The Genesis of the United Church of God
A Personal View from Ground Zero
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 4th 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.
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.”
