Gone With The Wind: Headquarters Property

Local COG congregations are now in the process of incorporating themselves separately in various states. In the past, the process of exactly how individual congregations incorporated themselves to fit into the respective, larger church association was tightly controlled by those in charge. 

Does the following email support the charge that these recent, local COG incorporations deployed, including International Ambassador Outreach, were done so for the purpose of later merging into a part of a new, fledgling organization- Church of God Association, Worldwide?  

Hmmmm... So the Denton property might still be on Clyde Kilough's 2011 agenda, after all...

- - -- 

From: " mdad@bellsouth.net " < mdad@bellsouth.net >

To: Andrew Jenkins < andrewmjenkins@bellsouth.net>; mdjenkins83@live.com ; ARNOLD HAMPTON < ahampton49@yahoo.com >; wilson6746@att.net ; Michael Moore < mmoore@rci-together.com >

Cc: james haeffele < jhaeffele@comcast.net >; Rgdpad1234@aol.com ; rjrand@comcast.net ; Richard Thompson < ricthompson1142@embarqmail.com>; mcorreiro@hotmail.com ; Jim Cannon < james.d.cannon@comcast.net >; jimfranks < jimfranks@juno.com >

Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 6:57:24 PM

Subject: New Org.

Greetings:  I wouild like to suggest that as soon as our new org is up and running as an International Church org that we make a bid on the property in Texas and make it our home office if it is still for sale.  Maybe we could put in a bid now.  How much would it take?

Dave Jenkins

UCG-Gone With The Wind: Read The Fine Print

 The Church of God-West Palm Beach filed incorporation with the Florida Secretary of State December 13, 2010. Five men and one woman are listed on the filing: James D. Cannon as incorporator, president, and registered agent; Dan Carreiro, treasurer; Robin Nicholls, secretary; David and Debra Jenkins as Directors, and Michael Moore as Director.  

What is one of the most important aspects of this public filing? Click the following:

Why, it's article IV, manner of election.  What exactly is the manner in which the directors are elected and appointed? "Officers and Directors are appointed by the Church Pastor". 

Just what does "Officers and Directors are appointed by the Church Pastor" really mean? It generally means that the directors and officers - meaning the president, treasurer, secretary and directors of the church's Florida corporation are hired, fired, or removed and replaced by the sole decison of the Pastor. 

This is the same type of total power and total control HWA as Pastor General wielded with a blunderbuss in the WCG, and that Tkach Jr. today exerts over Grace Communion, although he euphemistically calls it an "heirarchical, episcopal form of church government" (but with no real, substantive changes having been made to the Tkach's sole and absolute power over GCI and its assets). 

Tkach tries to give his total power and control, so-called "episcopal governance" a new evangelical spin and sparkle. But Little Joe Jr. must have skipped out on his day classes at Azusa discussing governance, while Feazell ghost authored his term papers. Because so far, episcopal governance by Tkach means he gets to hire and fire GCI church and corporate boards and pastors at will, hide the money from the fire sale off of millions of dollars in liquidated WCG assets, unaccountably collect church donations for charity without proper reporting, keep the church's consolidated financial statements for the last twenty years a secret from the congregations, and refuses to publish the budget and bylaws of the GCI, which church bylaws also govern Tkach's power to appoint his lifetime successor. Just how does that reality match up to this gci.org joke page on financial accountability? Accountability to who? Mathew Morgan and Bernie Schnippert?

The lessons of granting total power to one man, who is subordinate to and accountable to no one in the church, should be kept firmly in mind by those who show up for the formation of UCA-America in Kentucky. 

UCG: Gone With The Wind: Who Hasn't Resigned Yet?

The following list of men have resigned or been removed from their United Church of God positions in the last year. It's not a complete list of departures, either. And some are biding their time cashing their paychecks, while waiting to see just which way the wind blows. With the list of resignations snowballing more and more from UCG, it may be getting easier to build a list of who haven't resigned from UCG, rather than the avalanche who have already been fired or resigned:

Mr. Andy Burnett,  December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Doug Horchak, December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Richard Thompson, December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Clyde Kilough, December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Roy Demarest,  December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Roger West, December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Greg Sargent, December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Mike Hanisko, December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Arnold Burns, December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Ron Kelley, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry

Mr. David Treybig, December 2010, resigned from the Council of Elders

Mr. Michael Blackwell, December 2010, resigned from the Council of Elders

Mr. David Baker, December 2010, resigned from the Council of Elders

Mr. Neil Hart, December 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Jim Franks, December 2010, resigned from the Council of Elders

Mr. Alfredo Arboleas, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry

Mr. Eleodoro Avila, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry 

Mr. Alberto Gonzalez, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry

Mr. Jaime Guiñez, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry 

Mr. Adan Langarica, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry 

Mr. Luis Mundo, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry 

Mr. Fermin Nain, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry 

Mr. Jaime Ortiz, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry 

Mr. Manuel Quijano, December 2010, removed from UCG ministry   

Mr. Pablo Dimakis, December 2010, resigned form UCG ministry 

Mr. Jonathan R. Pinelli, November 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Paul Carter, November 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Ken Giese, November 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Fred Kellers, November 2010, removed as Associate Senior Pastor of Nigeria

Mr. Tim Waddle, November 2010, removed as Associate Senior Pastor of East Africa

Mr. Tom Clark, November 2010, removed as Associate Senior Pastor of Ghana

Mr. Larry Salyer, November 2010, removed from UCG ministry

Mr. Edwardo Hernández, November 2010, resigned from UCG ministry

Mr. Ken Giese, November 2010, resigned as pastor

Mr. Larry Salyer, October 2010, relieved from ministerial duties

Mr. Paul Suckling, October 2010, relieved of his position as Senior Pastor of the United Kingdom

These mass resignations portend the end of the UCGia. The question developing in the mind of many: Will the same UCG be around at this time, next year?

UCG: Gone With The Wind

Banned by HWA! reports that Clyde Kilough, Demarest and West have now resigned:

"Clyde Kilough has now resigned   This has

taken many in UCG by surprise.  With his

resignation many now admit the Titanic that

UCG has become is now sinking rapidly. 

Roy Demarest and Roger West have also

resigned"

""

Picking Cotton: UCG or Church of God America - Which?

J over at Shadows has put together an interesting poll about the UCG crisis. So far, amongst other things, the majority think the UCG is extremely close to a large split, the UCG crisis is the result of a power struggle, and there is little hope for reconciliation.

And Banned By HWA! covers the resignation of Greg Sargent, and the latest UCG split, the Church of God-America.

Now on all their websites, the COG-America (COGA) advertises the following claim:

1. Is Church of God – America the nucleus for a new corporate Church of God?

       No. Church of God-America is not a corporation nor was it started with the intention of becoming one. We are a voluntary association of pastors and elders who are committed to implementing the Ephesians 4 model for Church of God congregations.  

Even though COGA touts that it is not a new "corporate" COG, "corporate" legalities are not really the issue. The fundamental legal basis forming the Radio Church of God and then WCG is that of a Church Association (a church association also forms the legal basis of  present-day church UCGia).

Notice the name, United Church of God-an International Association. Churches may be organized as associations, with or without a set of written rules governing an association. But legal counsel will usually recommend a set of written, formalized bylaws and rules governing these associations be adopted to avoid legal problems, certain to occur at some point later on down the road.

These church associations may or may not then choose to form affiliated religious corporations (e.g., a separate, affiliated college) to add an additional layer of legal protection. Affiliated church corporations are a practical means of conducting business with banks and insurance companies, and provide further privacy from governmental investigation or outside scrutiny. The WCG and the UCGia church associations did this very thing when they incorporated in California.

Can using a religious association as the legal form for a church provide another layer of control, privacy, or secrecy? During the receivership, HWA fired, replaced, and then he disfellowshipped Wayne Cole- no questions asked. Tkach Jr. made a big splash over a decade ago, saying he intended to reform Armstrong's dictatorial and punitive WCG church association bylaws, but, as of 2010, Tkach has not yet once published the complete set of WCG/CGI church association bylaws. Is that lack of oversight inspiring credibility in Glendora?

On the other hand, the present day UCG ministry was once on the receiving end of those dictatorial bylaws used to control the WCG, by Armstong's infallible rod of iron. To be sure, no set of church association bylaws is perfect, but at least the UCG makes public the church association bylaws, church constitution and rules that are supposed to govern what happens in the Church, and some of the budget. Whether or not UCG's church association legal process is followed in practice is an entirely different matter, especially in light of the current crisis. 

The Union is DISSOLVED! Part 2

The Council question and answer session held at ABC on December 8th, 2010 appears to have been used in a deliberate way for the entire Council to get on the record and put their spin control on the current crisis. Whatever it was, it was not intended solely for the benefit of the students.

Present were President Dennis Luker, Chairman Melvin Rhodes , and current council members Robin Webber, Roy Holladay, Bill Eddington (Australia), Aaron Dean, Victor Kubic, Mario Seiglie, Bob Berendt (Edmonton), Scott Ashley, and Darris McNeely.

This is intended to be just a quick summation by Ambassador Reports of the ABC Q and A session audio recording.)  It is not totally comprehensive, not official, nor a verbatim transcript. AR is not affiliated in any way with the UCG. It appears no expletives were intentionally deleted. None were intended. If you absolutely must have a verbatim transcript of the meeting audio, phone UCG and get one. 

Dennis Luker opened the session and turned the floor over to Melvin Rhodes, who solicited "any questions you might have".

The first question posed by a student asked why so many people have recently resigned from the Council. Rhodes answered of three resignation letters he received, two cited health reasons and two stated the reason being they could not support the consensus of the Council. Rhodes compared the situation to a parliamentary form of government, in which there is a majority opinion and a minority opinion. Some in the minority may resign if they can't support the majority opinion.

Another question attempted to elicit details about what isssue(s) are dividing the Council.  Bob Berendt took the question. He noted the Council must review sometimes sensitive and personal information, but must eventually decide an issue one way or the other. He said he was one of those on the Council who felt there was not enough overall support in UCG for a move to Texas, and in view of the state of the economy. He said that he personally supported the Council motion to rescind the move to Texas, through putting the move up for another vote before the General Conference.

Ashley (6:37) framed the issue as a question of priorities on what to focus on, on the use of resources and the allocation of resources. He estimated it would cost $10 to $12 million to build a Texas facility, or that money could be put into more of a media effort of sowing and reaping- future possible growth and hopefully "generate more media", and more churches.

Darris McNeely (9:31) brought up the issue of how the legitimacy of the Council is viewed. He then discussed the UCG voting process. He said balloting in the UCG is done in a private matter.  The name of the individual voter is removed from a ballot when votes are cast in  an election to ensure privacy. Since 1998, block voting has been alleged in UCG elections, although elections are audited. The Council investigated some alleged instances of block voting. In general, he said block voting   has not been condoned or encouraged. The belief is block voting fosters disruptive partisan politics in the church. He said that the legitimacy of the last three elections have been questioned, and block voting is still an issue in the mind of some men. 2008 (McNeely, Webber, and Dean were elected to the CoE), 2009 (Ashley, Rhoads elected) and 2010 (Trebig, Blackwell elected).  Three letters were sent out by the Council to admonish GCE members not to block vote, but he said the issue continues to plague the legitimacy of the Council.

Another question posed wondered how many more terminations or resignations were expected.  Kubic (?) said there have been two terminations. One minister held a meeting after services and spoke "against" the Church, without remorse who was terminated. A second man he said could not support the organization that was paying him and was therefore terminated. He concluded his comment saying he had no idea of how many more terminations or resignations should be expected.

Robin Webber then took the floor, who remarked about the precept of being "ethically bound" to support the the UCGia bylaws and constitution, While the documents were important to uphold, he maintained the Church was first a foremost a spiritual organization.  The bylaws do not necessarily equal ethics or spirituality, but that as Darden reminds him, process is very important.  He said that Council members are "ethically bound" or "duty bound to uphold" (uphold, not necessarily agree with) the consensus of the General Conference of Elders and the Council of Elders. After careful deliberation and multitude of council, Council members are to put their own opinions aside and form a spiritual consensus for the good of the whole.  He said legal processes and hoops are in place to protect the individual employee from unjust employment termination by the UCG.

The next question raised the issue of why men of integrity with years of service were leaving. Aaron Dean responded that's a difficult question to answer - how can you really know anyone? He raised the issue of the takeover of the WCG in the receivership- just what did God have in mind? He said in human resource law, you aren't allowed to say certain things. People can parrot things, but it comes down to "what you do in the dark". He said he offered to resign from the UCG 12 years ago himself, but the chairman implored him not to resign. He said he again offered to resign 3 years ago, but Dean's second offer to resign was again rebuffed. He then said not everything you read out there is truth, citing the story about the yacht that got twisted. He said that Israel demanded a king - to follow a person - but putting the person in place of Christ is the danger.

Bob Berendt says he came into the church in 1962 and has been a pastor since 1970, mentioning that he probably should be retired by now. He brought up the issue of David Hulme, saying that he had a different vision than the UCG and had to be removed. He said that in the seventies, some of the  ministry were not faithful and took members away with them when they left, but that the Council has a duty to protect the organization.

Another on the COE then talked about the "accept it or leave it" one-man government of the WCG. Some now in the UCG were forcibly fired, or terminated by the WCG. He said the Bible does not specifically spell out one form of government for today, such as one-man rule. UCG has a participation and consensus type of governance. Some 470 or so members of the General Conference wield the power. It is impractical for all General Conference elders to run the day to day operations, so a representative Council of Elders of twelve men is chosen to represent the General Conference. In turn, the Council elected chooses who will be the UCG president. Operations managers report to the UCG president (Dean, finance; Eddington, Media; and Kubic, Ministerial Services),  who reports to the Council of Elders, which is ultimately responsible to the General Conference for any Council actions taken.

Some people have a different perspective on the issues. If a number of elders disagree with the UCGia form of governance, and may try to undermine or actively promote another form. That is why problems can arise.

Eddington remarked that it's not necessarily a matter of integrity or faithfulness, that different points of view can arise where separation is the only way for peace to be restored. He said the decision to relocate to Texas was passed "on the barest of margins". He reveals he was one of five Council of Members members in 2008 to sponsor a COE resolution for the General Conference to reconsider the move the Texas,  by having a second vote again taken on the issue.

The next question asked if Latin America was getting the same amount of funding. Mario Seiglie (46:00) took this up, saying one of the issues is "who removed themselves from what". UCGia funding goes to those who back the UCGia governmental structure. When ministers signed on they were credentialed by the UCGia. "We have not cut them off, they have cut themselves off," he said.

Dean next responded, saying the Latin American budget of $500,000 has not been moved, but that another website organization has been collecting funds for the Latin American brethern. He speculates, would that amount to double-pay from UCGia  members? The budget was never changed, he said, remarking that it costs money to send people down there.

A question is raised about the large card of support sent to the UCG Council which states,  "We are on your side". Is there two sides, a line drawn in the sand?

A remark is made that majority opinion and minority opinions can change after an election. While not publicized, there can be very deeply held beliefs or philosophies. We have met several different times over the last three years and spent hundreds of hours trying to reconcile with those "on the other side". Some refuse to accept, as McNeely has said, the "legitimacy of the Council". The bylaws are a mutually agreed upon set of rules, and must not be undermined for the good of the church. Not advocating any separation, but the reality is a peaceful separation may be necessary.

Webber (57:00) says that the idea of two "sides" may be an oversimplification of the philosophical issues.  He reminisces about HWA in the early 80s in the Auditorium. After a sermon HWA made an issue of, "not the many who have left, you are the many who are here today".  How you look at life, how you frame equations, will allow you to make the right decisions.

Rhodes (62:00) says "I was against Texas" for some of the same reasons mentioned, but never once got up and attacked it from the pulpit. In that sense we have to draw a line in the sand. Six times - and one of the letters said the door is always open.

The next response said we made several efforts to reach out to the Latin American ministry. It's a two-way street. We tried to call, they would hang up the phone. They didn't respond to emails. Their position was unless you agree to all our demands, we will not meet with you. Only one of these men ever made an effort to contact us. That's the unfortuate reality.

A questioner asks, Would an impersonal mediator help to solve the crisis?

Mediation might be of possible value, but that would depend on what starting point and what are the conditions. 

(67:00) Thank-you for being here and for listening. (End of recording.)






.......................................................

All that remains to be seen are how many UCG ministers will desert the frozen Milford, Ohio campus, regroup in Big Sandy, or seek to wrest control of the new headquarters land in Denton, TX from the UCGia.

With the UCG crisis going into full swing, and perhaps a split to occur in the not too distant future,  another question presents itself. Who, or what is actually behind the founding of International Ambassador Outreach (IAO)? Besides the pictures of degreed financial directors (with actual degrees, from accredited colleges) in plain view on the website, and other formalities designed to inspire financial  trust, just who in the UCG the ministry was really responsible for setting up the IAO operation?  

 The fairly new, somewhat mysterious, UCG  money machine, located in Plano, TX (a suburb of Dallas) is a few miles from the new UCG Denton headquarters. Still hidden from public view,  IAO bylaws were promised on the website, but are yet to be published. Ostensibly, IAO was created as a charitable organization, upon the basic premise that COG charity begins at home.  Over $150,000 dollars has already been handed over in good faith to IAO,  undoubtedly much of it drained from the wallets of three-tithe paying UCG members. Could IAO actually be merging into a new “charitable” church association for maverick ministers, leaving their UCG employment?


From the very start, IAO and the LA crisis may have been a trial balloon to see just how much of the 20 million dollars in tithe money flowing to Milford could be siphoned off from sympathetic UCG tithe-farming families. Leon Walker first, and now Larry Salyer are now publicly onboard with this Ambassador “charity”. Could IAO really be just the opening pawn gambit in a chess game, for ultimate control of the finances and membership of United Church of God?

Leon Walker Fires A Broadside

Leon Walker tries to maneuver in response to a letter by the United Council of Elders.  In this letter, he makes the representation that the Council has not made"genuine" efforts to reconcile with the ministry in Latin America.  

But just what does Walker mean by no "genuine" efforts? No efforts at all would be one thing, but adding "genuine" to efforts in the wording gives him some additional "wiggle" room. The claim that no "genuine" efforts were made at all by this time sounds a little dubious. It is specifically contradicted by several statements on the record made by COE members, and that they have documented e-mails, phone calls, and other efforts made by the COE to make genuine efforts resolve the crisis. 

Mr. Walker then tries to put forward a sympathetic case that the council's actions in removing him as regional director and other related actions are in conflict to the UCGia's Rules of Association and other governing documents. Unfortunately for his scenario, he does not show the necessary and sufficient legal grounds in church association law to support his claim that his removal as director would be overturned and that he would be reinstated.  The United Church of God, an International Association, was incorporated May 10, 1995 as a California corporation. 

From: Leon Walker

Date: 12-10-10

On December 9, 2010 the Council of Elders sent out a letter addressed to the members of UCG entitled, “Efforts to Reconcile With the Latin American Ministry.” This document begins with a statement that the Council “continues to seek resolution of the situation in Latin America regarding former ministers and members.” This statement is absolutely untrue. All 15 of the ministers as well as the members in Latin America will confirm that no genuine effort has been made by the president or the Council to seek a resolution of the issues regarding Latin America. On the contrary, we can cite numerous examples of actions by the president and Council that have treated us with disdain, hostility, indifference and abuse.

The document then states that “numerous direct attempts have been made by the Council to meet with ministers and brethren in the region over the past six months.” Once again, this is completely untrue. There haven’t been any attempts, let alone “numerous” ones. And then the document adds, “Some efforts have achieved at least partial success.” Really? We in Latin America have seen no success at all.

Speaking of Mario Seiglie’s visits to Latin America, the document states that “Despite the fact that these ministers continued to receive a salary and support at the time from the United Church of God, an International Association, none of them would meet with Mr. Seiglie.” This statement also is totally untrue. First of all, only two ministers in Latin America received a salary directly from the U.S.—Leon Walker and Larry Roybal. However, their salaries were cut off on July 2. The other ministers received their salaries from their local income. None of them was salaried by the U.S. Even if one considers that their salaries indirectly came from the subsidies sent by the U.S. those subsidies were cut off on July 1. Therefore, none of the ministers was receiving a salary or any kind of support from the United Church of God, an International Association at all when Mario Seiglie was traveling to Latin America.

The document laments the fact that the ministry in Latin America did not wish to speak with Mario Seiglie. However, considering the aggressive and hostile manner that Mario displayed in Chile, as well as previous unpleasant experiences that the ministry have had with Mario it is little wonder that they did not wish to speak with him.

The document then states that “Mr. Walker continues to deny the fact that he has been replaced as director for UCGIA affiliated entities in the Latin American region.” However, the UCG Rules of Association (1-130 and 3-110) state clearly that areas outside of the U.S. will establish and maintain their own legal and administrative structure and they will administer and direct their own affairs. The legal boards and ministry in Latin America only recognize Leon Walker as their regional director—as is their right. Nowhere do the Rules of Association (nor the Constitution or Bylaws) give the president or the Council the authority to impose a legal or administrative structure in Latin America or elsewhere outside the U.S. where national councils/boards exist. Therefore, the supposed removal of Leon Walker as regional director is not recognized by the legal boards in Latin America and that removal, as well as the naming of Denny Luker as regional director, is simply illegal.

The document then states that last August the Council invited Mr. Walker to meet and try and find a basis for reconciliation. There was really no genuine attempt for reconciliation in that meeting. When Mr. Luker telephoned Mr. Walker and asked him to come to Cincinnati he made it perfectly clear that it was not for the purpose of finding a way to restore him as regional director. Initially Mr. Walker questioned why he should go to Cincinnati if there was no positive result to be achieved. Nevertheless, in the interest of cooperation he went in order to answer questions that the Council might have. However, nothing was achieved by the meeting. It was a complete waste of time and actually just a “photo op” so the Council could pretend that positive talks about reconciliation were taking place.

The document also states that it is Mr. Walker’s continued stance that he must be reinstated as regional director over Latin America. That is not true. It is the boards and ministry in Latin America that decides who (including Mr. Walker) is to be the regional director, or even if there is to be a regional director. That is their right and their choice according to UCG’s Rules of Association. Mr. Walker has made this point several times, including before the Council in August. This decision is not Mr. Walker’s—it rests with the boards and ministry.

Reference is then made to Mr. Luker’s letter of November 11 to the Latin American ministers. This letter was an ultimatum, demanding that the ministry choose either to recognize Mr. Luker as their regional director or Leon Walker as their regional director. The ministry did not respond to the letter since they had already made it clear in previous communications that they did not recognize the legality of removing Mr. Walker as regional director and the appointment of Mr. Luker as regional director, which was against their wishes and without consultation with them.

The document then states that phone calls were made to these ministers asking whether they wished to be affiliated with UCGIA or if they desired to support Mr. Walker. The document states that the ministers declared that they wished to be affiliated “with the emerging organization rather than UCGIA.” The ministers did not make such a statement, nor could they do so since an “emerging organization” simply does not exist. This statement is putting words into their mouths, which they did not say. Furthermore, the ministry and members in Latin America did not leave UCG nor have they formed another church organization. It is the Council which has disenfranchised the ministers and members, cutting off financial assistance, expelling ministers, removing all areas from UCG’s websites, etc.

Yet the document begins to conclude, “As demonstrated in this letter, the Council and administration have reached out repeatedly.” The letter demonstrates nothing of the sort. The Council’s efforts simply do not exist and the letter does not demonstrate that they existed.

Then the document states, “During the past six months the Council and the administration provided opportunities to those aligned with Leon Walker to make overtures to the Council and to the administration. Only one chose to do so.” There were rumors that the president and/or Council were going to invite Spanish pastors to come to Cincinnati for discussions. With the exception of one individual (Eduardo Hernandez) no other minister ever received a phone call or email message from the president or chairman of the Council inviting them to come to Cincinnati for discussions. Eduardo Hernandez did go to Cincinnati in September and he was assured that the other pastors would be invited to come after the Feast. However, no such invitation was made. Absolutely no overtures were made by the Council and/or administration to the Spanish ministry.

The document concludes, “We cannot unethically overturn the Church’s governing documents and pretend they don’t exist in order to accommodate other organizations with different leaders under the same name.” What an incredible statement. This is in fact what the president and Council have done—they have unethically violated the church’s government documents (including the Rules of Association) by illegally removing Mr. Walker as regional director and by Mr. Luker illegally taking that position. Mr. Walker and the Latin American ministry have not violated the church’s documents, but the president and the Council have done so.

Once again, the Council has chosen to issue a document that attempts to describe the Council as righteous and just, while Mr. Walker especially and the Latin American ministry are portrayed as unethical and uncompromising. Sadly, the Council once again resorts to declarations that simply are untrue as well as distortions of the facts. Once again, the Council refuses to address the real issues that face the Church.

UCG: The Union Is Dissolved!

Can UCG President Dennis Luker keep the United at peace, or do the following "irreconcilable differences" split up United for good? Over 110 have already publicly signed on to the following grievances:

An Open Letter to the President of the United Church of God, Dennis Luker

Dear President Luker,

This open letter is being sent to you as the chief executive officer of the United Church of God (UCG) from current pastors, former pastors and otherwise employed elders in good standing of the General Conference of Elders of the United Church of God, an International Association. We write with deep concern over the conduct of the current administration and the Council of Elders, a concern shared by numerous non salaried elders, many of whom would readily add their names to this letter.

We have supported the governmental system agreed upon in 1995 and this letter is a confirmation of working within that system. Our deepest hope is the complete healing and the effective continuation of the UCG.

The biblically mandated responsibilities of pastors and elders compel us to state our concerns, as do those duties specified in our governing documents, which do not permit us to allow the present situation to continue. As our Constitution states, “God has established the office of elder to provide care and oversight to the congregations. Thus, the General Conference of Elders is responsible to God to ensure that His people are served and their needs attended to”(Article 3.2.2.3). We consider resolving these concerns to be the greatest need God’s people under our care face at this time.

No one doubts that the UCG is in a dire crisis. We believe that the steps necessary to resolve the crisis are in your hands and those of the Council. Over the last year there have been repeated attempts to bring genuine concerns to both you and the Council. We believe that those concerns have not been addressed in a way that is appropriate for the established leadership of the UCG—or any Church of God.

Your letter of November 4, 2010 attacks the ministry in general and contains a number of misleading and false accusations. Among them are attempts to link ministers and members who have sincere disagreements with the administration to a handful of people posting extreme or ungodly views on Internet sites. Less than two decades ago, most of us were accused of being divisive, rebellious and satanic in our previous association, and it deeply grieves us to find ourselves in a similar toxic environment in the UCG.

While there have been some improper comments made on Web sites, none of us have made or encouraged them and we do not condone them. And we will not join you or the Council in condemning ministers or members who respectfully ask questions, challenge wrong behavior or who simply post factual material.

Both Scripture and our historical origins have taught us that Christianity is a matter of individual conscience, conviction and action. Members have rightly been encouraged to think for themselves and that is exactly what many are doing (Philippians 2:12; 1 John 4:1). Those who have spoken out responsibly should not be accused of causing division. Nor should they be charged with unthinkingly following sowers of discord, when their conclusions are often based upon what they have witnessed personally.

At the heart of our immediate concern is a pattern of wrongly equating loyalty to God’s government with submission to human organizational authority and then labeling as disloyal or rebellious any who express concerns over leadership’s decisions and methods. Recent home office documents, letters and recorded sermons have repeatedly contained negative accusations about supposed plots to sabotage our governing documents, to start a new church and that there is a spirit of rebellion in our ministers. This barrage of accusation and inaccuracy is disheartening the members; it is wearing down the church and it is causing increasing frustration among the ministry and the membership.

Unknown to many members, the administration has engaged in punitive action against certain pastors, accusing them of disloyalty to Christ, when what they have done—conscientiously and respectfully—is voice disagreement with doctrinal statements that they deemed unsound. Or, they expressed concern over administrative decisions that these ministers believed to be outside the bounds of our governing documents or Christ-like management. This pattern of punitive behavior does not follow the biblical or organizational standards. Men have been accused of and/or punished for “disloyal behavior” on the word of a single witness or on mere rumor. In contrast, Scripture is explicit: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses” (1 Timothy 5:19). Punishments have been administered at the highest level—suspension followed quickly by decredentialing, instead of our traditional and biblically mandated pastoral attitude of working with someone to address the issues at hand in an effort to resolve them and to retain every minister if at all possible.

This has rapidly accelerated to include several resignations by church pastors who felt they could no longer in good conscience work for the church. Others have been terminated by the administration, greatly increasing an environment of tension and uncertainty for the ministry and the membership.

Undoubtedly, the most damaging administrative action that was taken in plain view of the membership (as opposed to Council actions taken in executive session) was the wholesale removal of the Latin American members and ministers—approximately 10 percent of our entire church! The ensuing stream of paperwork from the home office has not mitigated the alarm or the bewilderment caused by the removal of loyal people from church membership for no justifiable biblical reason and by the severance—without warning—of the financial support that the UCG had promised to some of our poorest members in that part of the world. We should all imagine ourselves in their shoes.

Funding for the Latin American work and ministry was cut off on July 1, 2010. Yet most of the Latin American elders remained members of the GCE until November 30, 2010 when the Council decredentialed them. This adds to what we ministers and many of our lay members can only describe as inconsistent and bizarre.

Lengthy and differing explanations from the home office for these actions have left us unconvinced that the church leadership action was fair, decent, gracious—or even legitimate, whether according to biblical standards or the UCG Rules of Association.

What is seen as a conspicuously offensive error has only been compounded by the administration sending representatives throughout Latin America to convince members and elders to “join United” when they believed they already were part of the UCG. The glaringly obvious conflict of interest in your choice for the primary administrative representative in this matter is evident to thousands of UCG members, and seems to indicate a callous disregard for the clearly expressed objections of the Latin American brethren and ministry.

When 166 pastors and elders appealed to the leadership to bring the Latin American members and ministers back into our fold, the president and chairman of the COE acknowledged receipt of the appeal and said they would get back to the senders soon. That gave hope to the entire church (especially to the UCG in Latin America), only to have their trust dashed when the appeal was answered with a letter—not to the 166 ministers, but rather to the entire church membership. The response falsely accused the signers of being part of a rebellious conspiracy, a political caucus and an attempt to undermine our governing system. In contrast, many ministers and members understood the appeal for what it was: a sincere request for reconciliation with our brothers and sisters in Christ. The fact that no serious attempt at reconciliation has ever been made adds to the disillusionment.

The so-called “white papers” on the doctrines of fasting and Sabbath observance generated great concern about our doctrinal purity and integrity, without which the UCG cannot truly remain part of the Church of God. Valid questions from members and ministers alike have been met with ridicule, unproven and unreasonable assertions that “one or two people” are stirring everyone up and with repeated statements that questions about the papers are not worth answering. This demonstrates that the administration does not perceive the serious doctrinal errors within the papers. It further illustrates a troubling lack of respect for discerning pastors and members who have been dismayed by these papers.

The question currently in the minds of a growing number of elders and members is, “What do we do now?” You have said you are willing to talk. But in reality, the present administration and the Council have rebuffed or ignored specific requests to talk from individual ministers; from all of the 10 U.S. regional pastors at the time (including you, Mr. Luker), as well as several requests from approximately a dozen men, serving in the previous administration as well as on the Council of Elders.

The workable—and what we believe is biblical—pathway to proper functioning as a church has repeatedly been proposed to you and the Council privately and publicly. That is, an open (not executive session) face-to-face meeting between current and past leaders of the organization for the purpose of identifying and removing the obstructions that impede the function of the United Church of God.

Sad to say, every such proposal submitted to the Council has either been significantly altered, ignored or rebuffed, publicly or privately. Even you, Mr. Luker, proposed such a meeting to the Council, only to be denied. On the other hand, the method the administration and Council has chosen to deal with the situations previously mentioned is one of confrontation, seeking to impose control with no attempt to resolve the underlying issues.

If you and the Council deny the viability of meeting to discuss openly the issues that have divided the ministry and the current leadership, then we are left with no other conclusion than that you and the Council of Elders have already decided that our differences are irreconcilable.

Is that your conclusion? If so, what would you have us do?

Respectfully submitted this 4th of December, 2010,

Signed by:

1. Dan Anderson
2. Dave Baker
3. Neil Becker
4. Andre van Belkum
5. James (Bud) Beymer
6. Gary Black
7. Mike Blackwell
8. Dempsey Bruton III
9. Andy Burnett
10. Arnold Burns
11. Todd Carey
12. Jeff Caudle
13. Jim Chapman
14. Tom Clark
15. Martin Cole
16. Dave DeHart
17. Roy Demarest
18. Thomas Diaz
19. Glenn Doig
20. Behrman Doucet
21. Osmonde Douglas
22. Kevin Epps
23. Cory Erickson
24. Don Erickson
25. Dave Evans
26. Eric Evans
27. George Evans
28. Steve Ferenchiak
29. Herchial Fisher
30. John Foster
31. Jim Franks
32. Alonzo Gjesvold
33. Bruce Gore
34. Larry Greider
35. Jim Haeffele
36. Arnold Hampton
37. Mark Hampton
38. Mike Hanisko
39. Charles Haughee
40. Alton Head
41. Don Henson
42. Bernard Hongerloot
43. Doug Horchak
44. Jim Hudson
45. Michael Isaac
46. David Jackson
47. Bill Jahns
48. Bill Johnson
49. David Johnson
50. Doug Johnson
51. Ron Kelley
52. Clyde Kilough
53. Dick King
54. Morgen Kriedemann
55. William Kubon
56. Dennis Kuhns
57. Larry Lambert
58. Ralph Levy
59. Tony Levy
60. Scott Lord
61. Paul Luecke
62. John Lusk
63. Mike Machin
64. Cecil Maranville
65. Kingsley Mather
66. David McCarble
67. Gary McConnaughey
68. Tom McCrady
69. Melton McNeely
70. George Meeker
71. Joel Meeker
72. Chris Moen
73. Dave Myers
74. Larry Neff
75. Leroy Neff
76. David Pavlik
77. John Pentlin
78. Bob Peoples
79. John Perry
80. Frank Pierce
81. Richard Pinelli
82. Maurice Ledet
83. Richard Rand
84. David Register
85. Phillip Sandilands
86. Floyd Satterwhite
87. Greg Sargent
88. John Seiver
89. Tom Seltzer
90. Jim Servidio
91. Donald Shaw
92. David Smith
93. Neville Smith
94. Jim Springer
95. Blaney Sproul
96. Paul Suckling
97. Greg Swartz
98. Britton Taylor
99. Richard Thompson
100. Dave Treybig
101. Ken Treybig
102. John Trotter
103. Art Verschoor
104. Tim Waddle
105. Don Waterhouse
106. Lyle Welty
107. David West
108. Roger West
109. Jack Willoughby
110. Mark Winner