Why Did The Race Admission Polices at Ambassador College Change So Rapidly In 1970?

1962 Plain Truth

The following is from the Ambassador College Pasadena Alumni site and is reposted here with Greg Doudna's permission.  It deals with the sudden change in the Ambassador College policy on admitting African Americans to the Pasadena campus.

Greg Dounda is the author of the fascinating book, Showdown at Big Sandy: Youthful Creativity Confronts Bureaucratic Inertia at an Unconventional Bible College in East Texas

Gavin Rumney had an excellent review of the book here.   Gavin writes:  

Well, I didn't, and I'm indebted to Greg for plugging a number of gaps from the WCG's past. More specifically, the way the world looked from Big Sandy in the Seventies.

The WCG can probably be grateful that Greg wised up and found better things to do, for it's just plain scary to imagine what he would have got up to if he'd stayed and risen through the ranks. Just reading through his doctrinal papers from that time – positions he has long since moved beyond – indicate that this guy would have raised more than a little hell along the way.

The subtitle says it all: “Youthful Creativity Confronts Bureaucratic Inertia...” Doudna provides insight on a number of characters from the times: Dean of Students Ronald Kelly, for example, who is described as a hard working “company man”... one of many “yellow pencils” cut from the same mold... [who] did not try to disguise his lack of interest in things intellectual.

There are also anecdotes involving Herman Hoeh, Kenneth Herrmann, GTA, Charles Dorothy and other characters. The chapters on tithing and creationism are excellent, the treatment of healing and medicine is downright sobering, and the discussion of the old God Family doctrine is simply fascinating. (Let's all not tell Bob Thiel about that chapter, as he'd probably misunderstand it and gloat insufferably.) 

Race admissions policies at AC--why changed?

One of the dark sides of WCG/AC was race: at beautiful, oasis-like AC, foretaste of the world tomorrow, prior to [1970] 1971 , unmarried African-American church members were by policy not admitted as students to any of the AC campuses, excluded on the basis of the color of their skin, on ideological grounds citing the Bible. This changed in [1970] 1971 (single black students began to be admitted).

Why did that change in [1970] 1971?

Here is the true story on that--a story so little known among us that even Ambassador Report and Trechak missed this one ... a story I too missed in "Showdown" because I also did not then know ... a story of AC history that to my knowledge to the present day remains unpublished in print. (Therefore it is necessary for this post to be longer than normal, to tell this information.)

A first mystery is that although the change in AC admissions policies in 1971 was open and well-known, there was no official explanation from headquarters as to why. They just did it, without saying why. Why the lack of explanation? 

A second mystery was that the change was not done at all AC campuses, only the two US-based ones. Bricket Wood AC continued exclusion of unmarried black applicants from being students until that campus's closure in 1974. Whatever the reason for the 1971 change at Pasadena and Big Sandy, why did it not extend to UK's AC?

Those taking care of legal affairs for HWA and AC at headquarters would have known, even if most at the student level and the church membership did not. It was because the US govt was threatening to remove tax exemptions for charitable institution status from church-related educational institutions which were practicing racial discrimination. This story is told (without mention of AC) in Randall Balmer, "The Real Origins of the Religious Right" (Politico May 27, 2014), here.

Bob Jones University of North Carolina had similar policies to AC: segregation was divinely ordained, interracial marriage was sin, blacks excluded from admissions. "The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: it did not admit African Americans." Note the timing: November 1970. Spring 1971: admissions offices for AC Pasadena and AC Big Sandy for the first time, and coordinated, admit single black men and women students for the 1971-1972 academic year. AC Bricket Wood, safely beyond the evil clutches of the IRS, unchanged.

Bob Jones University resisted the intrusion of a godless federal government interfering with their God-given right to be racist on biblical grounds. All across America, evangelical churches rallied to defend Bob Jones University. The IRS pulled Bob Jones U's tax exemption, costing BJU millions. Still BJU did not cave. BJU appealed all the way to the Supreme Court where they lost there, going down fighting, cause celebre for the newly-organized evangelical right across America.

Unlike Bob Jones University, WCG headquarters in Pasadena, which would have received the same IRS inquiry at the same time as and in practically the identical situation as Bob Jones University on this issue, did cave and got in compliance. This is why the timing, and why this true reason was never told to the membership. It never was about growing in the truth of God or acknowledging and repenting of harm done to the souls of God's creation by racism. It was about the legal threat, and a choice at some level in the upper echelons of headquarters (however it was explained to HWA), a cost-benefit financial calculation, to obey the mandate of a godless state demanding an end to racism, over the law of "God", quote unquote, understood to divinely ordain exclusion of unmarried blacks out of a deep, primal fear in some quarters at headquarters that such would inevitably lead to the existential horrors of interracial dating and marriage, aka contamination of the white race.

In 2000 Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University, explained on the Larry King show that the policy against interracial dating had ended the very day of that interview, never had been a big deal to anyone, and had been misrepresented in the press. Read that amazing interview here (so many parallels to AC): http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/03/lkl.00.html

Certainly one of the admirable features of the GCI transformation, other issues aside, was coming to terms directly with and repudiation of this past history of racism at AC. Perhaps one day the vision of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech will come true worldwide in reality: a world in which all people of all colors are part of our common human family.

The Chicago Southside congregation recently celebrated its 50th anniversary.  The Chicago church was predominantly African American and this is the video referred to in the rest of Greg's post below.

AC and race

Thank you very much Ken (4904). Based on the "Chicago South Side Congregation Documentary" the start of admissions of African American unmarried students began at AC Pasadena in 1970-1971, a year earlier than I had thought. But it was caused by the IRS ruling of 1970 removing tax-exempt status from church-related schools which had racist admissions policies.

At 12:56f in the documentary Ron Washington recalls, "In 1970, the summer, late July, I was at work in Albany, and I got a phone call from Mr. Jackson, and he said 'Ron,' he said, 'they've just opened Ambassador College for African Americans, single.' He said, 'I'd like to have you apply...'"

Note the timing: only ca. 4-5 weeks before the beginning of that academic year! A decision was suddenly made at headquarters--for the first time ever in the church's history--to allow unmarried African Americans to AC Pasadena to apply for an academic year just about to begin. And phone calls were being made to get some African Americans in, fast. In the documentary Willard High, part of the same entering freshman class as Ron Washington according to the 1971 Envoy, recounts that five unmarried African-American men and five African-American women were admitted that year (1970-71). 

Why the last-minute timing and the rush? Had years of pangs of conscience reached a tipping point in humble, spirit-led deliberations at headquarters, and after heartfelt prayer the headquarters ministry had come to see that a shameful policy should be ended, because it was the right thing to do? 

No, it was the godless IRS ruling. Note the timing: "in July 1970, the I.R.S. concluded that it could 'no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status to private schools which practice racial discrimination'" (http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/25/us/excerpts-from-opinion-and-dissent-on-tax-status-of-schools.html).

Evidently, AC officialdom at Pasadena did not wait for the IRS to come calling directly before reacting with a hurried attempt to get in compliance at the last minute at Pasadena. The next year, 1971-72, the same policy was up and running at Big Sandy in a more orderly and timely manner. At Bricket Wood I continue to believe it is accurate that unmarried African-Americans/Africans were refused admission throughout the entire history of that campus from start to finish in 1974, notwithstanding 4902. I checked the 1969 Envoy and I see no black faces in the 1968-69 senior class or in any other class at Bricket Wood. I do see a senior woman that year identified as from India who looks Indian, Grace Clements. So technically Bricket Wood was not 100% white. But in the old South African tripartite division of white, colored, and black, Ms. Clements would not be regarded as black, simply because she was not white. 

Until ca. 2005, all those years, I had just assumed that the racist admissions policy at AC had ended because church officials had come to see that it was wrong and ended it for that reason. I did not realize all those years, until I accidentally read about the Bob Jones University case, that the true reason was far less noble: it was the IRS ruling. I did not even realize until ca. 2005 that the changes in the US Ambassador campus policies never even happened at Bricket Wood. What does it feel like to be excluded, not included? Here is an email exchange of ca. 2005 with fellow student Murdock Gibbs (today a GCI elder) that brought this home to me:

Me: When I looked at the Envoy for 1974 a few months back I was surprised to notice 100% white faces in all four classes of Bricket Wood shown (unlike Pasadena and Big Sandy). How come I didn't remember that? Or did I know it and forget it? Did you know that?

MG: Because you're white. And it really wasn't an issue that affected you. If you saw a Bricket Wood photo of only women, you probably would have questioned what was going on--you being a male, this would directly affect you and your perceptions. I guarantee you, every time a black WCG family or person looks at a photo of AC--paging through the Envoy or some other idyllic portrayal of life at AC, we're thinking, "Where are the black people?"

The "Chicago South Side Congregation Documentary" (25 mins.) is really worth viewing.  

Sabbath Musings for Adults: Why does Mark have NO good ending and John has TWO?

One of the most interesting realities found in the Gospels is that the Gospel of Mark has no good ending to the story of Jesus crucifixion, while the Gospel of John has TWO.

The true ending of Mark is found at Mark 16:8 which says...

1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5 And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, (FOR THE FIRST TIME) as he said unto you. 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

(END OF ORIGINAL MARK)

Scholars agree that the rest of Mark was added later to correct this obvious problem of no real good ending that reflects the events in the Gospel of Mark. There is no real account of the resurrection, women telling anyone and certainly no story that has the disciples meeting Jesus for the very first time after the resurrection in Galilee. It also seems a story concerning Peter is missing, but it is interesting that the Angel makes a point of telling the women to tell the disciples AND PETER to be there. Since Peter was a disciple, it is obvious that Mark has a need for Peter specifically to be there. Why and why does the Gospel of Mark have no story ending this way with Peter specifically needing to be in Galilee to meet Jesus? There is none.

Mark 14:27 notes...

27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. 28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. 29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I. 30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."

So here we have, in Mark, Jesus telling them that they will all be scattered but he will meet them for the FIRST time in Galilee after he is risen. Peter is told that, inspite of his bravado, he will deny knowing Jesus three times before the rooster crows twice.

What's going on here? A story that promises the disciples that after he rises, Jesus will meet them in Galilee, not in Jerusalem, for the first time, and yet, does not include such an ending having the women come to the tomb, not find Jesus body, panic and flee telling NO ONE. Not much inspiration of resurrection here! Mark plainly has a missing ending. Where is it?

First of all the idea that Jesus would meet the disciples for the first time after his resurrection is not unique to Mark. Matthew also has this tradition but also has an ending that includes it.

Matthew 28 says...

8 "And they departed quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me."

So as in Mark, there is not sighting in Jerusalem, but the women here at least afraid, did tell the disciples that Jesus said they were to go to Galilee to meet him the first time, minus Judas. Remember Mark said to be sure to bring Peter.

Matthew goes on to say...

16 "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted."

So, in fact, Matthew has a story of all these things happening as Mark said too, but Mark did not tell how it ended as Matthew did. Mark had no positive ending to his Gospel.

Luke edits the story a bit because he wants his story to take place immediately in Jerusalem after the resurrection and not in Galilee as Mark and Matthew said...

Luke 24 says...

5 "And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee.  7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words."

(Notice how Luke changes the message of Jesus meeting them in Galilee for the first time to the message of verse 7.  Luke then reminds us that they "remembered his words" to cement in his bait and switch of topics for his own writings.

 Here we see how Luke cleverly said in effect, not that Jesus said he'd meet them in Galilee after he was risen, but that the disciples should remember that Jesus told them in Galilee that they would see him risen in Jerusalem. Luke had stories in Jerusalem the others did not have that needed to be told evidently and going right to Galilee would not help him do that.

Now the interesting part. Mark has no ending to his Gospel, but the Gospel of John has TWO.

The first ending of John is in chapter 20.

24 "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

The "Amen" signifies the first end as does the wrap-up topic that more could be said but would take too many books.

But then we start again in John 21 with...

"After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee."

Here we have a story, a second ending of John that starts "after these things." After what things? Certainly not the things of John 20 as they don't fit. The "again" in verse 1, I believe to have been added to make this look like a second or third appearing when in fact it is the real first meeting but not in John as John doesn't need it. I believe that the 21st chapter of John is the original missing ending of Mark. "After these things" is really the women leaving the tomb perplexed and fearful, telling no one about Jesus rising. John 21 shows a disheartened group of men who simply went back to fishing not having seen Jesus at all! How soon they forgot the events and sightings of Jesus in John 20! The reason is that this ending is the second nonsensical ending of John that is really the missing ending of Mark!

John has no fishing motif until this last chapter, where Mark is nothing but a fishing motif. John had an ending already and doesn't need this second one. Mark needs this chapter to make sense of his whole Gospel non-ending!

Remember how the Angel made a point of telling the women to tell the disciples AND PETER to show up in Galilee? Well of all things, this second end of John has a story about Peter being restored by Jesus to the fold. Three times he denied Jesus and now three times, PETER, is sent to feed the sheep, meaning the Church and followers of Jesus. This also fits very well as an ending of Mark story as Mark made of point of being sure Peter was in Galilee where John doesn't need it.

John 21 says...

15 "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs." In other words, Peter is forgiven and restored. It was important for Peter to be here in Galilee as Mark said, but never reported.

Let's just see how it fits.

Mark ends...

16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5 And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

Now add John 21 and continue...

1 "After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee....15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

John, the editor makes this an event that happens "again" or "the third time," but these are added to make it solve the problems it's being appended to John causes as it shows the disciples disheartened, dejected, depressed and just going back to fishing as if Jesus didn't rise and they forgot the sightings of John 20.

In all probability, the 21st Chapter of the Gospel of John is the missing ending of Mark! Now Mark, as Gospel with no good ending, has one that fits and John that needs only one ending and not two is restored to normal. 

This taking of the ending of Mark which contained a restoration and forgiveness of Peter for denying Jesus is added to John, which all through its pages compares Peter to Judas as in "Judas betrayed Jesus.  Peter denied him... Don't follow Peter!"  Later and evidently, someone thought it good to add this "Feed my sheep" ending to John to fix the problem of dissension in the ranks over Peter and John, smoothing it over, and making them look like the friendly to each other Apostles they evidently were not in life. This was done just as Acts was written to make the Apostle Paul more in tune with the Jewish Christian apostles than he actually was, by his own admission, in Galatians 1-2.   

Thus, today,  we have Mark with no good ending of faith in Jesus resurrection and instead,ending with fearful women telling no one anything (except the author of the Gospel evidently) and John with two endings the second one of which does not fit the context but restores Peter from his denials of Jesus so the later Church can get on with business all speaking the same thing that there be division between them as there really from the start. 

....and now back to the drama brought to us by the Splits, Splinters, and Slivers (Bob Thiel and Dave Pack) of  COGdom.

United Church of God: Trouble in Paradise With Mark Mickelson

Updated 6/30/17

God's most unified church is struggling to maintain control of its ministry and its ability to change doctrinal teachings.

Recently the big boys in Cincinnati tried to work through by vote a policy where 2/3rds of those present members at the conference voting could vote in a new rule that 3/4ths voting members PRESENT could change rules and doctrines instead of 3/4's off ALL the ministry. It failed miserably.

UCG has also been having to do damage control over one of its ministers, Mark Michelson. He has been preaching a lot recently that the God of the Old Testament (YHVH) was known exclusively as God the Father. The name YHVH cannot, according to Mickelson, refer to Jesus His sermons have been circulating around UCG like wildfire. Some agree with him and many do not. What brought it all to light was the fact that his sermons were being posted to the Spokane website which allowed all UCG members access.

The boys in UCG were none too happy.  One of the excuses that UCG has used for two decades was that the nature of God doctrine was their reason to leave the Worldwide Church of God.  While WCG was moving to a trinitarian position, which many present-day UCG ministers supported while still receiving a WCG paycheck, they could not stand the fact that the Holy Spirit might also be God.  Entrenched in Herbert Armstrong's understanding after his 6-month study in the Portland library, the men quickly abandoned the trinitarian position once they started getting paid by UCG.

Now the UCG is having to defend its self once again over the nature of God with Mark Mickelson's stance that there is only one God, God the Father (YHVH).  Jesus is not YHVH, contrary to what Herbert Armstrong had always taught.  Many of the things Michelson teaches is similar to  Ken Westby and The One God Seminars.

Vic Kubik and Don Ward came out with a letter, signed by them both, about the present confusion of many UCG members on doctrines that they are expected to believe.

Do you understand what we teach regarding God the Father and Jesus Christ?

Some sermons have recently created confusion about the nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Do all of us fully understand what we believe and preach on this subject? How long has it been since you reviewed the study papers and other Church publications on the topic in question? In many cases it’s been too long. The nature of God and Christ was one of the topics of controversy that led to the formation of the United Church of God.

The questions surrounding the nature of God have been debated for centuries. The only valid source we have is the Bible. We must use sound principles of exegesis in reaching our conclusions. Below are resources that we encourage you to read and study deeply regarding the nature of God and Christ. 

Can they seriously believe what they wrote in the paragraph above?  They seriously believe they use "sound principles of exegesis?   Seriously?  When has the COG EVER used sound exegesis?

Kubik and Ward both feel that members continue to be swayed to and fro by doctrinal issues due to not being grounded in what they are expected to believe. Part of the problem with UCG members is that summer is here. Seriously! Summer! The summer is now warming up and church members are becoming lazy in their Bible Study and reading. Once again the members are too stupid to know what they are supposed to believe.

The purpose of this letter is to encourage all of us to continue to fight the good fight of faith and be settled in the faith. Here in the Northern Hemisphere we are now entering the long, hot summer, and it’s a time when there can be a let-down in our spiritual lives—as there are so many distractions in the world today. It is a time in which people travel, go on vacation and young people go to camp. All this is coupled with the perilous times in which are living.

It is also a time in which we can easily become lax in renewing the inward man on a daily basis. We often need to be reminded of the exhortation that the apostle Paul gave the Hebrews: “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away” (Hebrews 2:1). We are committed to guarding those precious truths that God has revealed to us. And at the same time, we are admonished by the apostle Peter to grow in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We should always keep in mind that the Church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

From time to time some brethren have become troubled by sermons or conversations in which they get the idea that the Church is going to change doctrine. So let’s be reminded of the process necessary for changing the official doctrine of the United Church of God (UCG). Even though there is a rigorous review process in place for sermons and articles that appear on our website or in our Church’s publications, some few sermons may not properly represent the official doctrine of the Church.

It seems the fine folk in Spokane have been very negligent in posting Mark Mickelson's sermons. The Boys in Cincinnati are not happy. The veiled comment below is directed at Mark Mickelson, even though they do not mention him directly. While the Spokane UCG has removed Mark's sermons from their website, Mark still has not stopped preaching his understanding.

Some congregations are not as vigilant as they could be in monitoring sermons placed on their local church website. And some few sermons do not properly reflect the official doctrines of the Church. So let’s be reminded of the process necessary for changing the official doctrines of the Church.

Kubik then makes a hypocritical statement below on how all UCG ministers must tow the line and teach only what UCG wants to be taught. He seems to forget he failed to do this exact same thing while still employed by WCG as he sat in 360 South Orange Grove plotting and scheming to started UCG. While doing this he paid lip service to WCG's new doctrinal stances, even disfellowshipping those that did not agree with WCG's new direction. Kubik does not want any of his ministers doing likewise now that he is in charge. 

Our ministry, and all who speak for UCG, should remember the teaching of the apostle Paul when he said an elder must “[hold] fast the faithful word as he has been taught” (Titus 1:9). Paul also said we are to “hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13). We have been entrusted with a sound doctrinal heritage. Our messages to God’s people should always be grounded in the truth of Scripture and the doctrinal teachings we hold.

How long will we have to wait till Mickelson is fired as a minister and removed from the Council of Elders and he starts his own splinter group? What would the Church of God be without yet one more splinter group?


See: Letter from the Chairman and President, June 28, 2017