This entire saga with Bill Watson starting his new group in a fit of rebellion is just like Bob Thiel's rebellious upstart. Two self-serving narcissistic men who think they know better than anyone else.
Courtesy of Lonnie Hendrix
An Open Letter to Bill Watson
Dear Bill:
I heard the announcement you made in Medina this past Sabbath (11/1/2025) regarding your decision to depart ways with the Church of God International and starting a new organization. In your announcement, you made some comments on some of the reasons for the decision. Since your statements were public, I’m making this an open response. It has already come to our attention that some of the church members appear to be quite concerned after hearing you say that the CGI Board of Directors issued three “ultimatums” to you and the Medina church. I want to take a few moments to address this.
The letter wherein the three options were mentioned was written by me and sent to other members of the Board of Directors the same day I sent it to you (August 6, 2025). So they did not read what I wrote regarding the three options before you did. And since I wrote it, I can tell you for certain that it never occurred to me that the three options I mentioned might have even remotely resembled “ultimatums.”
Bill, I was merely bringing up the options you already had. Those were options available to you whether I mentioned them or not. I was certainly not issuing ultimatums or mandates or demands of any kind; I was merely stating what was! I even began my statement with “It seems to me….” That’s just not the way one issues an ultimatum!
Ultimatum is defined as “a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.”
With that definition in mind, let’s look at what I said. Here’s the paragraph mentioning the three options:
It seems to me that if our policies mean anything at all, you have three paths you could take: 1) You could do what any CGI elder “in good standing” is expected to do—abide by the policies for elders and chartered churches. 2) You could request of the MC to reclassify you and the Medina congregation as an “independent affiliate.” 3) You could simply declare your independence and go your way. [Emphasis added.]
I was referring to the fact that you are presently operating outside the parameters of the policies set forth for chartered churches in our Manual for Field Churches. Since you are not in compliance with these policies, you automatically (not by “decree” from me or the Board) have the option of bringing yourself into compliance—i.e., correcting the situation. But you can, if you so choose, declare your independence from the Church of God International. That’s another option you already had before I mentioned it. And finally, should your choice be independence from the Church of God International, you have the option of requesting that the Ministerial Council give you the “independent affiliate” classification. Again, all those options were already there before I made mention of them. They were not ultimatums!
You will note that I said, “It seems to me….” I put it like that because there may be other options, but as best I can tell (i.e., “It seems to me”) the only viable ones are the three mentioned here. Again, neither I, as Chairman of the Board, nor the Board of Directors collectively were giving you or establishing options; I was merely stating that these are options you have.
You will recall that in the email I sent to you on July 8, 2025, I asked you to clarify for me your intentions. This is what the options are about. I was asking you for clarity on what you wanted to do. We exchanged emails and letters, but you never answered the question. Finally you sent an email stating you would give me an answer after the Feast. About two weeks after the Feast, you gave me only a partial answer. You said that the Medina Board agreed to change the name. I then told you that this presumably means that option #1 was ruled out. I then asked you if the Board expressed a preference for one of the other two options, and you never answered…until you announced it last Sabbath.
You also stated in your announcement that “the Medina Board had been led to believe…that our name, Church of God International, Medina, could be used in perpetuity. That is, without expiration nor any stipulations. However, the Texas Board made it clear to us the last few months…that this was not true, despite their written statement of affirmation awarding Medina to use their name.”
This is another misunderstanding. Here is the written statement of affirmation I sent to you on July 1, 2024:
This is to affirm that the Board of Directors of the Church of God International has, for the sole purpose of the purchase of a building, approved the use of the name “Church of God International, Medina” by the Medina, Ohio congregation of the Church of God International. [Emphasis added.]
You can see that the affirmation I sent to you was not unconditional. As I explained to you in an email (around August 20, 2025), the part in bold allows us to withdraw approval should the Medina church go independent. Of course it goes without saying that as long as you’re officially a Church of God International congregation, we not only approve your use of the name, we prefer and encourage it. The name-change requirement applies only if you decide you want to operate independently of the Church of God International. That seems like a reasonable requirement to me. It also seems to me that any group parting ways with an organization would want a different name so as to avoid confusion. However, I must add that if the Medina Board had not agreed to the name change, we would have just left it alone. It’s not something worth arguing over.
You also stated that there had been “years of…growing tensions between the boards of Texas and Medina.” I was completely unaware of any kind of “growing tensions” between these two boards; this is news to me. The tensions I am aware of have been between you and the Board and/or home office and have concerned primarily organizational and procedural matters. In more recent times, the tensions have revolved around your non-compliance with the policies established by the organization that issued your credentials and paid your salary and expenses, though you once endorsed and upheld these policies. I’ve gone over the specifics with you, and will not repeat them here. In the end, we were unable to come to agreement on the matters I brought up to you, and your recollection of history as it pertains to these matters is quite different from my recollection or that of the Board of Directors or home-office personnel.
Nevertheless, I would like to apologize to you on one point—something I mentioned in my letter to you but would later realize was inaccurate. You briefly mentioned it in your announcement but did not elaborate. I had stated in my letter to you that your policy violations included soliciting donations from outside your area by posting a “donation tab” on your previous website. I had my “facts” wrong. It was not a donation tab (like the one on your new website); it was this:
Our address for written correspondence and donations:
Church of God Intl, Medina
PO Box 1162
Medina, Ohio 44258
Please specify on check where you would like the donation to go.
Example: Helping Hands, Tithe, Etc.
I would call the above (which was posted on the front page of your old website) a policy violation, but I was in error when I referred to it as a “donation tab.” So I apologize for that.
My initial email to you was for the purpose of getting clarity on where you stood with us and what your intentions were going forward. Follow up communications were for the same purpose and to openly and honestly set before you the issues and concerns that have contributed to the tensions between us and led us to the present situation. I initially believed the best option for you would have been the first one of the three, but because of our inability to come to terms on the issues and the history surrounding them, I have to say, sadly, that your decision to part ways was probably best for all parties concerned.
I wish you and the Medina brethren the best.
Sincerely,
Vance A. Stinson
8 comments:
I believe this letter is identical to the one the Apostles Peter, James and John, of the Jerusalem Church sent to the Apostle Paul when Paul said,:
Galatians 1: 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1: 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
Galatians 2: 6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.
2 Corinthians 12:12 I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise—
HQ decided it's just too difficult to work with a man like that and that Paul was never going to be a team player. :)
Peter, James and John did get a good chuckle when it got back to them that Paul was having trouble with the ideas of others in his own new congregations when he was said to have demanded...
I Corinthians 1:I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
That was rich! :)
I feel bad for Bill. He was once one of the best speakers and teachers at CGI. Let this be a lesson to all. ANYONE can stumble and fall.
I found Bill's brief declaration of independence this past Sabbath to be very disingenuous, intentionally ambiguous, and purposefully misleading. On the other hand, I found Vance Stinson's remarks to be concise, accurate, and transparent. Bill has been moving in this direction for YEARS, but he has been doing it quietly, behind the scenes, and dishonestly. He has clearly been exposed as both a liar, extremist, and schismatic.
As for Dennis, which letter from the other apostles (Peter, James, John) are you referencing? I don't recall any letter they sent to Paul in response to his letter to the Christians of Galatia. Moreover, I found Paul's appeal to the Corinthians to resist following personalities to be entirely consistent with his ministry. Paul consistently preached that Christ alone justified the saints and wanted the Gentiles to be a part of his ekklesia. If we are to believe the book of Acts, the fifteenth chapter of that book strongly suggests that Peter, James and John came to the same conclusion. Sure, there were some Jewish Christians who continued to insist that the saints were obligated to observe all of the tenets of God's covenant with Israel, but it appears to me that they were part of a small but vocal minority within the early church.
I was speculating that Paul telling everyone he learned nothing from the Peter, James or John, who walked with Gospel Jesus, got his Gospel by hallucinating it from Jesus, was really called from his mother's womb like Jeremiah and Jesus and had visions and revelations about his calling and ministry...might raise some eyebrows back at HQ.
I do believe the reference in Revelation to the Ephesian Church about "those who say they are Apostles and are not..." was a reference to Paul. John was the leading Apostle at Ephesus. Even Paul said that "all those in Asia have forsaken me" Ephesus is in Asia Minor as were all the mail route churches of Revelation. To Jewish Christians, Paul was anathema. In Acts they heard he spoke against the Law of Moses and the Apostles told him to prove it wasn't so. But when he got back to Corinth, it was so. It's a great story of first century intrigue and Paul's sudden rise from persecutor to Apostle with no steps in between. Paul was refuted in the NT if one knows where to see it. All was not speaking the same thing to be sure.
Remember, the Gentiles were a minor addition to the mix as time was short etc. They just had to go by the Noahide rules that prescribed how a Gentile could become a Jew but in this case how a Gentile can become a Christian. They had no concept of time going on without a soon, shortly or quick return of Jesus. But when short went very long and still does, theology and the Pauline Church rose to prominence while the Jewish Church fell into oblivion.
That was me Lonnie. I tend to forget the default for comments is "anonymous"
Dennis,
Paul was clearly frustrated when he wrote his letter to the saints of Galatia. He had put in the hard work of evangelism among these Gentile peoples. From his perspective, these Jewish Christians who insisted on Torah observance were undermining his message about Christ - that Jesus had completely fulfilled the demands of Torah and God's Law for us. He had been over this ground before, and he thought that it had been settled by the council of the ekklesia at Jerusalem (which he is clearly referencing in this letter to the Galatians).
The original apostles had clearly had a problem with fulfilling the commission which Christ had given them - to carry the message about him to the Gentiles. They had been content to continue preaching to the Jews and growing the Church among that community. God had to send Peter a dream (hallucination - depending on your perspective) to help him to accept the notion that Christ wanted Gentiles to be a part of his ekklesia. These original apostles, including the three "super" apostles (Peter, James, John) were also slow to fully comprehend what Christ had accomplished via Torah and their former religion. In short, they were observant Jews who had continued to observe the tenets of Torah themselves.
I accept Tabor's assertion that there was friction/disharmony as a consequence of these differences, but I do NOT see the evidence of a complete breach between these groups. In the light of the Jerusalem Council and the writings attributed to James, Peter, and John, it appears to me that these original apostles did adopt Paul's view of what Christ had accomplished. It is also clear, however, that not all of their followers came to the same conclusions about Gentiles and Torah.
In brief, I now completely reject the Armstrongist narrative about the early Church. I do NOT believe that the evidence suggests that most of these early Gentiles became Sabbath keepers, festival observers, and adhered to clean and unclean meats. Moreover, I believe that the evidence is very strong that Torah observant Christianity did NOT survive the cataclysm of 70 CE - that they were scattered after that time and slowly faded into obscurity. I believe that the evidence suggests that the majority of Christians were in the habit of observing Sunday and had adopted Paul's view of Christ's work by the close of the First Century (I think that the writings of the Church Fathers confirm this conclusion).
I use to know Bill Watson. He was in charge of the Canadian CGI when I use to attend. Yeah, I have noticed that he had gotten too political, and as I remember he was heavy into the British Israelism stuff. It's a shame as he was a good preacher. I don't know what happened to the guy as I use to think he was one of the stable CoG ministers, but I guess I was wrong. Thank God I've been out of the Church of God for 20 years now. I like coming on Banned once in a while to see what the CoG are up to. I just hope Bill does not become as loonie as the Packman or Flurry.
He changed his name to CGI Ministries. That is very misleading.
Post a Comment