United Church of God, an International Association
Council of Elders Meeting Report
Friday, December 10, 2004 – Cincinnati, Ohio

This morning’s session included an update from Jim Franks on the status of Doctrine Committee projects and Doug Horchak on the "Evangelism" study paper. In the afternoon, the Council reviewed plans for the 2005 Annual Meeting of the General Conference of Elders and discussed five proposed amendments to the constitution and bylaws.

Doctrine Committee Update

Mr. Franks began by providing the Council with a four-page "Doctrinal Update" summarizing the committee’s current activities and plans.

• Two study papers on the calendar have been reviewed. Each paper offers a different perspective on the question of how to determine the beginning of a month. Mr. Franks reviewed with the Council the papers and the letters of response to each. A third lengthy paper on the calendar has also been submitted. Mr. Franks will prepare a response and send a copy to the Doctrine Committee.
• The Doctrine Committee has reviewed the latest draft of the study paper on interracial marriage. Robert Dick will incorporate the final edits and prepare a draft for review and approval at the February meetings.
• The study paper on the nature of God and Christ is nearing completion. Bill Bradford has incorporated new material and the comments and edits from the last Council review and submitted a new draft, a summary of which was provided to the Council. Mr. Franks will prepare a final draft for Council approval at the February meetings.
• The Doctrine Committee has reviewed the latest draft of the study paper on the role of women in the Church of God, prepared by a task force appointed by Ministerial Services. The Council was provided a copy of the paper as it was submitted by the task force. The Doctrine Committee has suggested restructuring the paper by separating the doctrinal study from the executive summary and the recommendations. The committee plans to consider edits and suggestions from the Council review of the paper and provide a final draft for approval at the February meetings.
• The Doctrine Committee reviewed over 300 letters written by the Personal Correspondence Department and returned 16 to be rewritten to correct doctrinal issues and concerns. In addition, committee members will review two other new PCD letters (one on 2 Corinthians:6:14 and the other about the Septuagint) and make recommendations prior to the meetings in February.
• The Doctrine Committee was asked to consider whether it is appropriate to replace Sabbath services with seminars. Rather than writing a letter or statement on this specific matter, the committee recommended that this question should be included in a broader discussion on the appropriate observance of the Sabbath.
• The Doctrine Committee reviewed three papers on various prophetic topics and the calendar submitted by individuals who are not members of United. The committee has already responded to two of these individuals regarding papers they submitted previously. They do not accept our answers or explanations. The committee does not feel compelled to continue to take its time to address the same issue raised by people who simply want to argue their point of view.
• Committee member Mario Seiglie will respond to a question from a member on the subject of voting.

In response to a request made by several members of the General Conference, Mr. Franks put forward a Council resolution to allow additional time for input from elders before a study paper is approved in its final form. As background for the discussion, Mr. Franks distributed copies of the "Process for the Development of Doctrinal Study Papers," which was officially approved by the GCE in December 1996. The following resolution was passed unanimously:

Whereas it is the desire of the Council of Elders to provide open access to documents of a doctrinal nature that are being prepared by the Church;

And whereas there is already a process in place for the production of doctrinal study papers which gives the responsibility of publishing said papers on behalf of the Church to the Council of Elders;

It is hereby resolved that beginning immediately, any paper defined by the Council of Elders as a doctrinal study paper which has been approved for review by the Council of Elders will be posted on the ministerial page of the Church’s Web site for an initial period of thirty (30) days prior to publishing to the Church. The purpose in this posting is to provide an additional opportunity for the members of the GCE to offer comments and suggestions for a Council approved draft study paper prior to the official publishing of the paper to the Church. If after thirty (30) days the comments have ceased or there have been none (or very few comments), the paper will move forward with publishing in the manner prescribed by the Council of Elders. If after thirty (30) days the discussion of the paper is ongoing, the length of time for discussion will be extended for another thirty (30) days. Any comments or suggestions regarding the paper must be sent to an e-mail address established for such comments. In order to participate in this additional review each elder agrees that he will not distribute drafts of papers that have been posted for review. To violate this agreement will be considered by the Council of Elders as a violation of the Ministerial Code of Ethics. After the initial thirty (30) days or the full sixty (60) days, the Doctrine Committee will provide the Council of Elders with a summary of the comments from the GCE. The Council can then either (A) reconsider the topic, (B) publish a revised paper incorporating suggested edits from the GCE, or (C) publish the paper in its original form.

Doctrine Committee member Leon Walker pointed out that the purpose of study papers is not to introduce doctrinal change, but to explain and provide further research on doctrines that are already current Church teachings. We don’t anticipate the introduction of new doctrine through this process.

"Evangelism in the Scripture" Study Paper

Doug Horchak, Council member and chairman of the Evangelism Task Force, started a review of the status of the study paper. He pointed out that while evangelism may not initially appear to be a high profile topic, it has a great deal to do with the practical application of Jesus’ mandate to the Church to "preach the gospel."

Some have expressed concern that we need to finish this study so we can get on with the work of the Church, assuming that if we’re studying the subject, we must be confused about how to preach the gospel. In truth, the Church continues to evangelize, as it has done for decades. The Church today is the fruit of the evangelistic work of the Church. The purpose for this study came from the Council’s desire to biblically establish our beliefs and practice of evangelism. This is the first time the Church has put an effort into a focused biblical study on this topic.

In the past four months Mr. Horchak stated he has received substantive input from several members of the Council and others have offered more general comments. He said he looks forward to a review of the paper by the GCE, per the resolution passed earlier today. Mr. Horchak emphasized that it’s more important to do the paper carefully than to produce it quickly, and that continuing to develop it is not causing the Church to delay any of its work of preaching the gospel.

Mr. Horchak started a review of a summary statement of recommendations on the study paper, but was interrupted due to a scheduling conflict. He will complete his update to the Council later in these meetings.

2005 GCE Planning

Following lunch, Robert Dick chaired a discussion on planning details for the 2005 Annual Meeting of the General Conference of Elders, scheduled for May 14-16, 2005. Dave Register, chairman of the GCE meeting planning task force, joined the Council meeting via telephone. On behalf of the task force, Mr. Register was seeking Council approval of workshop topics and the selection of the keynote speaker for the conference.

The task force provided a list of four men for Council consideration for keynote speaker. The Council decided to take up the matter in executive session and will communicate the decision to Mr. Register.

The task force also presented a list of ten 90-minute workshop subjects and presenters for each. The Council was asked to reduce this list to eight, each of which would be offered twice during the day on May 16, 2005. The Council reduced the list to nine and suggested that the task force select two of those nine to be scheduled one time, instead of twice.

Mr. Walker asked the Council to consider a change in the order of events on Sunday, May 15. He suggested that the balloting take place in the morning rather than in the afternoon. The rest of the presentations would then follow, as originally scheduled. The Council agreed that this change would not impact elders who ballot by mail and would not make it more difficult for elders who listen via telephone connections in different time zones to hear the rest of the presentations.

Balloting early in the day would also make it possible to select from a wider range of men to make presentations, since it is Council policy to not have a man who is up for Council election make a presentation before the voting takes place.

The decision to make the change in the schedule was approved by the Council in an opinion poll, in which seven agreed they would like to see the order changed and five expressed no preference either way.

Joel Meeker suggested that an additional question-and-answer session be added to the program. He pointed out that in the interest of staying connected to our roots and maintaining a sense of Church history, there be a Q&A session with senior pastors—men who have served in the ministry for many decades. Mr. Register responded that the idea seemed workable and he will discuss it with the task force in their next teleconference.

On another scheduling matter, Peter Eddington pointed out that since there will not be an all-day editorial meeting preceding the conference, the meeting of international elders could be scheduled on May 13 instead of May 12, saving one day of lodging and meal expense. Mr. Kilough agreed, and asked Mr. Walker to coordinate the meetings and agenda for the international representatives.

Proposed Amendments

In its final action of the day, the Council turned its attention to five amendments to the constitution and bylaws proposed to be voted on by the GCE in the May 2005 annual meeting. The Amendment Committee, chaired by Rick Avent, has completed review of these proposed amendments and found that they meet all the necessary requirements for Council consideration. Since the deadline for completion of the work by the committee is December 16, more amendments will follow.

As chairman of the Ethics, Roles and Rules Committee, Mr. Dick chaired this portion of the meeting. He reminded the Council of the three options as they consider each proposed amendment:

• If the proposed amendment receives support from four or more Council members, it will be placed on the ballot.
• If a proposed amendment does not receive support from four or more Council members, it will be returned to the Amendment Committee, which will send the proposed amendment to the GCE. If it receives support from 25 percent or more of the GCE, the amendment will be placed on the ballot to be voted on by the GCE in the May 2005 meetings.
• If a proposed amendment does not receive support from four or more Council members, the Council by a simple majority may choose to write a statement of concern.

The first amendment considered was to Constitution Article 1–Mission Statement. The proposed amendment seeks to change the wording of the Mission Statement. In its discussion of the proposed amendment, Mr. Walker commented that several attempts have been made over the years to bring added clarity to this statement, but each raises more questions than it resolves. Mr. Kubik stated that the proposed edit to the statement is not the terminology used in the Bible. This proposed amendment did not receive approval from four or more Council members. The Council did not choose to write a statement of concern. The proposed amendment will be returned to the Amendment Committee for their action.

The next proposed amendment was to Bylaws Article 8 Section 8.2.1 and also Article 9 Sections 9.1 and 9.2. The amendment proposes that no member of the Church’s management team may also be elected to serve on the Council of Elders. Since the same amendment was rejected by the GCE in the 2004 meeting, this proposal did not receive support from four or more Council members. The Council did not choose to write a statement of concern. The amendment will be returned to the Amendment Committee for their action.

The Council then considered a proposed amendment to Bylaws Article 12 Section 12.2.2.7, which seeks to limit the Council’s power to correct or resubmit a proposed amendment after it has been approved by the Amendment Committee. This proposed amendment received support of four or more elders and will be on the ballot at the 2005 GCE annual meeting.

The next proposed amendment discussed was to Bylaws Article 12 Section 12.2.2.9 and 12.2.2.11. This proposal deals with the approval process by the GCE when an amendment is not supported by the Council. Currently a proposed amendment not supported by the Council must receive support from 25 percent of the entire GCE in order to be placed on the ballot at the annual meeting. This amendment proposes that the wording be changed to require 25 percent of the valid votes cast, rather than 25 percent of the entire GCE. In discussion, Mr. Franks pointed out that this would change the process. Currently GCE members only respond if they are in favor of the proposed amendment being placed on the ballot. To base the decision on 25 percent of votes cast, it would require the entire GCE to vote for or against the amendment to get it on the ballot, and then they would vote for or against the proposed amendment again. Therefore, there needs to be a definition provided for the 25 percent threshold—25 percent of what vote is intended? Council member Aaron Dean, who had written the proposal, withdrew the proposed amendment from consideration.

The next proposed amendment was to Bylaws Article 12.2.2.1, which would add a paragraph at the start of Article 12 and would therefore also change the numbering of the rest of the paragraphs in the article. The proposal seeks to provide an annual timeline for the processing of proposed amendments to avoid conflicts with Holy Days and/or meetings of the Council of Elders. Since this proposed amendment was submitted by the Council of Elders, it was approved by resolution. The vote was unanimous in favor. The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot in May 2005.

The final amendment considered today was to Bylaws Article 12.2.2.8. Two proposals were submitted for amending this bylaw, one from members of the GCE and the other by the Council. Both proposed amendments seek to solve the situation of the Council failing to act within 30 days of receiving a proposed amendment. The Council agrees that as presently worded, the result of lack of action on the part of the Council is unclear. But the Council also felt that the amendment proposed in the GCE version is in conflict with the current process, since it proposes to place an amendment on which the Council had not taken action directly on the ballot at the annual meeting. The proposed amendment by the Council seeks to resolve the difficulty by specifically stipulating what happens to an amendment if the Council chooses to not take action on it.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the proposed amendment submitted by members of the GCE did not receive support of four or more Council members. The Council decided at this time it would not write a statement of concern on the proposed amendment, but added that the Council may decide to do so at a later date if necessary.

The Council version of a proposed amendment to Bylaws 12.2.2.8 was put forward and was unanimously accepted.

The Council concluded its business for the day.

Don Henson

-end-

© 2004 United Church of God, an International Association