Lil'Joel Throws Another Tantrum

Poor misunderstood Joel Meeker.  Poor little guy can't get any respect! First he is booted from UCG and now people accuse him of deception.  Joel is having to defend his self-righteous actions yet again.  While he spends the month traveling around Africa he has sent out a missive detailing his "righteous" actions.  I feel sorry for the little guy. 

Hello again friends,

Several people have asked follow-up question about my original letter explaining why I decided I could no longer continue in the United Church of God. Some of my reasons have been challenged, and I have been asked to give further evidence of what I stated.

I will attempt to sum up the challenges and the requests for further information I have received and respond to them in this letter. If I fail to respond to these requests to the satisfaction of those making them I apologize in advance, this is a good faith effort. I don’t intend to release any more public statements on these issues, I’m not interested in an endless public debate, but people are welcome to contact me privately about any of them.

First a word about the originator of most of the challenges below, a friend of mine named Tom Robinson. Tom is a very committed Christian and an intelligent and talented writer whom I have known and respected for many years. He is also a logical and deep thinker and a good, sharp debater. At the same time, Tom is not an elder and so has not had direct access to or been involved in most, if any, of the key issues involved in the breakup of UCG. Tom works in the media department directly under a Council member who is a trusted friend of his, and who had been intimately involved in many of the problems that have broken trust in UCG. I believe Tom is being fair according to what he has been told by people he trusts. But I reject much of what he has been told. Having been personally involved in many of the matters raised, I know very certainly that Tom has been given incomplete and twisted information, when it was not simply false.

Tom kindly informed me in an e-mail about the message he was sending out in response to my first letter. When I responded to his e-mail and gave further evidence he had requested, he wrote back, indicating that he understood that his paper was based on indirect and possibly incomplete information that was at least at times difficult to accurately interpret. He wrote in part:

“I think that I still don't have enough of the context to be able to ascertain just what particular facts indicate--and certainly most people in the Church don't. In other cases, you've raised serious issues that need to be clarified in the light of day. I will try to find out the truth on these matters--though I suspect I will probably still be unable to.”

This is recognition that in his position it’s difficult if not impossible to understand everything that’s gone on, and he apparently believes he probably won’t be able to do so fully in the future. That is a very honest admission of the kind I would expect from Tom. He has only second or third-hand information, and is basing his questions or conclusions either on statements of mine for which he doesn’t have all the background or on what others have told him, and some of those “others” are far from unbiased, in fact they are at the very heart of the problems of unethical behavior and misrepresentation of facts. Conclusions can only be as good as the information on which they are based.

Also the challenges to my letter came out on a Friday before the Sunday morning on which I left for a month-long pastoral trip to Africa, a trip in which I am still engaged. On these trips I’m busy from morning to night, and it has therefore taken a bit of time for me to prepare this response. The time taken should not be construed as evidence, as some have claimed, that I was stymied and had no answers to give.

1. Challenge: I and others only provided our opinions; therefore there are not 2 or 3 witnesses as required in 1 Timothy 5:19 to receive an accusation against an elder.

2. Challenge: “Testimony” has been heard that I attempted to break the French association away from UCG; I was not simply being “open” with them, as I claimed. I verbally proposed an amendment to the French association that would have removed the stipulation that the president of UCG France be an elder in good standing of UCG ia. I told Dennis Luker that the elder in France who reported this had misunderstood, therefore I was practicing subterfuge. I called a meeting, asking for a vote to dissolve the French association so I could “take the church assets with me”, and that I would suggest an alternate affiliation.

3. Challenge: When I have been asked about specific examples of wrong-doing on the part of the Council, I have been speechless and unable to answer, which gives the impression I don’t have any real evidence. The three documents (What are the real issues?, What really happened in Latin America? and What were the Real Efforts at Reconciliation?) don’t really contain any proof of any wrong-doing. 

4. Challenge: I have not given any specifics of how Council members broke ethical laws or God’s law. Even if there were such specifics, a few examples of bad behavior are not sufficient reason to “split the church.”

5. Challenge: I implied there was a specific list of evidence of wrong doing had been presented to the Council. If that’s so, where is it? The Council has the right to interpret the Bylaws, so we need to just accept their interpretation of what they did.

6. Challenge: I stated that the Rules of Association have been completely junked. Where’s the proof? "

7. Challenge: I stated that we don’t have a government of men directly under God, but in reality we do. Mr. Armstrong as pastor General didn’t have unlimited authority, and the Council doesn’t either. I wrongly claimed that Dennis Luker equated respectful dissent with rebellion against God.

8. Challenge: I stated that the current Council members worked against former GCE and Council decisions and criticized them, but they now consider that rebellion. But really they never criticized former Council members other than privately. The process on the vote to move to Texas was based on the dissemination of “wrong information” anyway so trying to overturn it was OK.

9. Challenge: I claim that checks and balances were not respected, but they don’t have to be respected. Checks and balances work on their own and need no help. There is an Elder Expulsion Appeal Committee (EEAC) to overrule wrong expulsions. The General Conference of Elders could have removed Council members next May; everyone should have waited until then. Some men refused to follow our appeal process out to its end, so it’s their own fault for leaving.

10. Challenge: I said the Council mislead people (lied) about the Alternative Internet Forum after its investigation. But why would they even investigate at all if they were guilty? It was shut down before it could affect the voting anyway. I said they violated the 9th commandment because they gave the impressions of impartiality, but no wrong behavior was ever proven about the alternative forum. On the other hand Leon Walker did try to affect voting with his e-mail to Latin American Elders, and he also must have lied because he said in one place he answered to the president and at another time we said he never answered to the president. I also told someone “I can’t defend Leon Walker’s behavior” implying I knew he did something wrong.

11. Challenge: I knowingly leaked confidential information taken from a Council retreat about Paul Kieffer running his LIFE internet forum. My punishment was ridiculous but it was worked out by Clyde Kilough to save my employment. It was OK for the Council not to lift my punishment as promised because I was unrepentant and still maintained I was right to make the information public

12. Challenge: I said the Council was lying about Leon Walker and that it was the spirit of murder to try to destroy his reputation, but 1 Timothy 5:20 says if an elder sins, he is to be corrected before all, so the 30+ pages written about Mr. Walker were perfectly Christian.

13. Challenge: I said the Council took direct action against the members and ministry in Latin America, but really the Council and administration didn’t exclude anyone except for the cases forced on them by Mr. Walker and other ministers who wouldn’t even talk with UCG unless Mr. Walker were reinstated.

14. Challenge: I mischaracterized what happened to Jack Hendren, therefore I lied. He was never told he had to support the Council in what they had done to Mr. Walker. Actually he told the administration he no longer recognized their spiritual authority, so that’s why they fired him and were right to do so.

15. Challenge: The white papers never claimed to be official positions of UCG. The paper never said that the family didn’t violate the Sabbath by having their employees work on the Sabbath. No doctrinal review was really necessary since they were only letters, so it’s wrong to say any policy was violated by bypassing the doctrine committee 

16. Challenge: The fasting paper did not substantially change our teaching on fasting; therefore I was wrong to say it did.

17. Challenge: I misrepresented what happened to Larry Salyer by leaving out “important information,” therefore I lied. Mr. Salyer really did wrong things and it’s no surprise he was fired; nothing abusive happened.

18. Challenge: I claim the Council excluded some of its members from discussions. What are the details and where’s the proof? 

19. Challenge: I said it was wrong for the Council to withdraw the resolution to create a governance review task force put forward by all three officers. But it was really an “end-run” around Council authority. It probably also violated the Bylaws, and the Church lawyer and one outside lawyer said so. So nothing wrong really happened.

20. Challenge: I said there have been violations of God’s law and man’s law. Where is the list of these violations? The three documents (What are the real issues?, What really happened in Latin America? and What were the Real Efforts at Reconciliation?) don’t really contain any proof of wrong-doing in them.

21. Challenge: I concluded the present Council and administration are practicing lawlessness. This is “outrageous”; I have not given any proof of that. Eight men on the Council would never participate together in lies and sinful behavior.

You can read his responses here: Meeker Letter 1 and here Meeker Letter 2

              

When you read Lil' Joel's latest screed you will get to see the great dance he does to get around the accusations.  Joel seems to think he is with no fault and was one of the greatest assets UCG ever had.  Ho hum.