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

Friday, January 15, 1999 - Tyler, Texas 

The Council today took a major step forward in what has been a long journey of formulating the Rules of Association for the United Church of God, an International Association. Jim Franks, who has been the facilitator for Council discussions on this project, led the three-and-a-half hour discussion that focused on two broad areas: 1) general reaction to how the process has been going, the latest round in particular, and 2) the eight main issues that need resolution at this stage.

Gary Antion making point in meeting
as Roy Holladay looks on

When a body of people around the world wants to be knit together, organized and associated with one another, various practical and logistical problems will inevitably exist. The Rules of Association seek to bring a common approach to those issues, dealing with subjects such as the general organizational and legal structure of the church, defining individual church membership and local congregations, national councils, collecting funds and assets, local building funds, ministerial transfers, local church corporations, financial subsidies, dissemination of teachings, ordaining elders, conflict resolution and discipline.

Why the slow development?

Because the Constitutionally-mandated Rules of Association are central to the organizational philosophy of the UCGIA, the developmental process has been purposefully deliberate, but perhaps more protracted than any expected. The process has revealed that some hold differing philosophies even about the Rules of Association—mainly, some want very few rules, others want everything spelled out. As ministers and members have submitted sometimes contradictory input to the three draft versions of this document, seeking a middle ground for opposite views on several issues has slowed the pace of progress.

"We’re looking for a truly collaborative effort, everyone working together to produce the best product possible. This draft is not the work of any one person. We’ve tried to accommodate multiple people every step of the way, but now it seems we’ve arrived at the point where we need to define what the end is going to be and how we plan to achieve it," Mr. Franks stated in his introductory remarks.

"We’re trying to do the best we can to resolve the issues and bring about what was promised at Indianapolis and even later on, the fact that there would be Rules of Association. I’m not sure that everyone had the same idea in mind when these things were discussed. I think many of us felt early on that we were talking about Rules of Association for the international areas. It’s obviously broader than that and we’re trying to accommodate that the best we can.

"I think we’re approaching a point of diminishing returns with the drafts. By that I mean the first draft went out and we got a certain amount of edits. We put those into the document, that goes out and another group objected to those edits. Now their comments have come back and we go back again and now we’re sort of going back and forth like a Ping-Pong ball with the drafts. Are we getting more input than we can use without contradicting the input of someone else? I think we’ve reached that point."

As a result, he proposed taking the following steps at this stage:

Step One: At this current meeting the Council reviews the latest input from the General Conference of Elders (GCE) and congregations and edits the current draft.

Step Two: Send this edited draft (now number four) to the GCE with notification that a breakout session for those interested will be held during the Annual Meeting in March to discuss it. Further edits should be submitted in writing by March 1.

Step Three: The results of this breakout session should be shared with the Council in its meeting which immediately follows, and a new document is produced.

Step Four: Before proceeding, individual discussions begin with the international areas to be sure that we have agreement.

Step Five: Individual discussions begin with concerned groups in the US to see what problems remain and how to correct them. These issues will need clarification before moving forward.

Step Six: The Council approves the final draft and forwards it to the GCE for ratification, although no time limit has been established for that ballot.

Reaction to the reactions—keeping things constructive

Before looking at Mr. Franks’ suggestions about how to proceed from here, the Council members discussed at length some overall concepts.

Admittedly, there have been frustrations along the way, the two greatest being: 1) conflicting responses to the drafts, with some thinking it is great and others thinking it is awful, and 2) receiving criticisms with no constructive solutions offered. Because these were drafts, they were sent out for the purpose of soliciting input and allowing everyone to contribute to its development, but at times feedback has been only critical without being helpful.

Leon Walker stated, "I would like to stress that we ask for a certain type of input, not just a critique or evaluation. ‘I don’t like it and I’m not going to vote for it’ doesn’t do anyone any good. We need specific edits and not just a general critique. If you are part of the process and don’t agree with it you can certainly vote against it, but if you refuse to be part of the process how can you complain about it?"

It is also very important to understand the meanings of some words in the New Testament, he added. "There are some who say, ‘This document is controlling, these are rules.’ Anytime you have a church, a family, a nation, any institution, you have rules or you have chaos and anarchy. Some are trying to equate ‘authority’ with ‘authoritarian’ and those two are very opposite concepts. Some would have us scrap the document completely because they don’t agree with any kind of rules, any kind of authority, and the word ‘control’ is an exceedingly bad word. I think we have to understand where some are coming from in that respect."

Bob Dick elaborated, "I would add to what Leon stated. If someone is not happy with a point, [and does not offer] something creative that bridges what we have with where they are, we are not served at all with just criticism. We’re at the point now if someone is not happy, tell us how we accommodate where you are without scrapping where someone else is. If we have to accommodate you by scrapping someone else, we’re back to the yo-yo, and we’re finished yo-yoing."

Mr. Franks responded, "We have put in literally, word for word, hundreds of edits in this document from what people have recommended. The first draft was very general and the first group said we want more specifics and a lot more detail. The second draft provided more detail and ‘now you’re controlling and trying to run everything.’ Okay, now the next draft you try to end up in the middle and with one group saying "there’s not enough" while the other group saying "you’re too controlling!"

Gary Antion suggested that engaging some interested volunteers to work on problematic areas would give more people even more ownership of this document and it would not appear to be generated entirely by the Council.

Aaron Dean noted that some have done a wonderful job in pointing out flaws in some of the sections and offering constructive solutions. Some of the harsh reaction, however, seems to stem from some thinking that the GCE was going to vote on this latest draft version at its March meeting.

Victor Kubik observed that among both the ministry or congregations, various levels of interest exist about the Rules of Association, ranging from those who have no idea what they are to those who are intensely concerned. He endorsed the idea of Council members going personally to the ones who dislike the document, address their specific concerns, make sure they understand the rationale behind opposite views, and try to reach a happy medium.

"What I see a lot is a misperception," stated Roy Holladay, "throwing out wrong issues, issues that are not really issues we are trying to deal with. This document does not deal with our relationship with other groups. It has nothing to do with our relationship on a personal basis or fellowship with other people. Yet these keep being thrown out as if that is what will be undermined by this document. People need to understand what truly are the issues, and how do we deal with them, without being emotional."

The eight main issues

Mr. Franks then moved to eight points, identified from the latest round of input, that the Council needed to address. "These are not burning issues with everyone—for some they would not be issues at all—but there are probably three or four in here that seem to be issues with a number of people," he said.

1) Defining "the Church."

"This is a troubling area for some," he began. They ask what is meant in the Rules of Association when we use the word "church," or when it is spelled with a capital "C" versus a lowercase "c." Since it is not self-evident for some that these are being written for the United Church of God, Mr. Kubik suggested simply defining at the beginning of the document that we mean the organization of the UCGIA.

Joel Meeker added, "There is differentiation between ‘the Church’ as the larger body of Christ, and ‘the church’ as our association. If we are only going to use one we need to clarify what we mean."

2) Defining "Church members" and how they are represented by the ministry.

"This issue has the same difficulty as the issue of ‘the church,’" explained Mr. Franks. Some have asked what exactly are we talking about when we say "member"—do we mean a member of the organization, a member of the church, a congregation, an individual? "Our attempt was to define church members who are a part of United, not church members who are a part of the body of Christ, in whatever organization they are in. We’re trying to define what a church member of the United Church of God is [but] we don’t want to debate whether someone is a member of the greater body of the Church of God."

Another related issue that has been constantly mentioned, said Mr. Walker, "is that ‘only the ministers are members of the United Church of God, what about the rest of us? We’re second-class citizens, there is a privileged class,’ and so on. I think it would be good if we began to define that in some way. I am an American, but I’m not a member of the governing body. That doesn’t make me any less an American than a member of Congress. Simply because a member is not a member of the governing body, is not on the Council or GCE, that does not mean that person is not a member of the United Church of God. Of course they are. But we do need to define that." He also recommended defining the word "affiliate."

3) The idea of "control."

Even though the word "control" is never used in the Rules of Association, that perception is strong for some. Part of the challenge in drafting this document, Mr. Franks said, is that we are currently in an atmosphere of suspicion that makes it very sensitive.

Mr. Kubik stated, "I was trying to analyze it and ask ‘what is the question about control and what is the objection to control?’ I would say the most common thread I have found is the perception is that [this draft] is one-sided, that it tells who will legislate and dictate policies. That requires some type of mollification from the standpoint of being a one-sided autocracy that tells people what to do, which is not the intent at all."

Mr. Walker added, "We and the ministry should be educating ourselves and the membership in these areas. Obviously there can be abusive control, authoritarianism, where you have those who terrorize and abuse people just for the sake of control itself. ‘I’ll do this because I want you to know I have the power to do it’—that sort of attitude and approach, which we do not have and do not wish to have. We wish to follow Matthew 20, using authority in the right kind of way in serving. The very fact that we have sent this document out to the ministry and to the membership is demonstrative of the fact that we are not trying to control. We’re asking, how would you like to word this? I really believe we’re striving not to exercise an abusive control, but to have those policies in place with input from the membership and ministry so that it is not authoritarian."

"I think people admit there have to be controls," said Mr. Antion. "I think they are referring to undue control or infringing control. Education is what’s really important. Authority is taught throughout the Scriptures in both the Old and New Testament; it’s how that authority is used that is the issue."

Mr. Franks asked, "My thought is, if someone would simply read the Constitution and Bylaws and realize that when we began this organization there was a certain amount of authority and responsibility and there is nothing in these rules outside of further defining some of that. In my opinion there are some things that need to be stated better and maybe even some things that need to be eliminated, but if we had no Rules of Association most of these same things would be done by policy."

4) Advisory councils and committees.

Several had pointed out that the Constitution states that congregations may form advisory committees, but the current draft of the Rules of Association says the ministry forms them.

"It wasn’t an attempt to contravene the Constitution," Mr. Franks explained. "It was an actual edit from several people who said we need to define this. What do you mean when you say ‘the congregation can do this?’ To me, maybe the proper way of doing it is to say the ministry and the congregation form advisory councils. They really have to work together or what value would it be?"

Mr. Antion rhetorically asked, "Isn’t a minister part of the congregation? A congregation includes the minister so when we say ‘a congregation may establish...’ that doesn’t exclude the minister!"

Mr. Dean pointed out that some members are more sensitized to this because some pastors have alienated them by arbitrarily disbanding advisory councils.

On the other hand, however, questions arise as to exactly how does a congregation go about forming such a committee, since that is not procedurally defined in the Constitution. Or, if it is done without the pastor’s involvement and is only ‘advisory,’ what does that mean?

"I’m looking for a way of wording it that it is properly explained," Mr. Franks said. "It may have been awkward in this last draft, although we used people’s input. On the face of it, it does appear to be contradictory to our Constitution and we need to resolve it in some way to be understandable and consistent."

Part of the resolution may involve coming to a mutual understanding of the Constitution’s wording. Mr. Dick commented, "I look at the content of this particular article and the structure of it, and [some] have taken the sentence ‘a congregation may establish one or more advisory councils’ out of the context, and it is defined by the context. The preceding sentence says ‘each local congregation is guided and shepherded by a pastor, assisted by elders, deacons and deaconesses.’ That is not separate from the following sentence. I’m not sure if we’re not wrestling with the context of what 3.2.2 is. You can’t lift half of a sentence out of a context. It lives by what precedes and what follows it. It goes back to the skill of the minister who works cooperatively—he creates the dilemma or erases the dilemma, but that doesn’t change the intent of the statement."

Mr. Walker stated, "The Rules of Association are meant to flesh out the Constitution, not contradict it. If it is felt by congregations that this needs some sort of definition in terms of process and procedures whereby advisory councils are formed, then we should do that somewhere, but I don’t know that it should fall in this document." He also pointed out that the Constitution does not authorize any committee to do anything other than advise, not control.

Mr. Antion suggested using the phrase, "the congregation, guided by the ministry, may establish..." because that uses language consistent within the context of the Constitution.

5) Use of the term "ministry" or "minister" instead of "elder."

One member of the GCE advocated using the word "elder" consistently throughout the document to avoid misuse of the words "ministry" and "minister." Since these words permeate the document Mr. Franks brought this point forward for discussion.

Mr. Holladay thought it would eliminate any confusion to use the word "elder" throughout, although the general feeling was that the other terms were not illegitimate. "We have to take into account modern terminology and usage," said Mr. Walker. We use the word ‘mister’ today, even though it came from the word ‘master.’ It means nothing of the sort today, however."

Even though the word "elder" in the Bible can also mean an older person, Mr. Antion supported using the word for consistency’s sake and also because our documents already define "elder" simply as an ordained minister in good standing.

6) Collecting funds locally and maintaining local accounts.

The recommendation from the 1995 meeting in Indianapolis was that local congregations may take care of their expenses and send excess to the Home Office. This draft further recommends that the Council, the Home Office management team and the local congregation agree on what is an acceptable balance, but this concept generated conflicting feedback.

"For some it was very satisfactory, but there are those who ask ‘what if we disagree; what do we do then?’ I don’t know how you can answer all those questions," Mr. Franks said. "This last draft seemed to be less troubling than previous drafts, but there were some who had trouble with that and some feel you have no right to tell them how much money they can maintain at all. I don’t know how you resolve some of that, but I think that’s where the personal discussions will have to come in."

Several made suggestions for clarifying most of the issues called into question, such as congregations submitting budgets for Home Office approval. Overall, only a small number of congregations are collecting tithes locally, and the number has been consistently going down.

7) Transferring a minister.

The initial draft stated that congregations would give input in cases of possible ministerial transfers. Again, some asked how that is to be done. Does that mean, for example, that five people is enough to be considered "input?" The next draft said that in some cases it would be impossible to get that input, such as when a circumstance may be private or personal. "The idea was not to promise input on everything, but some perceived that to mean that ‘you can arbitrarily decide when you get input and when you don’t. The intent was that you not reveal something personal," Mr. Franks said.

Mr. Walker offered a scenario where some form of indiscretion could occur that also involved others in the congregation, or a personal problem that privately affected local members. If a minister had a personal problem that did not disqualify him from being a pastor, but in dealing with it he and/or others felt it best to transfer him, it could be improper to publicly air the circumstances and open it up for congregational input. The vast majority of transfers do not involve such circumstances, and the goal in wording this section is to make sure it generally involves the congregation, but allows for some of the unusual exceptions to the rule which could preclude it.

It should be noted, Mr. Antion said, that "input means input, it does not mean final decision-making authority. Input is giving an opinion, but [management] still has to make the decision." Being a pastor is an appointed position, not one derived from the vote of the congregation, yet the desire is to have the cooperation and input of all involved. The negative potential of this approach is that it could "politicize" members into lobbying for or against such a transfer.

Quite a bit of discussion revolved around whether this document should even deal with the details of ministerial transfers, or whether that should be an administrative procedure eventually developed by Ministerial Services and/or approved by the Council.

On the lighter side, Dr. Ward raised a laugh when he said, "I would submit that there is no way you will prevent getting a congregation’s input! As soon as it’s known the minister is going to transfer, the congregation will get involved."

8) Church buildings.

This subject did not generate a lot of conversations, because for those who have expressed concerns, it seems they are unaware that we already have a policy, Mr. Franks said. "My suggestion for solving this is to quote the policy regarding church buildings."

Mr. Franks thanked everyone for "a valuable discussion" and said he would try to have a revised draft before the meetings end for everyone to review and approve for taking it to the general conference.

Media matters

After an hour-long executive session the Council ended the day discussing media topics, mostly continuing with a theme that has been broached in several previous Council meetings: centrally producing television and/or radio programs. Two major factors consistently arise: what course to take at this stage in the church’s growth, and how much of the budget to allot to these projects.

Several first recommended that any such decisions need to be part of a broader strategic media plan. "I think it’s going to be imperative for us to produce something centrally and make it available to people to put on local TV," said Mr. Holladay. He advised setting some goals and dates and designating some money in the next budget for it.

Mr. Meeker stated, "A big part of why we exist is to preach the gospel and a lot of the way we do that is through media. For us to make optimum use of the resources that we’re putting into that, it needs to be planned and it needs to be done well. We need to be organized and structured in what we do and it needs to proceed in some sort of methodical way."

The Council, however, has to decide a major philosophical question, Mr. McCullough pointed out. "What is it we wish to do? Mr. Armstrong always said, at least in the earlier years, television broadcasts and radio broadcasts were to get people on to the Plain Truth magazine, to call their attention to it and get regular readership to the Plain Truth. In addition, there was a matter of a witness that was going out. Do we want to take the stand that we will go into television and the end desire of our efforts in television is to get people on to the Good News?  If that’s the case we can do it so much more cheaply in so many other ways. If we’re saying, no, we need to take a stance in regards to some type of witness or proclamation gospel in general and let the chips fall where they may with the magazine, fine. This is our problem. If we want to build the subscription list to the Good News there are far less expensive ways of doing it."

Mr. Kirkpatrick continued this thought, asking, "Is TV and radio an end in itself, or is it a means to an end? If that end is building the Good News subscriber list, I think you will see in the Operating Plan on Monday that we are very interested in that end—growing and developing the Good News. TV can be one means to that end. If it is an end in itself—that we have to be on the air—and there is another reason to do it, we have to articulate it."

Mr. Antion stated, "There is a TV audience that doesn’t read very much, and it can be reached. What I see us asking for now is not to go on TV buying all sorts of air time, but saying let’s do a centrally-produced radio and TV program that could be used out there in local access at the present time. Let’s get some experience in this. I don’t see us being able to enact a media plan, although I agree with Joel that we need to have a plan. I think we need to do some testing, though. Once we feel comfortable then we are ready to go. When we’re at stage zero and want to get to stage 10, you can’t jump to stage ten; you have to work your way there and have a plan for incrementally getting there." He suggested producing a series that could rotate from city to city.

The Council members quickly bounced a few other ideas around as time wound down, but not with the goal of making final decisions. Before launching long-term efforts, this subject will require a lot of continuing deliberations to answer the many who-what-where-when-why-how questions.

In its last action of the day, the Council unanimously passed a resolution authorizing beginning production of a 1999 Feast film.

Friday’s meeting ended a little earlier than normal to allow Council members time to travel to several surrounding church areas. Meetings resume Monday morning.

- Clyde Kilough

© 1999 United Church of God, an International Association