once-concerted global commitment to preach the Gospel and recapture true values, including the “faith once delivered” (Jude 1:3). Even the stately Hall of Administration, the site of many executive decisions, was completely flattened and replaced by expensive residences. The former church and college properties are all sold off, many totally scraped and replaced by multi-story condominiums.

Relentless betrayal

This devastating act of betrayal of multiple thousands of members and ministers was ironically made possible by an unforeseen fatal flaw. As I wrote in chapter one of this series, one of the chief reasons that the demolition of the prior organization was even possible was attributable to one factor: the intense concentration of legal power and physical authority in a single person. As one of the organizers and leaders of the dramatic theological and organizational turmoil later admitted in print, the very autocratic – and previously criticized – power that had ostensibly led to the changes was now deployed again.

Was that act of force-fed change ethical? Even outsiders saw the astonishing discrepancy. As one British researcher later wrote of the devastating and misguided focus in the WCG: “By analogy, if the Archbishop of Canterbury became a Roman Catholic, one would expect him to leave the Church of England, rather than to try and take the entire Church with Him into Catholicism” (emphasis added).

But that didn’t happen. The devastating outcome, including financial and spiritual collapse, was later referred to many as “the holocaust years.” 

As I pick up the story, eight years have now passed since the death of Herbert Armstrong in 1986. The end of 1994 was marked by a series of pivotal events, one of which unfolded on December 17. Pastor General Joseph W. Tkach, HWA’s successor, was personally intervening to quench a roaring organizational fire. Aboard the Church’s BA1-11 jet, Mr. Tkach flew across the United States to Atlanta, planning to address assembled congregations there.

Domineering leadership fractures

Why was Mr. Tkach making this effort? Earl Williams, the main pastor in the area, was a commanding presence—both in stature and in personality. His forceful style, coupled with a booming voice, often intimidated his congregants. Over time, numerous complaints about his leadership style surfaced, ranging from mild irritation to outright outrage.

To try and heal the emerging fractures, I traveled to Atlanta twice, including one trip with Dennis Luker, who as a former senior leader within Church Administration and an experienced long-time minister, was well-acquainted with resolving leadership issues equitably. We attempted to address these concerns. Williams was a gifted speaker and writer, respected within the African American community. But his approach frequently overstepped the bounds of pastoral decorum and caused division.

Sadly, despite our good intentions, Earl was not particularly receptive to my visits. We spent many hours discussing some of his pastoral approaches and their divisive tendencies, but we seemingly got nowhere. In fact, by the time my return flight to Los Angeles had landed, he had already called Joe Tkach Jr.,(my direct report in Church Administration) to lodge his complaints about me.

As broader tensions within the Church escalated over doctrinal changes, Williams adeptly identified who stood where on the theological divide. He quickly aligned himself with the emerging new doctrines, even going so far as to actively preach them before they had been officially sanctioned.

This caused grievous issues, leaving Church members wondering what was going on. Trust was quickly evaporating. Rather than being reprimanded for what he was teaching, Williams was only cautioned for jumping ahead of the official announcements. Things were heating up and getting very serious.

Shortly before an upcoming December 1994 trip to Atlanta, Mr. Tkach called me into his 4^th floor executive office. He wanted to discuss how to handle the visit. Given my prior experience with Williams, I shared what Denny Luker and I had discussed with him during our earlier meetings.

I openly outlined what I knew of Williams’ teachings, but Mr. Tkach didn’t seem particularly interested or concerned about that.  He was more interested in the dynamics of the situation. It was an unusual briefing.

Planning continued for the trip to Atlanta, and Mr. Tkach and his entourage departed to address the combined congregations. But what happened next took a historic, unexpected, and bizarre turn.

Tale of Two Sermons

Known to me and a few others outside of the small circle of administrators, Mr. Tkach was torn between two sermons set before him for delivery to the  Atlanta churches.  Both the sermon subjects pertained to the Law of God. But each approached it from completely opposite perspectives. One emphasized upholding God's law as revealed throughout the Bible, focusing on adherence to the Ten Commandments, the observance of the Saturday Sabbath, and, by extension, the seven Annual Holy Days. Central to this view is Jesus' statement: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

Traditional Gospel – Christ didn’t abolish the Law

Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17 reassure us of His deep reverence for God's law and His purpose in fulfilling it: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Our understanding was this: with great love and wisdom, Jesus did not set aside the teachings of the Law and the Prophets but instead brought them to their fullest expression. His life, ministry, and sacrificial death fulfilled the Old Testament's requirements and promises, showing us how God's plan of redemption was always leading to Him. Through His fulfillment of the Law, Jesus taught that righteousness is not merely about outward actions but about the transformation of our hearts.

In His Sermon on the Mount, He called His followers to live by the spirit of the Law, emphasizing love, mercy, and sincere devotion to God. Rather than discarding what was given before, Jesus completed its purpose, guiding believers toward a faith that goes beyond rule-keeping and into a spiritual relationship with God. His teachings invite us to embrace a righteousness that flows from a heart aligned with God's will, rooted in love and grace.

For decades, the Worldwide Church of God had embraced and understood what the Apostle Paul affirmed, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Romans 7:12). This implies a powerful spiritual relationship with God, based in spirit and truth (John 4:24), whose foundation is the revealed law, which defines godly conduct.

The pivotal moment

In contrast, the other sermon openly embraced the divisive doctrinal changes that engulfed the Church, emphasizing salvation through grace and faith while asserting that the Mosaic law, including the Ten Commandments, is no longer binding for Christians. This view summarily asserted that the law is impossible to keep and that Christ has fulfilled it on our behalf, liberating believers from its obligations and other Old Testament requirements.

This view minimized the first four commandments, rejecting outright the commanded seventh day of worship. In effect, the second sermon steered WCG members away from the 1^st century established practices of keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days, and instead toward principles from the 2^nd and 3^rd century Hellenized and allegorical views of Origen and other later theological philosophers. Traditional beliefs concerning tithing and the food laws were also out the window.

On the eve of delivery, Mr. Tkach Sr. agonized about which sermon to give. He finally decided.

He made the fateful and far-reaching decision to choose the latter sermon for Atlanta on December 17, 1994. In that moment, the demise of the once-influential Worldwide Church of God was guaranteed. For unsuspecting thousands of members, this day was an unforeseen watershed moment, powerfully signaling to the ministry and membership that the church was officially rejecting its traditional interpretations of the law and doctrines of God.

No turning back

That night, my phone exploded with calls from pastors, who gave me a rundown of what was publicly said that day. I grimaced inwardly, as I knew that there was now no turning back. This was a signaling beacon warning that further doctrinal downhill sliding was inevitable. This was not “refining” our previous understanding as once capriciously stated. It was overturning it toward destruction.

On December 17, a public dividing wedge was explicitly driven into the heart of the WCG, splintering open the trust and stability of faith in members and ministers alike. Shattered like pieces of mere wood, members flew in multiple directions. Tragically, shorn of faith and trust, many betrayed members would ultimately abandon belief altogether.

For Bev and me, as well as many people, it was a day of profound sadness to see the human leader of our church organization so ambivalent about our core teachings and anchors of our faith and, in an ex cathedra fashion, throw them into a theological trash bin. There was no collaborative discussion. This kind of abusive control by an autocratic Pastor General was one of the key motivating reasons for movement toward the founding of what became the United Church of God.

More devastating shifts

The next Sabbath, December 24, 1994 Mr. Tkach flew to the Texas campus of Ambassador College, where he spoke to the regional assembled congregations in Big Sandy. I was there in person for this presentation and witnessed the doctrinal onslaught firsthand.

Word had already widely spread about the diminishing emphasis on God’s Law and traditional teachings from the previous Atlanta sermon by the Pastor General. The very foundation of the Church was cracking. A tense anticipation gripped people who wondered what would come next.

Before the service, the song leader, Larry Neff, called me and asked if I would give the closing prayer. He pleaded with me to accept, explaining that he had already asked two others who had declined.

Why is that role important, especially to any one not familiar with Church of God services? In our tradition, the closing prayer of a church service plays an important function. As church members remain standing and pause with heads bowed after singing the final hymn, the prayer typically includes an emphatic request to God that the spiritual principles we had just heard be taken seriously and implemented in our daily lives. In effect, the closing prayer can summarily seal the Sabbath message with a spiritual imprimatur to go and do likewise.

Many ministers knew the divisive potential of what was going to be espoused by the Pastor General and ethically wanted nothing to do with it. Knowing the bind that Larry was in, I reluctantly agreed to offer the closing prayer.

As expected, during the sermon, Mr. Tkach reiterated principles from his disastrous Atlanta sermon, speaking about newfound "liberties" members could take on the Sabbath. Unexpectedly, he said that members could even play a round of golf, an act that was completely foreign to our traditional teaching.

Here's the standard that we had long taught directly from the Word of God: “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable, and shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words, Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord” (Isaiah 58:13-14, NKJV).

As Mr. Tkach’s sermon wrapped up, many were aghast. We knew that this was not going to end well for the church organization we once experienced and had committed to.

When it came time for my closing prayer, I carefully chose my words. I first thanked God for His truth, for our lives, and for His law—specifically mentioning the Sabbath. I did not refer to the speaker. Those who heard that knew where I stood, even as I was respectful of the solemnity of the church service.

Mr. Tkach’s Big Sandy sermon was recorded and then sent to all congregations to be presented as the main message on a coming Sabbath, though the golf section was conspicuously edited out. While it represented exactly what he said, the golf comment was deemed potentially egregious to members already suspicious, even overwhelmed by theological cacophony.

It seemed necessary by upper leadership to string the Church along carefully, even though some had humanly and callously prophesied that eventually upwards of half the church membership would depart once the changes were fully implemented (it would actually be much more). This Big Sandy message came to be known in many circles as the infamous “Christmas Eve Golf Sermon.”

Events hyping the new teachings appeared on a regular basis. Tensions were mounting, even though leadership seemed stunningly oblivious. As did many others, Bev and I wondered where exactly the end of this would be.

In the following month of January 1995, Church Administration hosted a regional ministerial conference for the Southwest U.S. ministry in Santa Barbara, California. As part of our growing relationship with the Church of God (Seventh Day) over the past few years, we invited several of their leaders to join us. This was particularly significant since Herbert W. Armstrong had originally been an elder in the COG7. They had previously welcomed us to their conferences, and we were happy to reciprocate.

The conference began with an address from the Pastor General, Joseph Tkach. Those of us in the administration sat in the front row as he spoke at length about the sweeping changes taking place in the Church. He described the trashing of established core doctrines as somehow “liberating.” His message was energetically delivered, and the ministry was expected to applaud for the Pastor General and message, denoting approval of its content.

A personal dilemma 

Personally, I and many others found this difficult. The expectation of approval expressed by applause seemed straight out of the propaganda playbook of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. I respected and even once loved Mr. Tkach as our human leader, given all the history I shared with him and his family.

But I could not accept what he was doing to the Church. I wrestled with an internal dilemma: Should I applaud and appear complicit in something that troubled me? Or should I withhold my applause and be branded as a divisive enemy?

Bev and I were in a vulnerable position, fully exposed. In the end, we choked down our feelings and managed a civil, lightly tentative gesture—more out of politeness than anything genuine. It was obvious to those around us where we stood. But I felt ill. On numerous prior occasions, Mr. Tkach had publicly joked that “he who takes king’s shekels must also do his bidding.” The joke value had faded for many of us.

At the conference, we in the Administration presented our talks to the ministry. Most attendees carefully navigated around the "elephant in the room"—the same underlying tension that the Regional Pastors had faced at their conferences, and that I discussed in my previous chapter.

A disturbing flip

One of the presenters was Ron Kelly, a minister, teacher, pastor, and author. He had served as one of the four hosts of The World Tomorrow TV program, back when it was a top-ranked weekly program reaching multiple millions of people. He had authored a deeply researched sweeping work on the history of Europe and the church, and had served as a senior writer for The Plain Truth magazine when it had a circulation in excess of six million.

Initially, he strongly defended the beliefs we had all been taught, both in doctrinal meetings and in written discussions. His wife, Norva, was even more openly unwavering in her commitment to our faith.

Mr. Kelly was set to deliver a lecture about the dangers of "drawing a line in the sand" about our beliefs. His message was highly relevant to what we were experiencing. He suggested that we might accept some of the new teachings under the guise of “growth in understanding” or similar reasoning.

While I believed in deepening our understanding, making it relevant to our times, and continuously striving for improvement, I was firmly against compromising to the point of discarding God’s Law.

He had spoken to me about his message before, having delivered it a few times to other ministers. He firmly believed that each of us had the right to establish firm boundaries—lines we would not cross if they conflicted with our core beliefs. In life, he argued, we must hold to fixed points of truth and stand by them or be subject to losing what we have.

During lunch, as we moved through the buffet line, Norva turned to me with tears and exclaimed, “What are they doing to our Church?!” She was heartbroken and angry at those who seemed indifferent to what she felt so deeply.  He emphasized that he planned to highlight certain "stop point” boundaries that should not be crossed. I was encouraged.

However, when it came time for his lecture after lunch, Mr. Kelly had unexpectedly completed a total mental and theological 180-degree turn. To my shock, he abandoned his earlier stance. Instead, he stated—plainly and without reservation—that we should not draw lines in the sand for what we believe but should always allow our minds to remain open.

As Ron spoke, people were uncomfortably putting two and two together and saw this as another technique to move us from what we believed toward something we were convinced was not right. It was cognitive dissonance of the first order.

We already had the doctrine of the Trinity dropped on us. Then the change and virtual abolition of the Sabbath. As I listened in shock, he was telling us now not to resist. This was not the time for such a declaration, especially when dealing with people's deeply held beliefs about right and wrong in the current crisis of conscience. This was not merely a question of gaining greater knowledge—it was a question of truth versus error, good versus evil, a question of spiritual life or death.

Change, Adapt or Perish

At the end of 1994 and the start of 1995 spiritual dissonance was high. Speakers preparing for sermons were reaching for teaching tools to navigate, explain, make sense of, or even duck the new teachings. Some were exploring compartmentalized strategies of conscience to somehow continue working at HQ, teach the new teachings, and simultaneously remain true to the belief they knew were true. More cognitive dissonance to survive.

Ironically, an allowance for a “grace period” emerged for keeping the “old” Sabbath and the Feast of Tabernacles. A false sense of security and quasi-tolerance was offered to our “unenlightened” ministers who had not snapped to the new theology.

Some felt the grace period would be indefinite, but the truth was that depending on where and who you were, there was ultimately a “there is no future for you here” verdict handed down. Once that point was reached, if a minister dared to publicly state disapproval of the new teachings, they were terminated—and that was already beginning to happen.

One minister openly said he learned to compartmentalize his beliefs so that he could believe both ends of the spectrum simultaneously—quite a feat in mental gymnastics, where one can supposedly embrace a three-headed hypostasis doctrine by day while at work and a traditional understanding of Father and Son by night for one’s family. Some insisted on attending services, hearing their pastor preach the new theology, and then coming home to tell the family what was wrong and what was the truth.

Here, I would like to relate a number of direct experiences with senior administrators and ministers, many of whom are familiar to long-time members. These experiences reveal additional perspectives, which are important to remember, especially for those who were not part of the church in those days.

Dr. Hoeh’s background

Herman L. Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine editor, Ambassador College Professor as well as long-time influential minister, held a reputation for explaining difficult theological topics. During this time Dr. Hoeh presented a most unusual abstract of a sermon opining God’s Oneness and somehow how God the Father was the “Thinker” and Christ was the “Thought.” It only further confused an already confused issue of the emerging Trinity issues and evoked sarcasm.

This greatly bothered me. Dr. Hoeh and other academicians once had been pillars in the Church, people who would honestly teach the truth (Dr. Hoeh himself was the author or a principal editor of many core church booklets and doctrinal statements – including the direct creation, editing, and publishing of the Mystery of the Ages full-length book prior to the death of Mr. Armstrong). He and others were now treated as useful commodities to push ideologies forward.

Many people followed Dr. Hoeh because he was brilliant, and his sermons generally were insightful. People were curious about how Dr. Hoeh was taking to all this upheaval. In my dealing with him, he was negative towards the approach, content, and outcome. But he chose to stay the course within the Church that he had known and helped build since 1947, even though it was careening off course to a position directly opposite his own teachings.

Dean Blackwell changes course

Some tried to put up a fight. Dean Blackwell occupied an office close to me. With his deep field and teaching experience, he was a welcome influence in mentoring our generation of ministers.

His job was continually visiting ministers in the field and providing personal support to many, including those who formerly were his students at Ambassador College. He dearly loved these men and their families who he called his “Texas sons” and was always supportive of a minister’s career challenges and improving their service to members.

Not only did he encourage and support our ministry, he regularly spoke to congregations around the country, offering encouragement and insight to members. He had a passion for collecting rare books and had built a formidable library on church history and theology.

Often he would present gifts to students and employees of rare and meaningful books with personalized inscriptions. I was privileged to be included in this. We got along very well in the office as we coordinated his ministerial visits.

To be certain, he was very upset with the Pastor General. After all, at one time Joe Tkach Sr. was a member in Chicago when Dean Blackwell served as his pastor. He told me repeatedly that he planned to march into Mr. Tkach’s 4^th floor office and tell him straight where he was wrong. It never happened.

On one occasion, when Bev and I were driving with Mr. Blackwell and his wife Maxine from Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport to Big Sandy, he spoke at length about the travesty occurring in the Church, the tearing down of so much that we understood as biblically sound and accurate. He told us again that he was planning to talk to Mr. Tkach directly.

When we arrived at Big Sandy for the ministerial conference, Dean was asked to give the opening prayer. In it, he praised the Church's leadership for their courage and insight into new truths, meaning the controversial new theology. Once again, Bev and I were stunned! Just hours before, he had decried what was happening. Now, he was praising it. It was a bizarre phenomenon, repeated far too often.

John Halford objects

Then there was John Halford, whom many knew from Ambassador Foundation international projects and his work in the Ambassador TV department. John was quite a colorful personality. He was witty, full of humor, and fun to be around. Through his world travels, he fostered deep relationships and empathy for people of all nations. This strongly came out in his articles and sermons, which were popular and insightful.

As noted in an earlier chapter, John and another prominent church historian had delved deeply into the theology and veracity of the Church’s beliefs and perspectives on ancient Israel, the 10 lost tribes, and possible relationships tied to the United Kingdom and the United States. That fresh work sank from view and consideration as the force-fed new truth marched relentlessly onward.

John and I struck up a friendship, and he often came up the elevator to my office from his second-story office in the Hall of Administration. He was initially incensed by what was happening in the Church and what Joe and Mike were doing. He had many witty expressions about events and designated those who objected to the changes as those from “HindQuarters.” This brought a welcome laugh in times when dark or gallows humor let off steam.

He often probed to see what was going on and what was happening in Church Administration. He began to loudly tell me: “If you and the Regional Pastors don’t stand up to this, who will?!”  

Interestingly, when the Regional Pastors gathered to establish the United Church of God a few months later in Indianapolis, he was absent. He then wrote me a puzzling email stating: “Don’t start anything! Don’t you know you will be ostracized?”

By then, I was beyond being “ostracized.” Bev and I were affirming our commitment.

A visit with Denny and LeeAnn Luker

On one occasion early in 1995, John and his wife Pat, Dr. Hoeh, and me with Bev drove down to visit Denny and LeeAnn Luker in Irvine, California, about an hour away.

Denny and LeeAnn were sorely troubled by the heresy sweeping our Church. We were beginning to talk about where to go from where we were. We had no appetite for the constant barrage of hostile actions and how this affected the Church.

Over time I found that some people would talk the talk, but when it came time to make a stand for the faith once delivered, some wilted away for whatever reason. Denny and LeeAnn were definitely not in that latter category.

Frank Brown weighs in

Another person who stayed in touch was Frank Brown, then Regional Director of the Church in Canada and a former Regional Director of the Church in the United Kingdom and Europe. On his visits to Pasadena, he and his wife, Sharon, would often join us for a meal. Frank left a successful career in communications to become part of the Church, and we had a long history going back to Ambassador College days. Mr. Brown would call from time to time from Vancouver, B.C, inquiring about how things were going at Headquarters. His concern was mostly about how people were being treated. In the Church, one developed deep relationships. We fashioned a brotherhood of a spiritual family, whether member, minister, or administrator. He was shocked how the HQ hierarchy was insensitive and lacking in understanding.

Lightweight logic

I would also add that in those days a lot of lightweight commentary about purported logical fallacies was sometimes bantered about. In some meetings Joe Jr., Mike and others would arbitrarily designate some comments or conclusions as “strawman,” “slippery slope,” or “false analogy” arguments and the like, particularly if they did not like the statement or conclusion.

Of course, while anything of critical importance, such as church doctrine, deserves careful reasoning and consideration – always subject to the Word of God and spiritual direction – a cognitive whim to throw things under the theological bus was not an answer to improving our understanding. It just served to further cast off stabilizing spiritual moorings and substitute a fantasy of quasi-substance.

The doctrinal decisions were made by a handful of men already mentioned. In retrospect, it seemed like the two aforementioned committees were really just expected to “rubber stamp” the changes as they came forward from the inner circle.

Legalistic ritual or critical truth?

In a manner of months, what we held as holy, just, and good was suddenly reduced to mere legalistic ritual and doctrinal error. Yet, I viewed my commitment to Jesus Christ as one that requires responsible Christian living—an expression of love toward God and man. For many years, we were taught and grounded in Ephesians 2:8-10: that salvation solely comes by God’s grace, not by works, but that, having been transformed, we are created unto good works as the next verse emphasizes.

As the Worldwide Church of God lurched into a careening organizational freefall, families and friendships were savagely torn apart.  Instead of tolerance, there was marking and disfellowshipping. Instead of an outreached hand, there was scathing sarcasm. Instead of humble respect for those who had sacrificed much to energize the development of “the city on a hill” and all that it meant (including multiple thousands of selfless members and co-workers), there was dismissive arrogance.

Members and ministers were tested as never before.

The Church suffered greatly, and it ultimately ceased to exist under the public name Worldwide Church of God. The Tkach dynasty embraced the name Grace Communion International (although it carefully retains the rights to the former legal name). The pain, indeed, was hard to bear for all of us who knew what we believed, loved each other, and wanted to advance the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

What’s my reaction to this scenario and and similar accounts from over the years? It is one of profound sadness. I am sad today for what happened. I am greatly saddened for broken relationships, friendships, and lost dreams. I am greatly saddened for what might have been.  But, God has provided a lifeline and home to continue our faith.

In Chapter One of this “Ground Zero” account, I wrote of what astonishing global impact the Worldwide Church of God had achieved prior to 1990. As this chapter closes, I return to the analogy of the British researcher, which suggested that if one major church leader decided to convert to another religious group, he by no means was entitled – whether he held the autocratic legal capacity or not – to pull down and destroy what he had been entrusted with. Instead, if so convinced, the analogous church leader and his supporters should have left the organization to others.

Today, there exists a broad theological and human debris field from the unmitigated hubris of the early 1990s. If someone is searching online for the Worldwide Church of God, below is one of the first references that will show up. The Wikipedia entry below summarizes what happened between 1990 and 1996.

"The impact of Tkach's tenure as the head of the WCG was notable. Church income dropped from a high of over $200 million in 1990 to $50 million by 1996. By then the church could only count 49,000 as members, less than half from its peak. The circulation of The Plain Truth, distributed free by subscription and via newsstand distribution around the globe, fell from a peak of 8,000,000 to less than 100,000 before it switched to a paid subscription status. Eventually, the magazine was spun off into a separate, independent, evangelical ministry. The number of employees at the church headquarters fell from 1,000 to about 50. Ambassador University, as the college had become after earning regional accreditation in Texas, ceased operations in 1997 as the church could no longer provide its annual operating subsidy. The Pasadena campus was finally sold in 2004."

I resigned on March 3, 1995.

Coming up – a final appeal is made, but without success - and a new church organization emerges.

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters                   

The Elephant in the Room

Seven years after the death of Herbert Armstrong and the high-level organizational reordering within the Worldwide Church of God, there were three types of conferences ongoing in the ministry. The church then was a global organization of more than 120,000 members with many moving parts. The conferences helped keep things organized and moving forward.

One of the conference series among those conducted in 1993 was the continuing Ministerial Refreshing Program (often called the Refresher program or MRP back then). The Refresher program over time brought all elders (and most wives) to the Church’s Pasadena Headquarters for a week of seminars, education, and high-level collaboration.

The Refresher program, which was originally started by Joe Tkach Sr. when he was head of Ministerial Services, effectively gave ministers an opportunity to briefly step away from local 24/7 routines and responsibilities, come together, build a shared vision, and rekindle spiritual motivation to do the Work of God.

Ministers received updated tools and renewed relationships that helped equip them for more effective service.  Ministers and wives then went back to their congregations strengthened and fired up for the Mission of the Church.  

Regional conferences initially well-received

Senior staff from Church Administration also regularly went out to the field to conduct smaller conferences in various U.S. cities such as Philadelphia, Portland, Atlanta, Big Sandy (covering the Dallas/Fort Worth area), and Chicago. These hands-on meetings provided both an opportunity to convey fresh information and receive feedback. They were positively received at first and produced good outcomes, but later began to turn toward a malignant side. I’ll explain why later in this chapter.  

In 1993 we began designing conference formats and content strictly for the newly chosen Regional Pastors (RP). As previously explained, the underlying main purpose of these RP conferences was one of indoctrination. In addition to providing a more effective form of mid-level administration through the Regional Pastors structure, they – as envisioned by Joe Tkach Jr. and Mike Feazell -- were to promote and enforce the recent sweeping and controversial changes in long-established WCG theology. In short, their primary job was to be mentors and teachers of the new doctrines, whether they wanted to or not.   

I wrote earlier of the exhaustive castles of intellectual sand that Kyriacos Stavrinides tried to fashion about the Nature of God at the initial Regional Pastors conference. While these early presentations were not well-received and created general strife and controversy among the RPs, efforts were made to produce versions to advance the changes. 

These were stressful times for my wife Bev and me. Even as I tried conscientiously to fulfill my role as a senior administrator, I was growing more uncomfortable with each passing day.

The theological stains were rapidly spreading. A new production of more than 20 hours of lectures that Dr. Stav recorded was now being shipped to every minister in a large box of VHS tapes. The ministry was required to view them. The initial results were not what was expected.

This VHS blitz was intended to quickly enlighten or reveal to the ministry the new “understanding” about who God was, but in reality, essentially failed miserably.  Most of the ministry was not only hesitant and skeptical of the new teachings, but also included some who openly and vocally opposed them, an unexpected reaction from top administrators. This dissemination of the new God sparked widespread discussion and unease among the ranks, raising more concerns about the direction we were heading.

Once minor cracks were now widening, and theological steam vents were blowing open. 

I was given the job of helping to organize the RP conference schedules of topics. Along with Mike and Joe, I was allotted time to talk about ministerial administration and techniques, more like the other conferences the things that ministers need to be prompted on to improve their pastoral skills.  Other administrative personnel were brought in to address the group about what they were doing. As Pastor General, Mr. Tkach Sr. would make only one appearance to formally address the group.

Guy Swenson served to help me prepare for the RP meetings.  I had assigned him the duty to read and review the monthly ministerial reports from U.S. congregations and to write a regular summary along with a few selected reports on specific issues. This gave Guy an inside real time look at the dynamics of current and emerging ministerial issues. 

I would share important trends from those reports with key senior administrators in Pasadena.  Given his business background, Guy also proved helpful in adapting team-building techniques that relied on interactive collaboration between administration and field ministers. This was a welcome feature as it improved communication and buy-in of general administrative decisions.  Over the course of time, we discussed and evaluated many good subjects such as evangelism, proclamation of the Gospel, and pastoral care that elicited robust and honest input from the RPs. We honestly all appreciated it. The RPs were senior ministers with a great deal of experience – their input was valuable.

But the uncomfortable knowledge of the real reason for these conferences was always before us. Future conferences were going to be the Joe and Mike New Doctrine Show and everyone was keenly cognizant of that, including the RPs themselves.

The chief concern in most attendees’ minds was this new doctrinal challenge to the Church. But this challenge was off-limits for discussion, unless of course one was in lock-step agreement with throwing former established doctrines under the new progressive bus.  For certain, that part of our meetings was nothing short of oppressive. We were being asked to embrace a personal violation of our faith.

After a lifetime of study and teaching the Church directly from the Bible, we were expected to abruptly alter course, accompanied by a delusional expectation of instantly adopting their doctrinal views. We didn’t want it, welcome it, or ask for it. The proof and need for change was not evident, to put it mildly.

In retrospect, the level of destructive cognitive dissonance that a few, highly placed, senior leaders were creating out of thin air was astonishing. Any objections were outright dismissed as not important (or not of value), essentially adding fuel to the racing trainwreck in progress. Apparently senior leaders thought these corrosive issues could be papered over, however flimsily.

Unbelievably, rampant rumors about coming changes were ignored or dismissed as foolhardy, even as we reported them up the chain of command. These rumors included plans to abolish beliefs in observing a Saturday Sabbath, the Holy Days and other core teachings.

What was most unbelievable was that these rumors of dramatic and acidic change came from the leaders themselves who leaked them to select ministers!  Occasionally Mr. Tkach Sr. would hear about how people were troubled by rumors. To our great amazement, Mr. Tkach Sr. would express bewilderment and not a little anger at such “rumors.”

The crisis was only worsened when Mr. Tkach Sr. would castigate those repeating the rumors in his personal church visits. To minister and member alike, a once dynamic and growing church appeared to be self-destructing by its own hands.

The honest truth? I actually felt sorry on occasion for Mr. Tkach because he was deceived by his own close helpers, who knew exactly what they were doing in leaking information selectively.

In later reflections I experienced sad wonderment to remember how so few people, who had such little tenure and reputation, could literally hijack the entirety of the church.  At the time, I remember thinking, surely this will pass. I believed then, as I do now, that God will protect us. He did, but not in the way that we expected.

In the days leading up to 1995, I was under pressure as no other time in my life.  I had the privilege of working for senior leaders of the Church, and I felt a deep obligation to serve them faithfully.  But despite efforts to come to grips with the onslaught of doctrinal shifts, I could not agree with or swallow the new theology and its terms.

For the record, it wasn’t as if I didn’t try to study and understand the proposed changes when they were first introduced. But from the first time that I was given an agenda of topics for upcoming meetings, I felt a sweeping negative force. The proposed nonbiblical changes regarding understanding divine nature cast the Almighty as alien to me. It was profoundly disconcerting, even repulsive.

When people tried to explain it, a darkness of mind and heart emerged. I prayed that if I was indeed blinded and wrong about my view of worship, that God would help me see my error and correct it and change me. Despite intensive biblical study and prayer neither the substance of the teachings nor the process by which they were being introduced rang true. These theological conclusions and reactions were widespread, far more than senior leaders would have liked.

If this was planned as a change management initiative, it was instead a disaster of epic proportions.

RP meetings continue 

Our RP conferences continued at quarterly intervals.  It was always good to be with them and the bond that we were building was extraordinary.  The RPs were honest about their assessment of how ministers were faring after hours of watching the Stavrinides VHS tapes with the intellectual sandcastles. It did not paint an encouraging picture.

Honest and open discussion was welcome about everything, except discussing the subject of the Nature of God. That was verboten. Tensions grew as RP’s were openly talking among themselves about the serious state of things that were blocked from having any meaningful input.

The elephant in the room  

While Joe Jr. did not attend all the RP meetings, he did have live audio piped into his office from where we met.  At one point when Joe Jr. was not there in person, one of the RPs wives blurted out, knowing Joe could hear it: “Joe, open the meetings up!”

This was the “elephant in the room” and we used the term often.  The phrase "elephant in the room" is a metaphorical idiom in English that refers to an obvious problem or issue that everyone is aware of but chooses to ignore or avoid discussing because it is uncomfortable, embarrassing, or controversial.

Knowing that Joe Jr. was remotely but actively monitoring the discussions had a profound chilling effect. 

Visit with Greg Albrecht, a key influencer

In the midst of all this, my wife Beverly decided to speak with Greg Albrecht, an influential minister and former AC theology faculty member. She wanted to talk with him about the new teachings and their potential impact on the people of the Church. Greg had served as Dean of Students for many years before the college moved to Big Sandy and was familiar with the dynamics of the Church and administration. He was often a cohort with the Mike and Joe Jr. team.

Beverly has never been afraid to approach people directly and address difficult matters. Even when it came to issues that consumed me, she took the initiative to gain clarity. At Bev’s invitation, Greg seemed more than willing to come over to our apartment. We spent an entire evening discussing until almost midnight what was happening, how it affected us, and our concerns for the Church. We worried about how people would react to the changes—many would be confused and unable to cope with the shock. Many would feel betrayed, and rightly so.

I openly expressed my belief that a significant portion of the Church would reject the new teachings and leave. His reaction was telling. It left no discernible impact on him; his response was simply: “So be it.”

He was courteous but very entrenched in where he stood. I now felt that we were on a runaway freight train, barreling into the unknown with no brakes, and no one in the Administration seemed to care about the toll it would take on all of us.

One thing after another continued unravelling as we helplessly watched.  Very suddenly (as usually was the case of changes without much collaborative discussion) The World Tomorrow, the church’s long-standing flagship television program, was summarily discontinued after being on the air since 1934.

When I learned of this unexpected news, I confess that I began to really wonder if senior leadership was capable of doing anything constructive or strategically congruent.  The reasons given for the massive change were vague concerns about “the economy” and fluctuating church income.

In reality, it seemed more and more evident that almost everything once held dear and important was being dismantled piecemeal. A vacuum was replacing any real desire or heart to do the Work of God.

A literal ground shift

Even the physical Pasadena campus – beautiful grounds and buildings that had been painstakingly acquired and transformed over decades – was literally beginning to shift under our feet. Completely unknown to the members – many of whom had directly contributed to a special Building Fund for many years – a new effort directed by Joseph Tkach Sr. was emerging to clandestinely but actively explore selling off the Church’s California facilities, including the high-profile Ambassador Auditorium.

The undercover initiative quietly but intensely ramped up after the decision was made to close the academic operations of Ambassador College in Pasadena and move them to east Texas. This effort—something that the previous administration under Herbert Armstrong would have regarded as unthinkable—started in secret, which underscores the many sweeping unilateral decisions that were being made under the surface. Throughout the time I worked in Church Administration (1990-1995), I heard this subject discussed internally.

Back to our conferences

As mentioned, we also held conferences throughout the United States where we invited all of our ministry.  Conference topics related to the life and work of the ministry, sermon preparation—all good topics that helped produce sound ministerial work.  Those smaller conferences also proved to be a great time to socially interact with our ministers who were brothers and friends in serving God.  In general, we felt a rising synergy between the Church Administration leadership and the pastors. 

However, the lectures of Joe Jr. and Mike Feazell increasingly took a darker side. A biased undermining of previous administrations and increasingly focusing on the wrong things we had done in the past became increasingly prevalent, particularly regarding the actions and decisions of Herbert Armstrong. While I recognize that hard things sometimes need to be addressed, including clarifying courses of action, the focus always needs to be on moving forward and doing things right.

As I heard the bashing escalate, the thought came to mind: “If we did something wrong, let’s correct it! Let’s get on doing things right.”  For example, in the early days of joining Church Administration, I was impressed with how the Church was making great strides in steering away from an authoritarian style. 

Our focus had shifted on demonstrating how our ministry could be helpers of members' joy.  We recognized how some ministers had previously adopted a style of being spiritual “sheriffs,” and had helped them transition to focus on becoming shepherds.  Good progress had been made. Overall, there was a good reaction. 

But now, the tone of correction took on an ominous side, with open criticism running deeper.  Our organizational past was now being increasingly portrayed as being dishonest, corrupt, even evil.  Mr. Armstrong was characterized as an immoral plagiarist. Organizational warts and sore spots of our past were openly emphasized with no balance of kindness and credit given for any good that had been done.  As each lecture went on, the tenor grew darker and more unsettling. 

New language was also being introduced that veered off from established norms. In one testy question and answer session, ministers wondered why Mike Feazell refused to use the expression “The Gospel of the Kingdom” in his lecture when he was talking about the various ways the Gospel is presented.  Instead, he pointedly used other modifiers such as the Gospel of Grace, the Gospel of Peace, Salvation, and Jesus Christ. 

But in his presentation, Mike steadfastly refused to use the phrase the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the most commonly used reference in our fellowship and one that Jesus Himself had used frequently (see Matthew 4:23-25; 24:14, Mark 1:14 and many other places). What was Mike signaling? Of course we’re aware of the other, but why exclude the most used?  Mike never relented or gave ground in the questioning.

After one ministerial conference in Chicago, Joe Jr., Mike Feazell, and I met in Mike’s corner executive office on the 4^th floor of the Hall of Administration (the same expansive office once occupied at different times by Garner Ted Armstrong and former Church treasurer and attorney Stanley R. Rader). We went up to the executive suite to discuss the recently concluded conference. 

Both Joe Jr. and I were excited about how well it went. We were encouraged that the ministry seemed to be with all of us in supporting one another and elevating our shared commitment to more effectively serve those who God called and to do the Work of God. 

I highly praised a new feature in the conference which was a session for the women in the ministry. Jennifer Swenson, Guy’s wife, spearheaded a session with Beverly to talk to our ladies about matters relating to their work alongside their husbands. Jennifer began a publication that was named Connections, which focused on topics of interest to these women. Previously Jennifer had been the Director of Public Relations for a private college with about 4,000 students in Duluth, Minnesota. She knew how to communicate.

In spite of all the things that were troubling, it still seemed at times to be a good period for building community and learning new things.  For a moment I felt like we were again a team all going in the same direction with positive leadership.

Joe’s and my conversation were so positive that I thought I would just take a moment to express an observation. I brought up the lecture content that was continually pummeling our past.  I stated that we had made our point about acknowledging the mistakes of the past.  I emphasized: “Let’s move on from here.  Let’s be constructive and do things decently and honorably.  I think we have had enough of this type of lecture.”

Our conversation instantly took an ominous turn.  Mike looked at me with piercing eyes and spit out: “Our ministers still don’t get it!  For those who don’t, we will push them out or get rid of them!!” 

I was stunned into silence. I had never seen such hatred expressed towards those we were there to encourage. Emotional shock hit me hard after Mike uttered these venomous words. The positive tenor had vanished. All I could think of was how to get out of Mike’s fourth floor corner office as quickly as possible, and in short order, I did.

Anxious and distressed, I didn’t know what to think or do. I didn’t want to go back to my office down on the third floor in the Hall of Administration.  I ran into Randal Dick in the hallway and quickly told him what I just heard.  He seemed shocked, too. 

I escaped down to my car and pulled onto the nearby freeway ramp, looking for space to consider what had just happened. I just started driving east on Interstate 210 through Pasadena towards Duarte. I just wanted to air my thoughts out. I kept coming back to one inescapable thought. I could not believe that anyone could be that vindictive towards ministers who trusted in us to be faithful leaders. 

For my part, I regarded Herbert W. Armstrong as an influential man with good intentions. Like all of us, he also had his faults. I believe that God used Him powerfully to plainly teach what the Bible said. Those teachings resonated with me because they rang true. 

We had our final RP conference at the end of 1994. In talking to Joe about the next one I said, I don’t think we need it.  He quickly agreed.  There was no further appetite for sitting with the elephant in the room.

Lectionaries

As this chapter closes, one other unnecessary irritation should be mentioned. As more months passed with rumors, more rumors, denial of rumors, more changes and upheaval, a new development appeared that seemed virtually guaranteed to increase tenseness and offense in the ministry.

In early 1995 we were having discussions about preparing for the Feast of Tabernacles later in the year (not realizing the 1995 Feast of Tabernacles would see dramatic changes of another sweeping nature). 

Unfathomably, Mike Feazell announced that henceforth he wanted the ministry to give sermons from “lectionaries.”  The term “lectionary,” a term largely unused in the Church of God tradition, represents a collection or book of selected scripture readings to be used in public worship. 

But the new one Mike was envisioning would go a dangerous step further. This new one would feature an entire outline or script for sermons for the Feast of Tabernacles.

Here’s the rub: what was brought up in the meeting was that “we” didn’t want ministers to talk about lions lying down with lambs or any of that kind of thing metaphorically referencing or vision-building for the Kingdom of God. I thought I had been shocked before, but this development was beyond comprehensive.

The leadership knew full well how offensive and shocking this would be to long-standing and faithful ministers, but as before they didn’t seem to care. It would simply be another figurative poke in the eye.

Sadly, and with not a little stress, we knew we were coming to the end of our stay in the Worldwide Church of God. There would be no relenting on their part, they were committed to destruction of the former Church. They knew full well where we stood, and they were not going to budge.

Unbeknownst to us, God was preparing a way for His Work to continue. Even at this moment of spiritual and organizational exhaustion, none of us wanted preeminence or to be a leader of a movement. We didn’t want another personality to follow, nor did Bev and I want to abandon many years of service and belief. But in truth, they had cast the spiritual mooring aside and were abandoning the faith once delivered. What were we to do?

We were all crushed and just wanted to be able to worship the God we prayed to and spoke to every day, in peace.

In the next chapter we go well on beyond my resignation (please see the early chapters for reference) to the meeting with Mr. Tkach about a peaceful separation and the new beginnings of the United Church of God.

 

 

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters                   

What forces helped form and establish the critical leadership that led to near-wholesale rejection of the unasked-for theological changes within the Worldwide Church of God and the subsequent establishment of the United Church of God?

As recounted earlier, doctrinal rumblings had intensified into spiritually destructive earthquakes of greater and greater magnitude. As one academic later independently chronicled, while Joe Jr and Mike Feazell had initiated and force-fed sweeping changes, the buy-in was by no means positively received or broadly accepted. Concerning church members, “The majority still held to the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong. The Tkaches [including Mike Feazell] rejected his teachings, but because of their position were able to effectively hijack his Church” (emphasis added). The researcher sadly noted that the increasingly intensive “hijack” soon led to “appalling turmoil…with loyalties, friends, and even families split apart.”

Now events began to gather devastating steam.

A landmark moment

A critical dynamic series of events took place in early 1993 that unexpectedly and ironically laid the foundation for the initial organization of the United Church of God. It happened suddenly and spontaneously, sparking a landmark process that ultimately led to the structure and earliest leadership of what was to become UCG two years later.

Here is the critical backstory.

Doug Horchak, the brother-in-law to Joe Jr., had previously held leadership positions in the Pasadena headquarters. He had taken up the position of pastor in Denver, Colorado, but stayed in touch. During a visit to Pasadena, he was invited to the home of Dean May, who managed the Church’s automotive fleet program in the early 1990s. It was a time of old friends. Joe Jr. and I were invited to come along as well. 

The evening began as a social visit with pleasant conversation and good-natured banter among brothers and friends. That didn’t last long.

Why? Neither Doug Horchak and Dean May were buying into the expanding and disconcerting theological “changes” that were rapidly fostering destructive controversy in the Church.

Perhaps a bit naive in retrospect, at the time some of us felt that this corrosive dissension would somehow pass, with God protecting us from the worst. To be honest, our Church culture at the time emphasized a viewpoint to simply leave unsettling matters like this in God’s Hands, especially if it was coming from the top down. If contrary opinions were expressed and motives questioned, one could be labeled a “dissident,” however unfairly. It was not a sound organizational practice or culture in that respect (UCG today has processes and safeguards in place that help address this).

In this instance, where family context and familiarity were high, there were no barriers to expressing concern. As the evening progressed, Doug Horchak became more vocal and outspoken, aiming pointed questions directly at his brother-in-law. Unrelenting, he shot query after query at Joe Jr., deliberately focused on what was the justification for the doctrinal disruptions.  Doug asked: what about the changes we’re hearing about?   What about the rumors about the Sabbath and other core beliefs being changed and done away?  

The mood of the gathering quickly soured. Joe was forced into a defensive posture. And he clearly didn’t like it.  As things heated up Dean May and I glanced at each other, recognizing the escalating discomfort. Good-natured banter gave way to testy argument. 

Doug’s questions continued until there was a sudden stop.  Joe had had enough.  It was time for us to go. We abruptly said our goodbyes and Joe Jr. drove me back to my apartment.

A momentous discussion 

On the way home, Joe unexpectedly informed me that he now wanted to design and implement a new administrative structure in the field ministry. That was a surprise to me.

Why? Up to now, such a management level had recently been greatly resisted. To be honest, such a regional structure had twice previously been transformed from an effort at improved communication and growth into something quite different. In fact, poor planning and deployment actually produced a breeding ground for divisive fracturing. That spawned havoc in the Church.  Twice it had to be forcibly dismantled.

Long-time ministers and wives will remember that this happened first with the Regional Directors in 1974 and again with the Area Coordinators later in the same decade. The flawed structures failed to address critical challenges, which led to several exiting the church. Herbert Armstrong personally ordered the demise of the organizational structures.  

As Joe explained, he had a different purpose for establishing a regional director network this time. This new structure would provide a framework for a select group of senior men to learn and absorb the new theology, thus, in Joe’s mind, equipping them to become teachers, influencers, and mentors for the rest of the ministry.

Knowing how people felt, I knew that this was a pipe dream, even as Joe was driving and explaining his thoughts. Surprisingly, Joe emphasized to me that he was going to get it off the ground right away. Apparently, the family argument had steeled his resolve.

Given that, I honestly thought that by morning this would blow over. I felt that Joe was jilted, angry, and simply quickly reacting to what happened that evening. In the positive days earlier, Joe and I had built a relationship in which he often confided his thoughts and personal feelings. We were friends on that level and worked together effectively. Now was a different story. We were becoming more distant when addressing the looming challenges and doctrinal concerns.

When I arrived for work early the next morning, Joe was already coming out of the elevator down from his father’s office on the top floor.  He told me that as Pastor General, his father had approved Joe Jr.’s plan for the ministry.

This was now high priority. Joe Sr. wanted us to get right on it.

Joe Jr. instructed me to draw up a list of 70 names from our almost 400 full-time ministers. We would pare down that list to the final 14 proposed regional pastors.  We chose that number because we already had a YOU (Youth Opportunities United) structure of 14 coordinators in place. Those existing geographical boundaries could be duplicated for the new regional pastor structure.

That was a sobering task. But it had its benefits. As with any service organization, there existed a broad spectrum of service and performance. But it was a humbling, weighty, and inspiring task for me.

As I reviewed hundreds of names, a renewed profound respect emerged for the character of many dedicated ministers who with their wives had worked tirelessly and sacrificially. Not a few were known for faithfulness, integrity, humility, wisdom, sound judgment, and exceptional people skills. Many had earned a reputation for outstanding pastoral care.

I already had the privilege of 25 years of experience serving in the ministry and knew many as neighboring pastors, from conferences, Youth Opportunities United (YOU) events, Feast of Tabernacles, and international travel to Europe and the U.S.S.R.   There were many ministers who held decades of service, and there were many new, freshly minted ministers in the service of the church. The median age back then was about 42, which ironically was my age at the time.

After much consideration, thought, and effort, I produced an initial list of 70 men, as instructed.

I gave Joe Jr. my list and we promptly went right to work. Given the service quality and commitment of the men and their wives on this list of 70, it was a challenging task to come up with the names of 14 men.  We finally settled on 14 and submitted it to Mr. Tkach Sr., who himself had once led Ministerial Services directly and was very familiar with the quality of our ministerial workforce.

After we secured approval from the Pastor General, Joe Jr. and I then got on the phone and started calling the finalists of their selection in a new role as regional pastors.  Ironically, this same structure continues to this day in the United Church of God. Only one person turned it down. That was Ken Giese in Big Sandy, Texas. Jim Franks took his place.

So far as achieving Joe Jr.’s initial goal of creating new advocates for the massive doctrinal changes, there existed a major snag. Only one of the 14 were open supporters of the new theological wave. 

In fact, some were vocally opposed, and the Administration knew it.  One of the choices, Doug Horchak, had of course just personally and openly jousted with Joe Jr. about the new theology.  Despite this, Doug made the list of 14. Incongruously, Doug was now going to be called on to be an influencer on the ministry in his region regarding the fateful and destructive changes. 

It didn’t make sense. In change management there is a maxim that one appoints the strongest opponent as a champion for the very change one may oppose. In theory, that can result in conversion (like office automation or technology adoption). But if that was the intent here, organizational manipulation generally failed spectacularly in trying to force feed changes among men and women who were spiritually convinced and convicted of what they rightly believed as powerful biblical truth.  

Another noted candidate on the list of 14 was Larry Salyer.  Larry had already left Pasadena the year before because of all the controversy. When we called him, he made no secret of his position and retorted: “Why are you choosing me?  You KNOW how I feel about this!”  

But Joe was undaunted.  He replied: “Larry, just give it time.  Stay with it.  You’ll understand it.” 

I could not believe what was taking place before my eyes. Joe Jr. honestly thought that teachers and leaders who for years had faithfully been teaching our doctrine regarding the Nature of God, Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God, days of worship, the Law of God, and on would wake up a different person. Somehow these long-time servants would readily and wholeheartedly embrace a contrary belief structure, suddenly believing and preaching something that they had rejected and spoken against for years. 

Ironically, some in the ministry did embrace these changes over time, leading directly to the predicted “appalling turmoil…with loyalties, friends, and even families split apart.”

To Bev’s and my astonishment, there were some who could be keeping the Saturday Sabbath for years and then, almost without skipping a beat, start keeping Sunday, Christmas and Easter and announce this to their congregations with a straight face. The Administration honored some of these people for being so “progressive” even though it was absurdly shallow. For me, thoughts like “What were they THINKING?” flooded into my mind.

When the break from Worldwide Church occurred two years later, some changed quickly to the new.  Others took their time.  A “grace period” was allowed, but eventually they had to bend to the new. Those holding to old beliefs were told there was no place for them in their church. Many were shown the door, their commitment and careers torn to shreds. This was a period that tried men’s hearts.

The Indoctrination Conferences

The next step was to hold conferences where the new RP’s would receive their first indoctrination and discuss their new roles.  We met about every two months at Headquarters in Pasadena until late 1994.  International Directors were also brought in for this instruction.

As I was preparing my part in the conference, I still thought of myself as an assistant to Joe Tkach Jr.   While my business card read “Church Administration Assistant Director,”  I always considered myself Joe Jr.’s assistant first to help him with his work.  And plenty of work there was with all the communication and providing the personal touch to the ministry with administrative, personal, and sometimes conflict resolution. 

This involved considerable travel. My wife Beverly was very directly connected to what I did. When the church was teaching sound doctrine, we loved every aspect of this job. That was quickly changing. Now, my assignment was to organize the Regional Pastor structure and define its new function.

In implementing the new regional director framework, I leaned on the models of our previous structures, which I was once a part of and that date back to the District Superintendents, Regional Directors, and Area Coordinators. The RP’s first task was to get acquainted with the ministry in their area. Each one had about 25 full-time pastors and 35 local church elders to oversee. It was not a line function, and the ministry was still welcome to call Joe Jr. or me at any time.

Their role was to serve the ministry, answering their questions and discussing challenges in their region.  But I knew and was grieved that the big and real reason for these meetings was to push through the new doctrines, beginning with the Nature of God being the Trinity.  Once that was ingrained, much more would follow. 

A conference of the 14 was immediately called, and an agenda was handed to me. It was clear that major doctrinal changes were coming into high gear, no longer confined to doctrinal committee discussions.

Most of the conference was conducted with session after session by a minister named Kyriacos Stavrinides.  The lecture titles spoke of various processions of the Spirit and relationships in the Godhead. 

Those who were born in or were called into the United Church of God in later years may wonder, who was this Dr. Stavrinides? Who was this controversial scholar who later left the Church of God community altogether and returned to the Greek Orthodox Church, recently dying with the title “Father Alexander”?

My first contact with him was when I was a student at Ambassador College in Bricket Wood, England back in 1968.  He was a faculty member and spoke often in the Bricket Wood congregation. He was born on the island of Cyprus and took classes at the University of London and the University of Cambridge.

Over time he was in degree programs involving in Music, Classics, Theology, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies. He was said to be fluent in 13 languages, including Ancient Greek, New Testament Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Spanish, and was an accomplished musician.

Following the close of Ambassador College in Pasadena, he moved to Texas and became Chairman of the Classics and Philosophy Department at Ambassador University in Big Sandy. After Ambassador closed its doors, he became a faculty member in the Graduate Department of Theology at Azusa Pacific University, where he served for 20 years, including the time of great change in the Worldwide Church of God.

I found it ironic that he rejoined the church organization that I came out of. He became a deacon and was finally ordained a priest in 2006. He changed his name and became known as “Father Alexander.”  He died in August 2024.

Unrelenting reeducation

For this initial conference, he was tasked to teach 25 hours of theology in one week to new Regional Pastors and International ministers brought into Headquarters.

My part in the conference was the very last two-hour time slot in which I was to explain to the newly chosen RP’s what their job would be.      

Dr. Stav (as he was known colloquially) immediately went to work setting up his show.  And it really was that. This was a pivotal point in the church. We were not introduced to this regimen by being told straight up what the end game result would be.  By looking at the agenda, you really didn’t know what it all meant when you came to the last lectures.  There was no textbook or syllabus that told you that you were going to have your faith deconstructed and that you would enter a different world from where you’ve been. 

The truth? We all were subjected to clever, deceptive, manipulative arguments that could cause us to doubt our sanity.  The God that you have committed your life to will be taken from you, and you may even wonder if He exists!  The God that you have worshipped is not good enough. You will now be asked to enter a confusing labyrinth through a series of clever, unendearingly theological arguments. We were asked to explain the infinite with our limited human dimensions and pretend we understood more than what the Bible revealed.

Drawing the line

The conference began with Dr. Stavrinides drawing a horizontal line midway on the board.  What he was going to say now would be either above or below the line. What was explicitly biblical was above the line, and what was implicit was below.  Our thinking had to be in both places as he tied the dimensions together.

This introduced the idea of defining God as a hypostasis. Most of us had never that term before.  It has never been used much, because it was never intended to be a final stop in defining God.  The word “hypostasis” is of Greek origin, meaning "underlying substance" or "foundation." In the context of the Trinity, each person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is considered a separate hypostasis. 

In the Statement of Beliefs booklet published by WCG in 1995, the Nature of God was defined as “hypostasis.”  The next revision replaced " hypostasis " with “Trinity.”  

Forcefeeding abstractions

The lectures from Dr. Stavrinides went on for hours.  There was quite a bit of strident questioning from the RPs and some of the wives, but he always held his own.  He told us that he knew all the scriptures we would be using and had all the answers.  Some say that he had the entire Bible memorized.  There is no doubt that he was brilliant and knowledgeable. 

He never allowed anyone to change the playing field of discussion.  For example, one elder started asking if all this discussion is another manifestation of metaphysics.   Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, including existence as well as objects and their properties.  His answer was a gruff: “I don’t know metaphysics,” and he moved on to something else.     

What spirit was emerging was one of God that people were unfamiliar with of being “foundation” and "substance" that was “God.”   We know we are made in God’s image, but that identification is only for us, who have only a tiny portion of the theological data.  For some, this theater of God was devastating because God is very personal. We talk to Him and have a relationship with Him.  

Guy Swenson joins the fray 

At the time this happened, there was a change in our Church Administration personnel.  My assistant left our employ, so I needed to hire another one.  Joe Jr. and I agreed to offer the position to Guy Swenson, pastor of the Beckley and Summersville congregations in West Virginia.  

I knew Guy and Jennifer through a church visit to them in 1991 and was favorably disposed towards them, knowing and staying with them on a visit to Milwaukee in the 80’s.  Joe Jr. was keen on Guy because of his innovative care of his brethren.   Guy had started a computer "club" that involved assembling IBM PCs using a loan from Church Administration, and the members purchasing the computers at cost.    

Guy also taught classes on word processing and spreadsheets.  In the end, the congregation repaid the loan from Church Administration in full (Before being a pastor, Guy had spent ten years in sales and management in the computer industry and quite knowledgeable here). It was one of many innovations Guy brought to the ministry.

Just as the doctrinal changes were coming out into the open, the Swensons arrived in June 1993 with their four children. Guy immediately proved to be most valuable.  We were actually next-door neighbors on campus.  He was a good writer and extremely diligent and really wanted to help.

His wife Jennifer was also useful to us by creating and editing Connections, (which was a journal for minister’s wives) and helping at conferences.    They arrived on campus around the time the “Nature of God” lectures were being given to the RPs and recorded.  These recordings were intended to be sent out to all the ministry. 

These were confusing and tough times. As he later recalled, Guy and Jennifer’s first recollections were seeing Jim and Sharron Franks sitting on a bench. Sharron was crying, and Guy wondered what in the world was going on.

An experienced and confident professional, Guy asked to see the videotapes and, after reviewing some of them, said they were too disjointed to send out to the field ministry. They obviously did not display or encourage spiritual unity.

The videotaped meetings were filled with pointed and, at times, harshly worded questions from senior ministers with lots of pushback from Stavrinides.  Frankly, they were awful. I knew that, having experienced them firsthand.  I had never seen such a contentious display in the ministry.

A problem solver, Guy suggested that Stavrinides re-record them and not include questions and answers. This would take days.  Amazingly Dr. Stav did it!  So, the entire conference was re-recorded with only Stavrinides, the cameraman, Mike Feazell and Guy in the room. 

During the breaks, my new assistant would debate with Stavrinides. Even though new on the scene, Guy was ready to defend biblical beliefs and doctrines.   

A man well-acquainted with organizational challenges, Guy was concerned that Joe Sr. did not know what was going on. He thus drafted a paper to Mr. Tkach debunking what Stavrinides was teaching. 

Before sending the paper to Mr. Tkach, he vetted it by Herman Hoeh and Don Ward. Given the tenor of times, they promptly shared the draft with others. Stavrinides found out what Guy was doing and this quickly led to a confrontation in Joe Sr's office where Mike Feazell and Stavrinides demanded that Guy be fired.

This was just two weeks after the Swensons arrived in Pasadena.  What a start!

Joe Tkach, Sr. asked Guy if there was anything he could do to "pour some oil on the water."  Guy told him that he could state that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were divine. After that there was not another word said about him being fired.

But Guy was banned from going to the next several regional conferences and it was a while before he was allowed to give sermons in the surrounding churches.

Despite his tumultuous start, Guy proved to be very valuable as we collaborated on many positive aspects of the work of the Church. His timely arrival included helping to develop lectures and ways of communicating with the Regional Pastors that bore good fruit amidst a tumultuous time. He would soon become helpful in another strategic way.

Next:

We will continue talking about events leading to the United Church of God that were germinating in the Regional Pastor conferences over the next year.  Removing and replacing doctrine was not the only thing attacked.  

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters                   

As I write some of the last preamble reflecting the final days of the Worldwide Church of God before the establishment of the United Church of God, I think it is worthy to briefly reflect on the purpose of this history. As I sit and recall these often-painful experiences, I sometimes ask myself: “why am I even writing these recollections?”  Wouldn’t it just be easier and cleaner to just dismiss what happened 30 years ago and move on? If there was injustice – and from many perspectives, indeed there was – can we not simply forgive as Christians and let it go?

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters

Humbling and exciting was a personal tenor for me in the early 1990s. The wide-reaching organization that I considered a privilege to be a part of was growing. It had not only survived the death of its human founder a few years earlier, it was thriving. I counted myself fortunate for the humbling opportunity to serve, having experienced a broad spectrum – from ministerial trainee to a pastor serving multiple congregations to senior administrator, the latter a position I had never sought.

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters

Humbling and exciting was a personal tenor for me in the early 1990s. The wide-reaching organization that I considered a privilege to be a part of was growing. It had not only survived the death of its human founder a few years earlier, it was thriving. I counted myself fortunate for the humbling opportunity to serve, having experienced a broad spectrum – from ministerial trainee to a pastor serving multiple congregations to senior administrator, the latter a position I had never sought.

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters

In this chapter, I would like to rewind the clock by five years to 1990. Many people associated with the Church of God community today perhaps have less familiarity with what life was like serving in Pasadena and other areas of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG).

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

See previous chapters

What happened to a once-thriving church with more than 150,000 members nearly 30 years ago?

The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero

Chapter 3  Conflict Erupts 

Chapter two concluded with the first part of a tense, soon-to-be tumultuous meeting with then-Pastor General Joseph Tkach, Sr. in his fourth-floor Pasadena office (the Senior Joseph Tkach is now deceased). Our account picks up as he begins reading the second of my two letters outlining my resignation. As previously noted, with me was my wife Beverly and pastor Doug Horchak, Mr. Tkach’s son-in-law, who resigned a few days prior to this event. I had asked Doug to accompany us at this critical meeting. Shortly after Joe Sr. read the first two letters, we were unexpectedly joined by Joseph Tkach Jr., whom I directly reported to in his then-role as director of Church Administration.