United Church of God, an International Association
Council of Elders Meeting Report

Sunday, May 16, 1999 — Cincinnati, Ohio

Council discussion opened Sunday morning by fine-tuning Ethics Committee policies, moved to finalizing the job description for Council members, and ended with a discussion of the Rules of Association in the afternoon session.

Ethics Committee

Mr. Antion moderated a detailed discussion on fine-tuning the wording for the Process of Appeal to the Council of Elders. This policy provides an avenue for members to appeal disciplinary actions or other ecclesiastical decisions to the Council of Elders, after applying basic biblical criteria for resolving issues between brethren. Once the Council reached basic agreement on this process, Mr. Antion said he would return the amended copy to the group for approval. The Council then discussed and further refined the Policy on Suspension and Disfellowshipping, but further work is needed at another Council meeting.

Time constraints forced the postponement of discussion on Mr. Antion’s proposal to establish an outreach program for the church. Council members will submit their comments and suggestions to him before discussing the proposal at the August meeting of the Council.

Roles and Responsibilities

The topic of the individual Council member’s job description next occupied center stage. Fine-tuning the current document took the remainder of the Council’s morning session, and the Council unanimously approved the amended draft.

Rules of Association

Leon Walker moderates session on
the Rules of Association

Leon Walker moderated the afternoon’s discussion of the Rules of Association. Mr. Walker welcomed the afternoon meeting’s numerous guests, including members of the Indianapolis, Indiana, and Cincinnati North, Ohio, church boards. He gave a brief background of the Council’s involvement in development of the Rules of Association, noting the importance of the role played by former Council member Jim Franks in the development of the many drafts of the Rules. He acknowledged the emotional aspect involved in that development, but stressed our common desire to do God’s work, and the importance of finalizing a document that will help us do just that. The inclusive nature of input sought meant brethren and ministry have had full opportunity to contribute to and modify the various drafts; most recently this input included extensive consultation with and international approval of those Rules in their current format.

Speaking on behalf of the Indianapolis board, pastor Darris McNeely introduced the board members from Indianapolis to the Council of Elders, humorously assuring the Council that "we come in peace" even though the Rules of Association issue is a sensitive one in some circles. Mr. McNeely spoke about their experiences and questions, noting that other congregations may well have similar views. He stressed the support the Indianapolis congregation has had from its inception for the larger body of the United Church of God, an International Association. Teamwork, he pointed out, has been the operative word. The board has operated solely as a fiduciary body, with all spiritual oversight being handled through the ministry, to which several board members nodded assent. Funds collected locally have been used to pay local expenses, assist other areas with needs (in and out of the church), and support the UCGIA general and assistance funds. Mr. McNeely stressed the intangible benefits that have been experienced in the area, most notably a sense of bonding and ownership.

The Indianapolis board presented two questions:

• Regarding Rule 1-120, why do the words "board" or "board members" not appear? The only terms used are "advisory councils" and "committees."
• In Rule 2-110, the phrase "appropriate balance" is used in reference to the amount of money that may be retained in local accounts. What does this mean? Can the Council of Elders change it at will? Is there some sort of allowance for local funds that existed before approval of these Rules?

The Indianapolis delegation sought four things:

• Endorsement of their type of structure by UCGIA
• To be a viable example to other congregations that might choose the same structure.
• Assurance of being allowed to continue in the present configuration.
• Increased dialogue with central management.

"Initiative plus identity does not equal independence or autonomy," stated Mr. McNeely. Indianapolis does not seek independence from UCGIA, but cooperation in doing God’s work together. Mr. McNeely stressed the opportunities of cooperation.

Mr. Walker noted the similarity of goals and desire to work together, and directed the Council’s input in specifically answering the two questions posed by the Indianapolis board to provide assurance regarding the expressed areas of concern.

Darris McNeely

Regarding Rule 1-120, "Local Church Congregations," Mr. Walker moderated a discussion that cooperatively produced a possible phrasing change; to "In addition to this structure, local boards, advisory councils or committees may be formed to assist the ministry in meeting the needs of the congregation." Mr. Walker stated that he saw no difficulty in modifying as suggested, but felt it necessary to be sure of legal technicalities to make sure we do not contradict our governing documents. He asked Mr. McNeely to present the precise revision Indianapolis would like to submit.

The second concern dealt with Rule 2-110, "Collection of Funds/Assets." Mr. Walker stressed that the wording in this rule itself includes the phrase "An appropriate balance agreed upon by the Home Office, the Management Team, the Council of Elders and the local congregation, above and beyond operating costs may be kept in local accounts." He pointed out that there is nothing here to delineate the details of the process of arriving at that balance, which is simply that all sides concerned talk about it until they agree, no matter how long that takes. Cincinnati North board member Steve Failla asked if the Council had yet had such a deliberation to establish an agreed-upon local fund balance. Mr. Walker responded that such a situation had not yet arisen. Council member Dennis Luker stated that the phrase needs to be amended to "…agreed upon by the Home Office Management Team, the Council of Elders and the local congregation…" Otherwise it would appear that there are four entities involved, when in reality there are only three.

Mr. Walker asked for any further questions, and Cincinnati North board members William Veeneman and Linda Pratt asked for clarification on an aspect of Rule 2-110 and local activity funds. Does the Home Office wish to monitor local funding for church-sponsored activities such as the Cincinnati North sponsored publication U.S. Teens or sports tournaments? Mr. Walker and Chairman Robert Dick answered by pointing out that activity funds generated by fund-raising projects are not considered part of local budgets from tithes, even though they must be carried on reports of account balances. Therefore, the Management Team does not seek oversight of these funds.

Mr. McCullough stressed the need for a sense of equality between like-sized churches, which requires some type of centralized oversight. The goal is not to remove control from anyone, but to provide for everyone’s needs.

Mitchell Knapp, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Eau Claire, Wisconsin, pastor, presented his material next. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Walker’s comment "We’re on your side," noting how important that is to allay any suspicions that still exist in the minds of some. Mr. Knapp stated that the root of that suspicion might lie not so much in the rules themselves as in the administration of the rules—which becomes a simple issue of trust. His attendance at the Council meeting today was in response to Mr. Dick’s letter inviting those who still had concerns to come and express them. Partnership, mutual respect, and trust, Mr. Knapp stated, must be key elements of the process.

Mitch Knapp

Many of Mr. Knapp’s concerns had been previously altered after consultation with the international areas. Noting the frequency of this occurrence, he stated that his presentation would be shortened as a result, and many in his area would find the changes already made by Council to be healing in nature. Other concerns he stated were:

• Rule 2-110, "Collection of Funds/Assets." This section states: "All congregations shall prepare annual budgets and follow budget guidelines…" Mr. Knapp said he intended to submit proposed revisions to reflect a more cooperative effort in the budgeting process.
• Rule 2-130, "Ministerial Transfers." Mr. Knapp proposed a revision acknowledging congregational sensitivities about ministerial transfers, and giving congregations as much explanation of the need for a transfer as possible within the guidelines of confidentiality.
• Mr. Knapp cited other comments that have come to his attention regarding the overall tone of the Rules of Association, to illustrate the continuing need to allay the mistrust some still hold toward centralized church guidance. He took care to stress how changes that have already occurred do alleviate these concerns, but have not removed them entirely for some.

Mr. Knapp made the following suggestions:

• Rewrite certain sections of the Rules of Association to be more inclusive.
• Reassure. Council members visiting church areas will help, especially the informal fellowship connected with these visits.
• Enumerate the benefits, services, and advantages of being a part of UCGIA.
• He stated that it is important that some churches continue to collect tithes and offerings locally, and for all of them to retain the ability to do so. Mr. Luker noted that this is explicitly stated and guaranteed by the Rules of Association.

Mr. Knapp reiterated his thanks for the opportunity to speak to the Council, and stressed his and his congregations’ prayers for the Council and its work.

Mr. Walker stated miscellaneous remaining concerns:

• Some ask "Why can’t U.S. congregations have the same autonomy as national councils in international areas?" First, they’re two different things, and second, international areas are not independent of the international association. Sometimes national laws require certain wording indicating independence, but dependence is then voluntary and is there—all international areas are subject to the administration of the church within that country, and to the Council of Elders and the Constitution of UCGIA ultimately.
• Trust works both ways. After all, the question could legitimately be asked: "Do the Rules of Association give absolute assurance that local congregations will support the overall work of the church?" The answer is no; trust is a matter of the heart. "We have tried to soften the language; we’ve tried not to be demanding," stated Mr. Walker. "We’re all on the same page. We’ve tried to give the trust, we need to receive the trust," he continued.

Mr. Dick concluded by thanking all those who had traveled to Cincinnati to make contributions and dismissed the meeting.

-Doug Johnson

© 1999 United Church of God, an International Association