New Company to Help UCG Recoup It's Lost Members

Lil' Joel Throws Another Temper Tantrum

Dear friend,
Thank you for your note and your questions about what has been happening in the United Church of God (UCG), and why I left.

As you have visited http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com, you have access to much of the pertinent information in the form of primary documents. I will respond with my own perspective here.

First of all thank you for your trust in asking for my thoughts in this difficult time. I need to let you know in the interest of transparency, that I was fired from UCG a few weeks back for being open with members of the French association, and warning them of spiritual danger I see in remaining with UCG under its current leadership. You will want to know why I felt it important to do that when it would obviously lead to my dismissal and the removal of my credentials by the leadership of the United Church of God.

The question I and others are often asked is “Where is the smoking gun?” in what's wrong in UCG. That is usually assumed to be of necessity “doctrinal,” as if a compromise of some theoretical type with a doctrine is the only valid reason for leaving a church association. In other words someone would have to teach that we will officially change a doctrine (the Sabbath is obsolete, the law of God is done away, God is a Trinity, etc.) before there would be a really serious issue. Everyone makes mistakes, we are told, therefore wrong and damaging behavior or decisions from our leadership are not reason to take the drastic step of leaving a church association. The president and the Council would have us believe this, and they repeat that the current crisis is not about doctrine, therefore there is no reason to take any action. They claim this is just a disagreement among men with no spiritual overtones. So trust them; they’re sincere and they’re in authority, so trust them. However, we must remember that doctrine is more than a theoretical belief, and more is required of Church leadership than simply thinking proper thoughts and teaching proper theory.

I will first give a short answer as to why I felt I had to be open about the danger of staying with UCG, and then give a more detailed explanation.
The short answer is first of all,  this present Council and administration are acting as if they’re “above the law” – both the governing documents in UCG and the law of God. Of course they repeat that they have high regard for and obey all proper rules and laws. But in reality they have repeatedly broken those laws, and continue to do so. Some of this is unethical (violations of men’s laws or rules); some of it is outright sin (violations of God’s law). As God does, we are to forgive sins against us when the sinner repents, but there must be repentance.

This brings us to the second point: when confronted with evidence of their unethical and sinful behavior, this Council and administration have refused to repent. They refuse even to call themselves into question. They will generally admit “we all make mistakes; I make mistakes” but they don’t admit to any particular violations of any rule or law. Rather, their answer is always to quote the UCG constitution or bylaws to claim “we are in charge, and we interpret the rules.” That is almost the only part of the UCG governing documents that they quote: the Council is “in charge,” the Council has oversight, the Council interprets, the Council decides. I believe everyone agrees that the Council is “in charge” and “decides” but only to the extent allowed by the association’s governing documents and the law of God. The Council and administration cannot lawfully exceed those limits. But they have done so and continue to do so.

The Rules of Association, for example, that must guide relationships between UCGIA, the US corporation, and national associations in other countries have been completely junked; there is no longer even a pretense of abiding by that document, the respect of which is required in the UCG Constitution and Bylaws. Constitution article 3.2.2.4 states clearly “The Council of Elders shall conduct itself in accordance with Scripture, this Constitution, the duly adopted corporate Bylaws, the Rules of Association of the UCG and applicable law.” But the Council has not and does not.

They seem to want us to accept the idea that in UCG there is government of men directly under God, in the mold of a Pastor General with unlimited authority. The Council of Elders, goes this reasoning, are the men that have either been chosen specifically by God or at least have been duly elected with God’s permission, and therefore to dissent from their decisions is rebellion against God’s government. The president appears to believe this, and says so often in his letters. The Council repeats this in its various communications.

One should note that the men who make up the current Council did not hold this point of view about our Church government before they were in power. They actively worked against previous Council and GCE decisions, and several of them admit to having criticized their predecessors on the Council and in the administration. That was acceptable back then, but they would have us believe it is now rebellion against God.

But more importantly, UCG was not and is not organized to have a government of “special” men directly under God. We didn’t feel when we organized that God had led us to see any particular men as directly chosen by Him to be our leaders. Rather we were to govern and be governed collegially, and so set up a framework of rules, under which each elder would have certain abilities and authorities and also certain responsibilities.
All elders in UCG are part of the General Conference of Elders which has certain responsibilities and prerogatives, within certain limits.
Some are chosen to serve on the Council of Elders, which is given certain responsibilities and prerogatives, within certain limits.

Some are chosen to be officers or operations managers, to whom are given certain responsibilities and prerogatives, within certain limits.
We were to all work together within that framework. Because of the abuses we witnessed in the final months we were part of the Worldwide Church of God, checks and balances were put in place in the structure of UCG to insure that no man or group of men could dominate and commandeer the organization and exert a destructive influence. But these checks and balances are not being respected or obeyed by the Council and the administration. Ongoing violations have destroyed the trust that is prerequisite for us to work together, and have negated their legitimacy.

Here are some examples of the violations under discussion:

1. When concerns were raised about the existence of a secret Internet forum which was conducted by some ministers to specifically allow them to criticize the Council and administration, and work to overturn decisions such as the relocation to Texas, the Council felt compelled to officially investigate. The result was a paper issued about “Private Discussion Groups” which cleared those involved of any wrong-doing. But the paper did not disclose that it was a member of the Council who originated and run the secret forum, and that other Council members participated. The paper was written in such a way that it gave the impression that the Council was completely impartial in the matter. This was a violation of the 9th commandment, in the spirit if not the letter. Two Council members, Clyde Kilough and Richard Thompson, resigned rather than have their names associated with such a dishonest paper.

2. Ephesians 5:11 states “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” When I informed the members of the GCE, through a posting on our Elders Forum (open to all elders), that Council members had originated and participated in the secret forum, the response from the Council was not explanation or repentance but punishment. I was threatened by the Council that my job was in danger for leaking “executive session” information (even though there had been no executive session meeting of the Council), and was placed on an “improvement plan” which was originally to have lasted for six months, but which was never lifted at all. This started almost 2 ½ years ago. I was further punished by being forbidden to fulfill any ministerial duties in English. I was forbidden even to give an opening or closing prayer in church services in any English-speaking areas though I was expected to quietly continue making trips to unstable parts of Africa. This open-ended punishment continued until the termination of my employment. This arbitrary punishment in order to cover the Council’s own dishonesty does not show a proper Christian approach to say the least.

3. Mr. Leon Walker, an elder of over 50 years of faithful service, was fired and replaced as Regional Director in a most abrupt manner without due process being followed, and in violation of a number of provisions in the Rules of Association. The Council then attempted to destroy Mr. Walker’s reputation through the publication of long papers claiming to publically document his guilt of all sorts of violations. The papers contained much material that was either totally false or severely distorted. The Church of God has never before published such offensive diatribes aimed at destroying the reputation of an individual minister and it is extremely shameful conduct. These actions violated the 6th and the 9th commandments.

4. Nearly 10 percent of our church membership, almost the entirety of the ministry and membership in Latin American were abruptly cut off from UCG with no explanation. This action violated not only our Rules of Association, but also basic Christian tenets of love, concern and providing needed assistance to fellow Christians. Some members were so disillusioned by the treatment their area received that they have stopped coming to services altogether. This is a serious responsibility according to Matthew 18:6-7: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!”

I realize that those of us who have left UCG are being accused of causing offense to little ones, but that is a different scenario. The Council took direct action against the members and ministry in Latin America: they cut them off with no explanation. This is what caused the offense there: aggressive action. We who leave UCG now are taking no action against anyone, we’re simply saying “This is offensive to God and man; I won’t be a part of it any longer.” We refuse to accept the exclusion of innocent brethren and ministers, which the Council attempted to require of us.

5. When church pastor Jack Hendren explained to members in his area the false nature of the accusations against Mr. Walker, he was ordered to appear before Council delegates. He was informed that he had to support the Council in what it had done in regard to Mr. Walker and to agree to the suspension of an elder in his area who also maintained that Mr. Walker had been unfairly treated. When he stated he could not do so in good conscience, he was fired. This is the Council demanding that ministers violate their consciences or face termination.

6. The behavior of a family in Chile became an issue when it was learned that their family-owned school remained open for business on the Sabbath (Friday evening after sunset) and on certain Holy Days. This is the family of Mrs. Mario Seiglie, wife of a current Council member. The church President and the Chairman of the Council published a “white paper” titled “How do members of the United Church of God observe the Sabbath Day?” In claiming to give doctrinal instruction on the topic, the paper stated the family did not violate the Sabbath by having their employees work on the Sabbath and Holy Days. This paper did not go through the required doctrinal review prior to publication, and repeated protests by the Doctrine Committee of the Council were ignored for three weeks. The Doctrine Committee by policy must review all material of a doctrinal nature. The paper was finally withdrawn from the Church website, with the explanation that it had been posted too quickly. Months later, the Council finally did state that members should not have employees work for them on the Sabbath, but the white paper has never been repudiated and no statement of rejection or apology has been issued for it.

7. A similar “white paper” was published, titled “Fasting, Prayer and the Will of God.” This paper was written to defend the behavior of elders, including Council members. After the initial decision to relocate the office to Texas, which was preceded by a Church-wide day of fasting and prayer, these elders almost immediately began an effort to overturn the decision. This caused concern and upset among quite a number of elders who felt they had asked, through fasting and prayer, for God to guide the decision. The white paper was a rather muddled defense of the effort to rescind the decision to move, by claiming that fasting and prayer don’t really allow Christians to know God’s will. This represented a substantial change in our teaching about fasting. It is still posted and public in spite of not having been reviewed by the Doctrine Committee, and in spite of protests by the Doctrine Committee.

8. When Mr. Larry Salyer, a respected minister with over 40 years of experience, explained to members in his congregations that there were doctrinal problems in the two white papers, he was suspended and ultimately, fired for “speaking against the Council.”

9. It has been documented that the Council has excluded some of its members from discussions and decisions. Some Council members were not informed that discussions would be held, and decisions were reached outside of official meetings without the participation of all members. This is highly illegal.

10. All three corporate officers placed an item on the General Conference of Elders agenda for 2010. The item was the proposal of forming a GCE task force to examine our governing structure and possibly suggest improvements to the GCE for its consideration. Bylaw 7.9.2 states that any one officer may place an item on the agenda, but the Council intervened and removed the item, claiming it violated the Bylaws and the Council’s authority. Several lawyers have stated that it did not violate the Bylaws but the Council removed it anyway.

There are many other issues and violations of internal rules and the law of God. As stated above, where there is repentance there is forgiveness. Groups of elders have gone to the Council and administration numerous times to bring to their attention violations of men’s law and God’s law. But in every case, these pleas for action and redress have been rejected out of hand. We have gone to the Council and administration numerous times in the spirit of Matthew 18.

Matthew 18:15-17 states “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

In response to brothers in the ministry coming to them humbly with sincere concerns over sin, they have not responded in a spirit of humility and receptiveness, but rather in a spirit of “exercising dominion” (i.e. Matthew 20:25), claiming that their authority as Council members precludes them having to attend to these concerns. Paul told Timothy “we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully” (1Timothy 1:8). Laws and rules can either be used properly or they can be misused and distorted. The Council and administration have been misusing rules and laws to the point of outright violation. And they suspend, expel and fire those who will not support their abuses.

I have reached the conclusion that the attitude and approach displayed by the current Council and administration is not that of seeking the will of God in submission to His law, but rather seeking their own will, and using selected provisions of human documents as justification. This will be a spiritual danger to any who continue to follow them. 2 Corinthians 6:14 warns “For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness?” I believe the above examples among many others prove that, though they claim otherwise, the current leadership of UCG is practicing lawlessness. This is why I’m convinced it is no longer fitting or right to remain part of the United Church of God, an International Association.
I hope this clarifies why I have taken the actions I have and why I believe it is time to leave UCG. Of course each of us must act on his or her personal conviction and conscience, and we will all give account before our Maker, so I certainly think no
ill of those who wait or make a different choice. I'm glad you're investigating for yourself so you can make an informed decision.

Very sincerely,
Joel Meeker

The Great "None of your business Moses"

rm

 Brick Testament: The Burning Bush

The Great "None of your business Moses"

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

The story of Moses and the burning bush in the wilderness always made a great Sunday School story. Here is a man who notices a bush on fire in the desert. It is possible he was witnessing the results of a lightening strike, who knows, but when he approached the bush, it spoke to him.

1 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight--why the bush does not burn up."
4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"
And Moses said, "Here I am."
5 "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

So Moses finds himself talking to the tribal God of the family of his father. God has seen the problems the family is having in Egypt and declares to Moses that he is going to do something about it. The Plagues and the Exodus are to follow shortly. What is interesting is that Moses seems to need to know the name of this God so, when asked, he can give an accurate answer. There were many deities of the day and knowing which one was talking to you was important. These deities were both tribal and territorial, often having boundaries and limited to certain areas.

There is another reason knowing the name of the Deity was important. There was the belief that IF you knew the name of the god, you could wield a certain influence or control over the god. Most are familiar with the story of Jacob who experienced a strange encounter with a being that he recognized as El himself. Meeting this El at the steam Jabbok on the west bank, he wrestled with him. I guess when Middle Eastern men meet, they can't just have tea, they have to fight. Jacob and El wrestled all night and El finally had to leave because the Sun was coming up. Perhaps El was a vampire, or perhaps merely a symbol of something dark of the night, that had to leave in astrotheological terms when the sun rose. At any rate, Jacob did not and would not let go until this being shared it's name. The deity confessed to being Peni-El, "El's Face" and Jacob called the place Peniel "because he had seen El, face to face." The reason Jacob asked for the name was that in doing so, he had power of sorts over El and could actually survive the encounter.

The God of Moses was "El", a god that originally was a Caananite deity. From this "El" we get familiar names to Christians that they use in their hymns. El-Shaddai, which is El of the Mountains. There is El-Eyon, The Most High God. From "El" we also get such common names Isra-El and Ishma-El.
Christians today think that the God of Moses was the same God they know today in Christianity, but that would be a far cry from the truth.

At any rate, when Moses met El in the bush, surprised he did not name him Bush-El :), Moses also wanted the name of this god. But the answer given to Moses would be much different than the one given to Jacob. This god was evolving in the scripture and was not about to give a mere mortal his name. When Moses finally asks the name of this deity, the answer is a very simple one. "I am Who I Am." That's who Moses was to tell the Israelites he met that day, when they wanted the details. You asked for the name of the god because there were so many of them. Remember, even in the Ten Commandments, the Israelites were not told there was just one, but rather they were not to worship OTHER God's as greater than El, since this evolving God was a jealous one.

At any rate, this phrase "I am that I am," has evolved in Christian theology as a deeply profound statement as to the nature of the true God. It has been used to prove that God is the self-subsistant Being of a deeper theology. "Ebyeh asher ebyeh"...I am that I am. Funny thing is, is that this statement by the god is not deep theology, but a Hebrew pun...a joke of sorts on Moses. It is meant to be vague in it's response such as when the bible says that this or that person went "to the next place" or "into the wilderness." It is meant to be vague. "I am that I am" is this deity simply telling Moses that his name is none of Moses business and he would be wise to mind his own business because this Deity was not giving the name. When the Israelites ask, just tell them "It's none of their business either has sent you." Moses was not going to manipulate this God as Jacob had in seeking power over him by learning his name.

Of course, from this time forward, Christians have taken every opportunity to read divine profundity into any phrase in the Bible that contains the words "I am." Jesus has become the great "I am" as a way to connect him to this OT Deity as part of the Holy Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit

"Many have been the theological and philosophical interpretations of this glorious name, but Jesus Christ gave us the practical interpretation with the 8 "I am" in the Gospel of John:

1- I am the bread of life (Jn.6:35)
2- I am the light of the world (Jn.8:12)
3- I am the gate (Jn.10:9)
4- I am the good shepherd (Jn.10:11.
5- I am the resurrection (Jn.11:25)
6- I am the way and the truth and the life (Jn.14:6)
7- I am the true vine (Jn.15:1)
8- Before Abraham was, I am (Jn.8:58)... this last "I am" of Jesus the Messiah have the scent of eternity and power... not "I was", but "I am"... I am the immutable one, but the author of all change and movement... Jesus is always eternally the same I am... "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb.13:8).
I am the way and the truth and the life (Jn.14:6):"

I practical fact, there is no connection between the "I am" statement of God in the bush to Moses, and the grammar some use to say things like "I am hungry, I am thirsty, I am the gate, I am the shepherd"

It's a silly connection that only literalists could come up with.

The problem is that this perspective has been built on a Hebrew Pun. A scripture can never mean what it never meant and when Moses asked , just what his name was to gain at least some advantage over him as Jacob before him had done with El, the answer was different. "I am what I am," or "it's really none of your business who I am Moses and I'm not falling for that trick. Tell them to mind their own business." This is a good example of how the Church has taken a simple thing in the OT, even a pun, and manufactured it into a deeper truth, applied to others, which were never intended or implied in the original text or story.

Matthew was very very good at this as well in his many "and thus it was fulfilled" statements about the Jesus he found spoken of in the Old Testament. Matthew was a master at making as scripture in the Hebrew texts mean what it never meant in the first place. This is, in part, why Jewish scholars, who see how the Christian Church has manipulated their own Old Testament texts to bolster the newer Christian faith and the Jesus story, could never agree nor see Jesus spoken of "so plainly" in their own scriptures.

So we find in the story of Moses and the burning bush, not a profound theological introduction the Great I AM, but rather a simple request by a tribal deity of the day for Moses to mind his own business and that he will not be gaining any power over this god by prying his name out of him.


DenniscDiehl@aol.com

UCG Zambia/USA Resignations

Steve Martin: The Atheist Hymnal

Steve Martin and the Steep Canyon Rangers perform at Merlefest 2010