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

 Monday, March 4, 2002 - Cincinnati, Ohio

            The Council gave its approval today to the administration’s proposals for the Strategic Plan, the Operation Plan, the 2002-2003 budget, the policy on ministerial review, and the ministerial candidate plan. They had a lengthy discussion on doctrinal update procedures, and spent the afternoon reviewing and/or approving numerous Education Committee issues.

Policy Approvals 

            Today was the day to finalize numerous proposals. By unanimous votes (with John Jewell being absent for these and all ballot or straw poll issues today due to temporary illness) the Council approved both the Strategic Plan and Operation Plan.  

            Before balloting on the 2002-2003 budget, Aaron Dean asked if there could be consideration given to taking the $50,000 allocation for local church buildings from operating reserves rather than the budget year’s executive reserves (see March 3 report). Les McCullough stated his opposition to lowering operating reserves, and was joined by Leon Walker and Richard Thompson. Chairman Roy Holladay observed that the consensus of the Council appeared to be to leave the allocation as proposed yesterday, from executive reserves. The Council quorum of eleven members present then unanimously approved the 2002-2003 budget as amended in the March 3 discussion with Treasurer Tom Kirkpatrick. 

            The Ministerial Candidate program was given a “green light” for development. The Council members expressed a desire to look over the details of the specific proposal that Jim Franks presented on February 27, but agreed with the concept, and have given their approval to the budget, which contains funds for the program. Details will be addressed at the next Council meetings May 7-9, 2002. 

            As he had indicated, Mr. Holladay brought back the policy on ministerial review for Council action. After some further discussion, the chairman polled the members of the Council for their view on the concept of congregational input as part of the ministerial review process, and received their approval. They then analyzed and fine-tuned a draft policy on the whole program and the quorum present unanimously approved the document as amended.

Doctrinal Update

            Doctrine Committee Chairman Leon Walker moderated the next portion of the meeting. He first reviewed a position paper on the subject of New Moons with the Council, indicating the Church’s understanding that new moon observances are not required of New Testament Christians. The quorum of eleven unanimously approved the paper.

            Papers on two other subjects (the man of sin spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2, and the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9) have been submitted. Mr. Walker made some general observations on prophetic topics, citing these papers as cases in point. Prophecy, by its very nature (dealing with events that have not happened yet), lends itself to speculation and private interpretation. In past affiliations, we have all seen some prophetic subjects treated as if they were doctrine. Even if the speculation proved correct, it would not mean that we should elevate interpretations, especially speculative ones, to the status of doctrine.

            With this in mind, Mr. Walker asked for the Council’s input on this question – how should the Church deal with honest differences in opinion on prophetic topics? Not every issue of prophecy will create this dilemma, he stated, but some will. How do we deal with alternate explanations? Should the Church only allow publication of our traditional understanding? If not, what vehicle should be used to present any alternative approaches? Should those explanations go only to the ministry? Should they be presented in official publications such as the Ministerial Quarterly?

            Some will say that any alternate explanations are confusing and therefore cause division. Mr. Walker opened the floor for comments, since whatever approach is taken will be a Council decision. Some of those comments follow:

·       

Vic Kubik: “We should always have a kind of ‘research and development’ department in the Church… [but] I feel that for our proclamation of the gospel, for us to make statements of things that are speculative… we should have learned our lesson. On the other hand, we have ministers who are giving ‘euro sermons’…there are things happening and we can talk about them. But to say ‘this is it’ or ‘there is no other way’ just puts egg on our face…[take the] ‘we know neither the day nor the hour’ approach...[but] we should be careful not to stifle…”

·        Leon Walker: “So you are advocating that we should allow different interpretations to be published, at least in certain publications?” (Mr. Kubik responded that this was correct)

·        Don Ward: “Many things involve putting the scriptures together… we have so many conclusions that are right, but when it came down to the actual technical doctrinal underpinnings and a systematic coverage of it, we were lacking. Then someone comes along… and creates havoc because some had apparently not really studied and were not really grounded in the fundamental underpinnings of how to defend our faith.”

·        Leon Walker: “What would be the criteria for having alternate interpretations? Don, you’re saying we would certainly not wish to have wild speculation…but criteria becomes important. Who makes that determination as to whether or not it should be published? What is the criteria that we’re going to use?… Right now, if an article does not conform to the traditional teaching of the Church, it will not be published.”

·        Gary Antion: “The key is going to be where we put it. For instance, a study paper is looked at first by the advisory committee…they may say ‘this is a well-researched paper, we think it would be good for the ministry to study it and get their opinion on it.’ I think a study paper never rises to the level of doctrine, but if it is a paper that counters what we have actually taught and published as our point of view, then I think that needs to be studied and receive approval…it’s the format in which you put it.”

·        Robert Dick: “Gary was… expressing in different words than I would, a similar thought. Expansion of perspective, I think, is extremely important to the ministry. Don’s comments about being able to contend with, and answer, challenges… Other than what we call a ‘study paper,’ I don’t see that we have a medium that fits for this kind of issue… You [Mr. Walker] mentioned freestanding papers showing alternative views. I’ve always appreciated in a good commentary, on a difficult topic, the views of different scholars on a particular point. ‘So and so says’ or ‘so and so sees’ or ‘this school takes this position’…the melding of views on a difficult point, I find very instructive…If we have three or four or five well thought out and researched positions, comparing those in a commentary style, I find [that] constructive. There’s a fine line, though, of pitting one against the other, when they’re freestanding. [You] may have five different scholars with a position on one verse. They may make a very good point on that verse, and then on the next verse, another scholar may make a better point than they do on that one verse. So buying one scholar’s position all the way down the line… I’ve never done that with a commentary. I don’t know that it’s that comfortable doing it here.”

·        Richard Thompson: “It could be that the traditional teaching is that we allow three different explanations – for example, the seven churches of Revelation. There are other teachings which we have that are very definitive: for example, man of sin… My concern … gets down to the fundamental question – it’s not only of confusion or questions raised in members’ minds, but also elders. I’ve had elders tell me ‘I haven’t given a sermon on prophecy because I really don’t know what it is we teach in this regard.’ I find that sort of lame, from a personal standpoint. There is plenty that we can teach, but it does show, I would say, the severity that some people – elders – are not sure of what we teach. So instead of teaching anything, they teach nothing or they simply skirt the issue. I do believe, though, that whatever alternate views there are, if they are different from what we have taught, they ought to be, as Bob and others have pointed out, in the form of study papers which gives it a different category, that this is something that is being looked into. I also think that [with] study papers, there ought to be some instruction – ‘don’t teach this in sermons; our traditional view is such and such.’ … When we started, we said, ‘we want to uphold the truths of God.’ That is quite a strong statement.”

·        Don Ward: “One of the things I would see, playing off what Bob said, is after the study paper goes out… the ministers give their input. Then from that, develop a commentary. Of course, that would require some very skillful writing. It would probably be a full-time job. Usually most of us…are emotionally tied to our point[s] of view. It’s difficult to get the unbiased commentators among us to give the initial thrust.”

·        Roy Holladay: “I wholeheartedly concur with what’s been said… I don’t think this can be rolled out in Ministerial Quarterly, or in World News and Prophecy. That elevates it too high. But I think it could be put out in a study paper, properly explained [as] ‘this is our traditional view and this is an alternate’… After what Don said, I wonder if someone could take main points [from the two papers] and say ‘here is where these two papers differ’ and offer a side-by-side comparison, and a summary could go along with it. One thing I don’t think we’ve talked about yet. That is, in doing this, what is our objective? What is it that we’re trying to accomplish with this? Is our objective to put them out, and hopefully get enough feedback from the General Conference, then come to a definite conclusion? Or that we may not be able to come to a conclusion? That by sharing this with everyone, that everybody will see that this is an issue that’s not real clear? I think we need to have certain criteria, and I think we need to have an objective in mind as to why we are doing this.”

·        Leon Walker: “Obviously it would be wonderful if we could come down to an understanding of a prophetic issue and say ‘we accept this one, this one is right, the others are wrong because of this or that.’ But to be realistic, I think that there are some issues in prophecy where we agree to disagree. Or we come down to saying ‘you have some good points, and this other paper has some equally valid, strong points, and I frankly, at this particular moment in time, am unable to decide which of these two I could accept. I can accept part here, and part there. I may lean more toward this view, or lean more toward that view, but I’m not prepared to say ‘I accept this one and I reject that one.’ …[regarding the man of sin] the majority of the subcommittee accepted the traditional view that the man of sin is the false prophet… but it was a 6-1 split… I’m not so sure that numbers are what we’re looking for. But if that’s helpful to know how the advisory committee felt about it, that was their opinion.”

·        Don Ward: “Playing off what Roy said, to me our objective is to get the most accurate analysis of what the Scriptures say that we possibly can, with all our collective [input]…  As you say, we may have to agree to disagree on some of these issues. But to me, that’s where we want to go, and it can be a very educational process in that I believe there are points and scriptures and things that are brought up which [some] have not considered. It’s an exercise that could be valuable…what [we] should have to do, really, is to systematically rebut – ‘the reason why this position is not correct is because of [this reason]…’”

·        Norma Holladay (wife of Chairman Roy Holladay) “I was thinking there’s no shame in saying that we don’t know, that we don’t have all the answers.”

·        Ed Smith (Cincinnati area elder): “I really appreciate what I’m hearing, because this has been an issue that has been a growth factor and has been a loss factor for the Church of God…it was because of prophecy and because of speculation that a lot of our growth came… then the reverse of that happened because some of these things that we had so dogmatically [preached] proved to be false… Speculation is exciting, but it should be identified as speculation – that’s not what the Bible has dogmatically set out.”

·        Ralph Levy (Cincinnati area elder and ABC instructor: “I’m hearing sentiments in this room I agree with…my caution, what I’m concerned about, is if we’re not careful, we’re going to place in the lap of 400 elders, or the membership generally, a certain level of ambiguity that they don’t necessarily know how to deal with. I would illustrate this with part of my experiences teaching at ABC, having to go through the major prophets…I have found, in my experience… that some of the students are very sensitive to ambiguity. Now they may be oversensitive to it, and I think there is a level at which we need to tell the young people, and the members of the Church, not to be oversensitive to ambiguity. But I think we also have a responsibility to reach closure where we can.”

·        Leon Walker: “I think we should be honest, and say that there is ambiguity, rather than taking a dogmatic position when we cannot and should not do so.”

·        Clyde Kilough: “Aaron said something earlier, that in all these studies of these papers, nothing had shaken his faith. We have already allowed alternate explanations at two levels – very narrow levels, but at the doctrinal subcommittee [level] and at the Council [level]. The reason why we allow it there is that there’s a pretty big trust level. We trust this is not going to shake anybody’s faith, and we trust that it’s not going to become divisive in their lives. In some ways, we’re talking about how far do we trust throwing this out? Because we don’t want to shake peoples’ faith or have something divisive. To me that’s as big a concern… you have people… not only will their faith be shaken, but they have very suspicious minds if anybody presents an alternative – that you’re going to lead us down the slippery slope of liberalism and change… eventually the goal is to bring the trust level up. That the bulk of the ministry and membership will be able to discuss ambiguous things and not  be divided. But we are certainly fighting a cultural problem, decades long, of ‘we have the prophetic word [made] more sure.’ I think some people think that means that every prophetic word has to be nailed down and there has to be a definitive statement… there are some things we just don’t know.”

At this point, Mr. Walker asked for more direct input on what process should be followed for putting forward alternate views of prophetic subjects. Dr. Ward and Mr. Walker summarized the current process for dealing with proposed changes in doctrinal topics:

·        Papers advocating a change are submitted to the Doctrine Committee.

·        If the Doctrine Committee agrees that the change is correct the paper must be submitted to the entire Council.

·        If the entire Council agrees that the change is correct the paper must be submitted to the GCE for its three-fourths approval.

Mr. Walker agreed with Mr. Dick that we do not really have a process to deal with the situation he brought to the Council today. He suggested holding the two papers in question, and having the Doctrine Committee establish a process and criteria for dealing with alternate interpretations of prophetic topics. The Council, when polled, gave its unanimous support (John Jewell and Gary Antion absent — the latter to teach an ABC class).

Education Committee

            Dr. Ward moderated an extensive session to handle several matters connected to the Education Committee of the Council.

After minor “wordsmithing,” the Council quorum (John Jewell absent) approved the concept of a ministerial services committee of the Council, which will merge with the existing Education Committee, now to be known as the Education/Ministerial Services Committee (Don Ward, chairman).

The mission statement of the revamped committee explains that the intent of expanding the committee to include a ministerial services component is to “provide oversight and guidance within the Church for the service and care of local congregations,” which the Church Constitution requires of the Council (Constitution article 3.2.2.4). Its scope includes working with Ministerial Services to recommend, review, and evaluate policies, plans, programs and personnel. It will also interface with Ministerial Services to keep the entire Council apprised of these same areas, plus budgetary issues. By working beforehand more closely with the Ministerial Services operation, the committee members intend to save face-to-face Council meeting time by refining beforehand proposed policies and programs for presentation to the entire Council.

            The Council quorum next unanimously approved (11-0) the draft of a new Member Assistance manual.

The Council then discussed the current ordination certificate for elders. The earlier versions of the certificate were constructed hastily, of necessity, shortly after the formation of the United Church of God. The group worked over and unanimously approved a new format which will be implemented soon.

            Dr. Ward next directed the Council’s attention to fine-tuning an informative letter for church pastors, to accompany a videotape of the Council meeting in Clearwater Beach, Florida, in which they listened to a presentation by Dennis Luker, Melvin Rhodes, and Dr. Joseph Nicolosi on helping those who are struggling with overcoming homosexuality. They approved a resolution approving the publication of “Anchor, a Publication of Hope for Christians Struggling with Homosexuality” and its related Web site, Anchorhelp.com, linking the site with the official Web site of the United Church of God. The same resolution appoints Mr. Rhodes as managing editor of the publication and Web site, with Mr. Luker and Mr. Antion serving as senior writers. The ballot in support was 10 for, none against, Gary Antion abstaining (abstaining because he is named in the resolution as a senior writer). John Jewell was absent due to illness.

            Proposals for issuing official Church certificates for the ceremonies of baptism, blessing of children, and marriage were brought forward. After some discussion the Council quorum balloted 11-0 against issuing certificates for baptism and blessing of children ceremonies. Further discussion about the possibility of an official certificate for marriages performed by UCG pastors led to a vote of five opposed (Messrs. Dick, Kilough, Kubik, Thompson, and Walker); four in support (Messrs. Antion, Holladay, McCullough, Ward); and two abstaining (Mr. Dean and Mr. Seiglie). The motion was defeated.

            Dr. Ward then asked Mr. Kilough to bring the Council up to date on the concept of Christ-centered servant leadership. Mr. Kilough briefed the Council on what has been accomplished, what is occurring on an ongoing manner, and what yet remains to be implemented. He stressed that this is not a project that with an expiration date, but an approach in which we should all constantly grow.

            Dr. Ward informed the Council of discussions he and Ministerial operation manager Richard Pinelli have had in planning a task force for ministerial education. As envisioned, it will be composed of Mr. Pinelli and the Ministerial Services team, two regional pastors, two church pastors, two non-salaried elders, and Mr. Antion as ABC representative. Council approved.

            Following lengthy discussion of  Feast of Tabernacles plans for the Council members, and related information on ministerial Feast tranfers, festival site manpower, and guest speakers, the Council meeting concluded at 5:40 p.m.

-Doug Johnson

© 2002 United Church of God, an International Association