UCG is currently in the process of holding a private meeting for it's remaining elders and ministers. They are determining their future as a church and what their focus will be. UCG members around the country are tired of not getting answers from UCG brass. Will they be forthright in their answers after the conference? COG history says ....no.
A sampling of complaints about the non-information flow follows:
After sunset last sabbath, Aaron Dean headed up a Q&A session after services in our hall @ Big Sandy, TX. We were not very many in number, but some in attendance were there just for the session, not the services, so more arrived for the Q&A than actually attended the worship service. And with few exceptions, most of us there had been to COGWA's services earlier that day, but wanted very much to hear from both sides, so we attended both. I hold Mr. Dean in the highest regard, which made it all the more difficult to listen to how the questions were circumvented time and again. He did say vehemently that admin's stance on the sabbath has not changed, but little else was responded to directly. It was quite frustrating for members to ask questions and get lengthy responses on unrelated topics. The questions went on for hours, so people trickled out throughout the meeting feeling no better educated about what was happening than when we arrived. He kept reassuring us that he just wanted to never discuss this subject again (or in the first place) and that we as members should never have been privy to any of it anyhow. I truly do not know if he was just reluctant to answer questions himself or if he was told to talk a lot but not SAY anything. The meeting left so very much to be desired, unfortunately. Aaron Dean seemed to be genuinely heartbroken about all that's transpired and my heart goes out to him as it does for the brethren in our congregation, but hedging the questions was decidedly poor form.At a time when we desperately need leaders to fulfill living transparently, so to speak, we apparently have none capable or willing to do this. And yes, I did say this at the meeting with Aaron Dean. We were quite disillusioned about the lack of information we were getting, which makes it difficult to sift through this mess we are all in now. And for what it's worth, I believe neither camp is blameless and scrupulously sinless in their words and actions. I have chosen (and admitted freely at the meeting) that I refuse to choose a side as God's people, MY people, are in both organizations as of this moment. My allegiance is not to a certain minister or a certain organization, but to a God and His called out ones--you know, the ones who are currently picking up the tab yet again for divisions wrought by others. I didn't cause this, you didn't cause this, but still here we all are.
One thing I do hear everyone saying no matter where they are attending is that they all want to 'move forward' now. I pray that we can, even if not collectively anymore. But one thing I know to be true is that we will keep having these same issues as long as we keep doing the same things. My earnest prayer is for peace as the dust settles, and to have discerning eyes as we watch the fruits of new and existing administrations unfold.
-------------------
we had a Q&A in Tampa last Sabbath also. We don't yet know who our new minister will be, as the entire paid ministry in Florida left UCG. The circuits will probably need to be reconfigured; however, a minister most likely will need to reside in the state--somewhere. The Home Office simply doesn't have the logistical answers to some of the areas yet, and that may also be the case with Big Sandy (I don't know.) Several in our sister church in St. Pete are indeed attending both services for awhile without repercussions from UCG. It's a good question, though, and one that would be answered and acted upon according to, as you indicated, personal conviction. Many are confused and blindsided by this whole thing and need time to sort it out. They refuse to take sides until doing so. I just spoke with a member this past week who is doing exactly that.
-------------------------
Not being there I can't of course characterize how things went down. But I have been to q&a's held by Mr. Rhodes and I can tell you that we are never going to hear fully, publicly, the side of the council or of United Church of God.
Why? Because they have taken the stance that it is more important to absorb the abuse then it is to publicly criticize the individuals who have left. They want to leave the door open when and if those who have left decide to come back. They would rather be thought of as being in the wrong than to become a lighting rod for controversy.
