Sunday 2 August 2009

They're gone - but what does it mean?

Roy Holladay has made it official: Clyde Kilough and Thompson have walked. They're no longer on the COE for "personal reasons." That's a term that covers a multitude of possibilities, so those who are garden-variety UCG members are none the wiser.

How exactly, though, does Bonnie Prince Clyde expect to continue functioning as president when he won't talk to his COE?

Holladay is obviously trying to calm the troops with soothing reassurances, and fair enough, that's his job, though walking on water might be an easier task. If "personal reasons" meant nothing too disturbing, wouldn't you have thought Clyde might have written that letter himself?

The real question now is can this situation really continue? Next step - given that Kilough and Thompson appear to have burned their bridges beyond repair, is to find two new councilors to take their places. Those in the know will be paying close attention.

Out on the fringes there are the expected expostulations and cries of conspiracy. In the unlikely event that Aaron Dean is indeed the mastermind behind some nefarious plot, then we may need to redefine the term "mastermind" in a southerly direction. Perhaps, now the resignations have been outed, those of us not in UCG can instead settle down and breathe slowly through our noses while the stage is set for the next act.

On the other hand, those of you who are in UCG should be making it clear that you are not silent partners in your own church. You have a voice and should be using it. If there are contentious issues behind the current developments, and it seems there are, they should be getting an airing out in the open, not hidden away where only a few are privy to the debate.

Here's the Holladay epistle:

July 31, 2009.

Dear Fellow Elders,

Serving on the Council of Elders represents a high-profile responsibility that is demanding and rewarding at the same time. This responsibility is demanding in the sense that most of our Council members are also church pastors or work full-time in other positions, which makes additional demands on a Council member’s limited time. It is rewarding in the fact that we on the Council have a humbling opportunity to render service in a unique way.

As a result of the last General Conference of Elders annual meeting, the Council has undergone some changes with new members being added. After serving on the Council for the previous two years, I was named as the Council’s new chairman. It is in that role as chairman that I am writing to you to openly inform you of two additional changes.

Effective Monday, July 27, Richard Thompson resigned from the Council for personal reasons. On Tuesday, July 28, Clyde Kilough, who of course serves as the president of the United Church of God, resigned from the Council for personal reasons. Clyde will continue in his role as president, and Richard will continue serving as a pastor for the United Church of God and as a member of the Church’s Ministerial Services Team.

Both men have served faithfully and well on the Council in a multitude of responsibilities. There is no question that they have made and will continue to make important contributions to the work of the Church. Both contributed directly to the development of the Church’s strategic planning process, and that plan will go forward.

Knowing firsthand of the workload and commitment required to serve on the Council, we respect both their past contributions and their current decisions to step away and focus on other duties within the Church.

A natural question now arises: Who will replace them in the now-open positions on the Council? Thankfully, the United Church of God has an orderly process in place for such an occasion. The Church’s Bylaws stipulate that the next in line (as selected in the last General Conference of Elders’ ballot) be notified of their opportunity to serve. Given the weighty responsibilities that a Council member bears, it is logical that time be allowed for the potential new members to consider this new role before they agree to accept. This process is now being followed.

This is not the first time a Council member has resigned while still serving a term, and the orderly process of bringing in a new member has worked well. We believe that this time will be no different.

I should also point out that it was the Council’s original intent to announce both the resignations of the two men and the two new Council members at the same time. To rightly accommodate the required and wise process of notification and reflection by the potential new members, the Council thought it best to openly communicate these changes in a timely manner. It is said that nature abhors a vacuum, and I have found that the same can be true of speculative comments filling an information void. Hence this communication to you now.

For those of you who follow the Council reports, I might point out that the Council reporter was unaware of the resignations when he prepared the traditional report earlier this week. In his official report, he thus erroneously (albeit honestly in the absence of the current information) listed the two former Council members as not being in attendance. That honest error will be corrected.

I am personally grateful that the Church has in place an orderly process that addresses developments such as these. The United Church of God is growing and we will continue to execute on the formal Strategic Plan to which so many have made worthy contributions. We will notify you of the new Council members once the process is complete and they are confirmed. You of course are welcome to share news of this development with our members.

Roy Holladay


Anonymous said...

This was expected

Richard said...

Why would the "reporter" of COE meetings be kept out of the loop on this?

It makes me wonder if the COE members in attendance even knew what was happening.

The Internet is making it harder for any Church of God group to delay big announcements until everything is perfectly in order. UCG tried to do that with the announcement of the move to Texas, but "Bible Betty" spilled the beans here. This case should reinforce that fact.

Jim Butler said...

I attend United.

Governance is a complicated concept. Those that simplify it, “one man rule”, rule by committee, etc. have not thought very deeply about the workings of governance. It gets at the core of life and relationships. It is very complex.

My tentative conclusion, (not really having any inside knowledge), is that Clyde and Richard decided that their differences with the majority of the council would get in the way of the running of the council. As anyone reading the minutes of the meetings, teleconferences, etc. should know, there has been some real friction among the members of the council. Probably the two main issues have been the “alternative forum” and the move to Texas.

The council “make-up” has changed quite a bit in the past two years.
About three years ago Clyde made a comment about how the chemistry of the council made meetings very harmonious, something to that effect. That has not been the case the last year and a half or so.

There is nothing wrong with disagreements. Perhaps the key to solving disagreements is for “both sides” or the “many sides” being willing to compromise and come up with something everyone can live with. If that can’t be done, and in most cases, if not all, it can be done with enough work, then some need to step aside and allow those that can live with a compromise move forward.

Gavin’s comment about Clyde not being able to talk to the council was, I’m sure, a bit of hyperbole to make a point. There is a problem right now. There is no denying that. Perhaps the best solution is for some to step aside in that particular area of governance.

As Gavin has mentioned a number of times, United has the most enlightend governance structure of any of the splinters. Transparency and "airing dirty laundry" (if done wisely) is healthy for the most part. God and the Bible make that clear.


Questeruk said...

“How exactly, though, does Bonnie Prince Clyde expect to continue functioning as president when he won't talk to his COE?”

When Roy Holladay became President he felt there was a conflict of interest to be both on the Council, and to also be President. (i.e. The fact that as President he was working FOR the Council of Elders, but also as a member of the Council, he was giving direction TO the President). He stood down from the Council, and continued just as President.

I realise circumstances may well be different here, but to actually be President but not be on the Council has been done before.

Anonymous said...

Bad Billy L. writes...

Is it Bonnie Prince Clyde...

or Bonnie AND Clyde??

Clip of last UCG COE meeting

(Copy and past and put into browser)

jack635 said...

Maybe they'll start their own church, with their own rules. THEY'LL SHOW THEM!

And of course their own bank account for the tithes of the loyal emigrees.

The rolling COG isn't gathering moss, it's falling into gravel and sand.

Anonymous said...

Government is not complicated at all. The reason for the cog,s (except one) problems is that there is too much ego and pride and not enough submission to God and to one another. Everybody wants to be the top dog. Lucifer was the same way, he could not accept his position and look what he did.

Anonymous said...

the whole government thing is badly misunderstood.
there are positions of responsibility in the Church for sure, but no one has authority over another in the Church.
we all report to God.

some are responsible to choosing the location of worship services, setting the order of services, choosing Feast sites, etc. etc....and some misconstrue that as authority.

and there most certainly is NOT any one man in charge of the Church on earth. there never has been (other than Christ Himself) and never will be.

Tkach's $wiss Banker said...

If Rappin' Rod was in charge, things would be different! The trains would run on time.

Time to crack some heads with the millennial rod of iron!

Corky said...

Anonymous said...
Lucifer was the same way, he could not accept his position and look what he did..

Read the context. The parable is to the king of Babylon. The main is that it is a parable (proverb by the KJV).

It refers to the morning star (Venus) which rises before the sun comes up but appears to fall back to earth. It is because of it being an inner planet (between the earth and the sun) that it does not traverse the sky.

The Babylonians, being astronomers, would know the meaning of the proverb - it's too bad that Christians don't.

In this parable, the king is the morning star and God is the sun, speaking powerwise, that is.

Byker Bob said...

How quickly everyone forgets. For years, there was apparent unity in WCG, but that was an illusion. HWA's legendary temper and penchant for absolute power were the source of that illusion. He'd simply shout down and or disfellowship all dissenters. Unity, produced in this manner, is yet another way in which humans attempt to fake one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.


Mel said...

Anon, of Aug 03, 06:14:00
forgot to mention in which of the "cog,s" it is, that there aren't those pesky leadership ego problems.

So many splinters to choose from...and the time is so short.

Please don't make us defer to Tom's or Larry's egotistically enormous 'ball-sacks-O-wisdom' for the answer!

Questeruk said...

Corky said... “It refers to the morning star (Venus) which rises before the sun comes up but appears to fall back to earth. It is because of it being an inner planet (between the earth and the sun) that it does not traverse the sky.”

This is only partially correct. Venus being an inner planet is always relatively near the same direction of the sun.

When Venus is the ‘morning star’ it will be at its brightest prior to the rising of the sun, but it will not ‘fall back’ to earth, it will actually continue to traverse the sky, in tandem with the sun. As the sun rises Venus will appear to fade, as the light of the sun overpowers the light of Venus.

There is definitely no ‘falling back’ to earth; Venus is still in the sky throughout the day with the sun. When Venus is at its closest approach to earth, and at its brightest, it can often still be seen during the day, high in the sky – its about the only body that can be seen during full daytime, apart from the sun or the moon.

Exactly the same would be happening when the Babylonian astronomers were observing the planet. There would be no ‘falling back’ to earth then either.

Sorry Corky, the facts of the matter blow the meaning you ascribe to these verses.

Anonymous said...

Even the best men tire. My guess is that these two are men of honor and daily prayer. But the world is changing, the church must adjust, UCG researchers must be coming to inevitable improvements in understanding, some of which will radically change "traditional" teachings and raise a lot of faithful eyebrows (but faithful to what?).

If Einstein hadn't challenged the status quo, we'd still only know Newton's mechanical universe. If church brethren really believe they should call no man master, then they must know that Armstrong's vision is subject to scrutiny, or they're derelict in the sight of God and men.

Even though many oldtimers are deeply attached to the Armstrong heritage, that heritage contained teachings that should be used as stepping stones rather than sacred cows. Armstrong's vision was not the "faith once delivered to the saints," but it was related.

Jude's admonition wasn't written about teachings that would surface or be created in a branch of Christianity 1900 years later. Isn't that obvious?

Jesus was an ardent supporter of the Law, Prophets and Psalms. Like him, is United part of the continuum begun at Sinai? If so, it has a long way to go to recapture all the true values of that ancient revelation. I'm not sure that United has, or ever had, any intention of really contending for the faith that Jude spoke about; but if they do, their good people are as subject to burnout as the rest of us, and will occasionally need a rest, like these two.

        AMERICAN KABUKI said...

Kevin Kelly in his book "Out of Control" posits that every complex system is highly dependent on its starting conditions. There's a fractal tendency for initial behaviors to repeat themselves in a chaotic pattern around what math professors call a "strange attractor" (Sounds like a good name for Weinland doesn't it?).

Churches are very complex systems.

Herbert and Loma Armstrong's family dysfunctions carried over into the way the church ran. Evil deeds by leaders were covered up, and not spoken of. The ministry acted like an abused wife to the ever angry Herbert. He'd get his wife beater t-shirt on and all the ministers would start cringing and running for cover. What he really needed was a pop in the mouth back. Life eventually gave that to him. Fortunately every tyrant has an expiration date.

Considering how the UCG was formed surreptitiously, it should be no surprise to see it repeat that pattern with ever newer (same pattern though) of defections.

The old guard is aging away. They never loved the next generation anyway - so its no surprise that generation is not too fond of them either. The dirtiest word in COG land is "2nd Generation Christian". The bad news for the old guard is they now outnumber them.

Anonymous said...

I rarely agree with Corky, and am not sure I do this time, but this matter of "Lucifer" might give anyone pause.

In Latin Lucifer is used for "morning star" or "day star." Isaiah 14 says, in a taunt against the king of Babylon, "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star (Lucifer in Latin), son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

In the NT Peter looks forward to the time when the morning star (Lucifer, in Latin), rises in our hearts (1:19). And in Revelation, Jesus says he is the bright morning star (Lucifer, in Latin).

Wikipedia has much to say about this. Is "morning star," the planet Venus, Lucifer (Haylail in Isa. 14) a metaphor for brilliant men of noble mien? Quite a puzzlement.

Anonymous said...

Bob said "For years, there was apparent unity in WCG, but that was an illusion."

How true, Bob. I was utterly shocked, after the Tkach "everything is optional" sermon in early 1995, at how DIFFERENT all of our beliefs really were. My discussions with other church members literally shook my foundations.

Before that, I had thought we "all spoke the same thing", with just minor differences. I did my best for years to obey everything the church taught. I thought everybody else did, too. It turned out that was not the case.

After the Tkach sermon, I heard every variety of opinion possible, from "nothing has changed - everything is still the same" to "what right do I have to have an opinion - that's up to God's leadership" to "I never believed (insert doctrine) anyway, I always knew that wasn't true and I didn't practice it". I heard that last one a LOT, with regard to tithing, smoking, makup, pork, you name it.

Bob is 100% right, the apparent unity we had under HWA was just an illusion, enforced by fear and intimidation.

The Skeptic

Anonymous said...

Finally hearing some things of substance, but have not been able to yet confirm all of it. Apparently some in UCG (probably in the ministry) have gotten what were deemed intimadating to almost threatening letters from some in Administration. they received these messages because they disagreed with the administration on some points. Apparently, the COE is coming to town this next week and were going to deal with this in some manner.

Also, apparently an issue is that the TX move was reversed. This is sticking in some folks craw!! Some of them WANT TO BE IN TEXAS and that is that!!

The reduction in number of executive sessions is also making some none too happy!!

Will keep watching, listening!!

Corky said...

Questeruk said...
Corky said... “It refers to the morning star (Venus) which rises before the sun comes up but appears to fall back to earth. It is because of it being an inner planet (between the earth and the sun) that it does not traverse the sky.”
Yeah, I left off a word, it does not "visibly" traverse the sky is what I meant to say.

If I remember correctly, it was Pythagorus in the 6th century BC who figured out that the morning star (Venus) and the evening star were both the same star.

Before the sun reaches its zenith the planet becomes invisible to the naked eye - thus it has fallen from the sky back to earth.

Oh well, I probably still don't have that just right.

Anyway, even though there is a Satan in the minds of the Christians, Satan is not mentioned in that passage.

Satan doesn't appear anywhere in the OT except in Job and Job is not a literal story but is a long parable about Israel and its adversary and 3 allies.

Too long to explain ...

Mel said...

After Skeptic mentioned, "Tkach's 'everything is optional' sermon in early 1995", it got me to wondering if that pivotal message caused lots of disagreements and alternative ideas that were once kept at bay and hidden, to rise up.
(And, that the more ego-driven felt more free to proclaim that THEY had the real truth which people needed.)

It might help explain the proliferation of splinter groups.

BTW, is that sermon online?

And, also, because it's hard to admit that one has swallowed a load of garbage, so many have made small adjustments to what they swallowed as "THE TRUTH" and now declare their slightly augmented understanding as being golden.
(And this relates to the fact that it's an alluring thing to see one's self as a big fish in the pond(even though, and because, the ponds are now quite small.)

To those who say, "You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater!", I'll say that the horrible "baby" is like the hideous Chucky doll, and should be disposed of thoroughly, lest there be more awful "Chucky" movies.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Aug 5, 4:40 stated " Apparently some in UCG (probably in the ministry) have gotten what were deemed intimidating to almost threatening letters from some in Administration."

Someone please determine what threatening letters are from the administration. Is it the letter to an elder who was told to stop sending out communication to other elders telling them if you believe like us to vote for this individuals?

Has any one every received a letter from their boss they thought could be threatening.

The issue is the alternate forum that some ministers / elders open to discuss matters outside of the elder forum in private and restricted and allegedly discussed who should be voted onto the council.

When this is discussed in the COE meetings the ministry involve in the alternate forum do not recuse themselves from the discussion, but are the ones answering the questions that have been sent in by elders and members who are concern. And then these same men throw out the statement intimidating letters from the administration instead of addressing the questions rightfully. It is kept it in open session to limit the discussion of names.

Get the facts - there is one primary issue and it is not to or not to move to Texas or anywhere else. It is not limited executive sessions, but was there an effort to get certain individuals on the COE

If there is nothing to hide from the alternate forum, why then was there denial of this forum, hesitation to admit to the forum and not will not share if they discussed who should be voted to the COE.

Start focusing on that and ask all those involved to come forward and share the discussion threads, emails etc.

As for next week - get ready when as I think you have it wrong on what is to be presented.

MaryAnn said...

Politics is a dirty game even in the churches of God.
The double talk never changes.

Anonymous said...

"BTW, is that sermon online?"

Nope, haven't seen the Christmas Eve sermon posted (yet), altho apparently ESN either has a copy, or knows someone with a cassette copy (not VHS).

In the meantime though, there is this video, from 1986. A far cry from where he ended up (and dragged the church with him), some years later.

I've never been able to stomach getting past the first ten minutes, but maybe someone with a stronger constitution can make it through, and highlight the hypocrisy.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said....
"If there is nothing to hide from the alternate forum, why then was there denial of this forum, hesitation to admit to the forum and not will not share if they discussed who should be voted to the COE."

I know for a fact that this forum was formed because the UCG elder's forum is so restrictive, you really can't discuss much on do I know? the past I was part of BOTH of them.

I think such things as candidates for the COE ....SHOULD be discussed!! The alternate Elder's forum is all about unrestricted communication among elders who felt such discussion should be allowed.

Do you mean to tell me that elders should somehow not be allowed to be a part of whatever forums they want to be a part of? Who should control what forums they can and cannot be a part of? Church Administration???

You see, you miss the big picture by what you posted is an issue of CONTROL...some want to control what others think, discuss, and communicate. The old guard who believe THEY should be the ones to CONTROL everyone else is the REAL problem.

Some of the newer COE members are not as CONTROLLING as the old guard, and some of them are even participants in the alternate forum, because they too like to be able to freely discuss issues and not be censored.

The alternate forum, I found, was much more friendly, respectful and not so much rancor on it. Just as a for instance I will mention Joel Meeker's numerous rants on Elder's particular the one which made its way to this site, about Aaron Dean...remember that one? I NEVER saw anything like that on the alternate forum...where a so called elder ripped apart another fellow elder.

And yet, Joel's posts were allowed on the Elder's forum, but more moderate posts which disagreed with Joel or others of the old guard were not posted. So you see...the Elder's forum was regulated as to which posts could go up and which could not and they had to be in agreement with a certain old guard, CONTROLLING mind set!!

Since obviously, you were never a part of the alternate forum,(and I suspect not part of the elder's forum either) you will just have to take my word for it.

I would say that the alternate forum participants are more SELF compared to the old guard who have very little SELF control, but feel they have a right and responsibility to CONTROL every one else.

So, YOU are the one who doesn't get it. The old guard needs to stop trying to CONTROL everyone and everything that happens in UCG and elsewhere.

Yes, it will be interesting to see what happens next week.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous asked:
"Has any one every received a letter from their boss they thought could be threatening. "

I am not sure WHY you asked this you think it would be normal to answer yes to this question?

I for one have NEVER received anything that resembled a threatening letter from any boss. NOR has any boss that I have ever had tried to CONTROL what private forums I take part in, or anything that I discuss about anything with anyone.

Why does UCG administration think they need to do that? We all need to be SELF controlled. Not controlled by someone in administration...that is NOT their job. Hey, they can start up their own alternate forum if they want. And they can be as controlling as they want over it...oh, I forgot, they have that forum is the UCG Elder's forum....

Anonymous said...

Here you of the many rants of Joel Meeker on the HIGHLY CONTROLLED AN REGULATED Elder's Forum...this was apparently considered to be an acceptable post, but if you want to discuss doctrine or candidates or issues in a respectful way, forget it!!

From: Joel Meeker

To: [UCG Elders Forum]

Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 5:27 am

Subject: EF: Requiem for truth and honor

Joel Meeker, Milford OH

There have been times in the history of the United Church of God when I've been very proud of this association. There have been times when we've come through trials or temptations with our heads high, and our GCE or COE or particular leaders have performed with distinction.

But now we've disgraced ourselves as a body and I for one am ashamed to be part of this General Conference of Elders.

Last year we prayed and fasted and voted on relocation and it was finally approved by 7 votes. This year we were assured that revisiting the decision would bring unity and closure and everyone would be "brought on board." We fasted and prayed and the relocation was canceled by 10 votes. So far I haven't heard anyone who was so morally indignant last year, complain about this obvious lack of consensus; that this decision was made by such a slender margin. But that wouldn't be due to a double standard, or situation ethics....

This year 9 fewer men voted against the move, 34 fewer men voted to support the relocation. So 43 men, nearly 10% of our GCE, were discouraged enough or disgusted enough or far enough along in the process of disengaging from the GCE that they didn't vote this year when they had last year. Thank you for the new unity, and for getting everyone on board. Or is that silence you hear the sound of some more saints having been worn out?

What does this prove: that 10 is more than 7 so God has finally spoken? Does God work through misinformation, innuendo, and railing accusations against the brothers we have chosen for our administration? Does He accomplish His will through furtive slanderous internet forums and personal attacks? I guess we're supposed to believe so. Thus far those who were in favor of the relocation have generally behaved with decorum and respect, so I expect this issue will remain a dead letter now for some time. Some elders do have a sense of propriety and shame. Would that it had been so with those who worked so hard, with so much misleading misinformation to defeat it. Yes, I'm ashamed to be part of an association that supposedly repudiates factions - where a faction can behave with such cunning ruthlessness and contempt for the truth, and still win its own will.

The most telling blow and the most shameful to us, however, is that an elder who blatantly defied the lawful decision of our president – made in the best interest of the Church, a man who according to the Council showed no repentance or remorse and stated plainly he might do the same thing again any time he chose, who thereby soiled all respect for our rules, our policies, our leaders and anyone who doesn't agree with his own personal view of "God's will," a man who was censured by our COE – an unprecedented act of sanction and disgrace – for his actions and his attitude; that man we have blithely reelected to serve on our Council of Elders.

Shame on him. But even more than that, shame on us.

I suppose we get the leaders we deserve. We shall drink deeply of that cup.

Anonymous said...


We have just crossed a moral line. I don't believe we can ever go back to the ethics and principle-driven values we at least tried to have before. Populist politics have taken over – just like in the world; we have espoused a post-modern, emotion-driven worldview. A majority of our balloting elders have shown they will not support the consensus of the GCE if they don't feel like it. They have shown that they will listen to mud-slinging and vituperation and even lies, mixed with generous helpings of fawning and flattery and they will willingly cooperate.

They have shown that they don't care about rules or codes if they don't feel like it, even if we've all previously agreed to abide by them. They have besmirched our ministerial code of ethics by reelecting a defiant, self-willed man to the Council.

Either that or they were just duped. And that would scarcely bode any better for the future of this association.

I believe this is the beginning of the end for the United Church of God as we have known it. The fissures caused by the moral earthquake we all just felt will no doubt be papered over for a while and we will be assured that all is well in the best of worlds. Great trees don't fall in an instant, but the cracking sound is getting louder. Some of you have sown the wind; you will in time reap the whirlwind. God is not mocked. In the meanwhile, may God have mercy on His people; they deserve better.

The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

From: Joel Meeker

To: [UCG Elders Forum]

Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 6:25 am

Subject: EF: Post may be shared

Joel Meeker Milford OH

My post of this morning may be shared in accordance with our EF rules.

Anonymous said...

In Joel's lovely EF post...he talks about the move to TX and how those who were for the move behaved with such decorum. It is now a KNOWN FACT...that the reason a second vote was called for was because these wonderful men who were so cool and collected and had such decorum...had not revealed ALL the facts about the move. And the internet rumors and lies that Clyde wrote about the first property UCG wanted to buy...turned out not to be rumors and lies, but FACTS about the nearby chemical plant and the toxins it had been fined for releasing into the environment. After Clyde wrote that these were lies and rumors...the little blurb that appeared in the United News said they were not buying that property due to "environmental concerns". So who was lying? and then the same guys turned around and didn't give all the facts about the second property.

So that made a second vote necessary. And of course the whistle blowers are made to look like they don't behave with decorum, but like they are whiners and trouble makers!!

What Joel is saying, is that if these guys would just keep their mouth shut none of this would have happened...and no one would have known that they voted without full disclosure.

Think about it...if a wife who is abused by her husband would just keep quiet....there wouldn't be any problem. RIGHT??? The husband would certainly feel this way, but what about the wife and everyone else who has some REAL morality!!
They would all want the truth. But Joel and others in control don't see it that way.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:12,

Regarding the alternate forum, I am glad that it was cordial and should be when it is limited to invitation only.

Will you provide the list off names that were part of LIFE or how individuals were selected to participate.

IF life mission as stated "The Leadership Information For Elders (LIFE) Forum is a “principle centered forum,” a tool for elders interested in communicating on issues related to our Church slogan, “Preaching the Gospel,
Preparing a People.”"

why then establish an alternate forum, instead of using the elders forum.

Will you state that it never was discussed what ministers / elders would be most amenable to helping preach the Gospel / prepare a people according to those invited to LIFE?

Simple questions - no one willing to answer.

By the way, I am 3rd generation, considered young by COG standards and didn't agree with the move to TX. Although when UCG moved from CA it should have moved to TX at that time.

However, the fact is when the alternate forum was fist discussed by the COE, one COE member sat in silence and didn't even hint that he knew what was being discussed.

PLEASE - tell me who is lying

Stating Mr. Thompson and Mr. Kilough dropped of the COE because of personal issues - demands of the COE

PLEASE - tell me who is spinning what / who is misleading

The reason the move was voted on again was because the supposed COE who supported the move (Mr. Kubic, Mr. Dean, etc)somehow changed their minds, when a couple more "like minded" members got on the COE.

Instead of stepping down for "personal reasons" - they somehow changed their minds although they were supportive the first time. PLEASE TELL ME WHO IS LYING?????

As one post stated, politics is ugly and both sides have their hands dirty.

I am a member of UCG, didn't support the move and don't support the lack of transparency of the current leading members of COE.

Talking about controlling, why did the COE reporter get removed - yes removed - was it that the current majority of COE members didn't like him reporting what actually took place in COE meetings - Once again WHO IS CONTROLLING -

Please lets get it all out in the open - you know who paticipated - you know who was discussed - WHO IS CONTROLLING and NOT transparent????????

You are correct I was not invited to LIFE ( not sure how that selection process worked) or part of the EF - thankfully to both

How to resolve - How to resolve

What is amazing in the COE reports is the lack of God, Christ, reconciliation, humility, repentance and use of scripture.

The posting of Joel Meeker's EF rant looks prophetic to me.

And what is censor - can anyone find the word censor in the scripture. When an elder goes directly against the administration, what should be done scripturally?

But censor - that is the problem with UCG and as a member, they need to start addressing issues and holding to scripture for guidance - NOT LEGAL COUNCIl! Sounds like Obama, sounds like satan leading not GOD.

This mess is putrid.

Anonymous 3:12 on August 6 - looking forward to your next post -please answer the questions

Anonymous said...

That long winded message just posted was meant to be answered by

Anonymous Thu Aug 06, 02:37:00 AM NZST

Any by the way not all the COE men took part in the alternate forum, I do take them at their word.

Anonymous said...

As a previous poster wrote, there are some serious questions that the so-called new progressive Council members need to answer.

Many UCG members are looking at this Council and seeing that this makeup of men is a failure. They came in with talk of "doing things differently" "radically increasing funds to preach the gospel" "increasing relationships with other Churches of God's"...etc.

But what have they accomplished?

They have basically come in, bullied the administration, covered themselves, have now started removing people they don't like, and filibustered the administrations proposals.

They need to answer...
1. Why the same men who constantly talk about "conflicts of interest" (referring to operation managers serving on the Council) have no problems with more flagrant conflicts of interest. Why is it not a conflict of interest that the editor of World News and Prophecy and an anchor on the TV program is now the chairman of the Media Committee. Is this not a blatant conflict of interest? Is it not a conflict of interest that those who participated in the "Alternate Forum" are now trying to use their authority on the Council to squelch discussion of it?

2. These men need to answer why they removed the previous Council Reporter. They never made an announcement, but slyly reported it only by using spin while announcing the new reporter. Did they give any legitimate reason for dismissing the former reporter? Why could he not be included in whatever the "new strategy" for communication being devised by the increasingly powerful Media Committee? How is Gerald Seelig more qualified than John Foster? This needs to be answered? In the spirit of "freedom of speech" that the chair of the media committee likes to talk about, why does he and his friends not answer these questions?

3. How is it healthy for a board of directors to be run by a group of longtime friends? Darris McNeely, Robin Webber, and Paul Kieffer. These three men are nearly inseperable. They think alike and vote alike. Throw in Melvin Rhoades, who joins the three men in writing for World News and Prophecy. Throw in Victor Kubik, who lives in Indianapolis (close to Darris McNeely) and the realtionship of Mr. Kubik and Mr. Rhoades due to marriage.

There are many other questions that well meaning UCG members have about this Council. Sadly, it should have been the other ten that resigned last week and not the two fine men who did. It is hard telling if there is a man more respected in the Church of God than Richard Thompson.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous UCG member,

It merely comes down to this: There has ALWAYS been 2 camps in United...that is why it is impossible for them to be UNITED.
That is why many, many of us, inclusing many, many elders are no longer part og UCG.

The one camp...the old guard is all about control. They are elitist and look on members as below them in church life. The old guard COE liked to do things in executive the brethren would never find out of their horrible tactics. Now I know for some issues with privacy issues involved, occasional executive sessions are necessary. They are the ones who absolutely DID NOT agree with the way things were set up in Indy. And immediately went about changing how things were discussed in Indy. No more local boards, no more collecting tithes locally, etc, etc. I know for a fact that they have systematically gotten rid of local boards, tho they haven't been successful YET in a few local areas...where the pastor is a hold out. They also ruled the Elder's forum, squelching any kind of meaningful discussion. This is just a brief discription of this camp.

The second camp is a more open one. They believe in free exchange of ideas/communication. However, their background holds them back from being able to do this entirely successfully. They do believe in the transparency talked about in Indy. Some of the do have a tendency to retreat to old methods at times however. But at least they are TRYING to have UCG be more transparent and open and honest...having the brethren know more about what is going on.

UCG will forever have these conflicts due to these 2 camps. My suggestion to you is to find an independent congregation where such turmoil doesn't exist.

I will not reveal who was on the alternate forum because it was a private forum. I know that is tough for those not on it...they are just dying to know what was discussed aren't they??? But then again the Elder's forum was a private forum too...Elder's also agreed not to divulge what was discussed on the Elder's forum, unless someone (such as Joel) said a post COULD be shared.

SSSOOO...if you ask me to divulge what was discussed on and who was part of the alternate forum, shouldn't you also ask the same of the UCG Elder's forum? The rules were basically the same for both forums. Except the alternate forum, as you say was by invitation only. IT IS A FREE COUNTRY YOU KNOW!?!?!

The COE is also free to appoint its reporter...John Foster wasn't the first and Gerald Seelig won't be the last. Knowing both as I do, GS will be willing to report ALL that goes on, not just the pleasant things. JF is one with the mindset that the elders are above the brethren....not a servant of the brethren, so therefore would not be prone to report certain things, IMHO.

You are free to disagree with me, but you better be careful which side you are choosing. I do not see Christ being very controlling over his apostles in the NT, nor over all of us as His body.

My personal opinion is that the COE should be MUCH MORE DIVERSE than it shouldn't even be a council of ELDERS, it should have lay members, women, etc.

So, don't ask me to divulge information that I agreed not to divulge...I am on other non-church forums where the same is required. I try to honor that. If that bugs you then that tells something about YOU!!

It is a MESS... I will agree with you there...that is why I am no longer a part of it because it is a three ring circus which never stops!!

Anonymous said...

"PLEASE - tell me who is lying"

PLEASE - tell me who is spinning what / who is misleading


They all are Anon 11:10. I wouldn't trust a single one of them as far as I could throw them.

PurpleHymnal said...

"My personal opinion is that the COE should be MUCH MORE DIVERSE than it shouldn't even be a council of ELDERS, it should have lay members, women, etc."

Then it wouldn't be a Church of God. So what's the point?

Richard said...

Based on the comments I've read here, this situation looks very familiar.

Yes -- I saw it on the old TV series Get Smart.

It's CONTROL vs. KAOS. Now all we need is for someone to develop a good acronym for the KAOS side.

Anonymous said...

"Why would the "reporter" of COE meetings be kept out of the loop on this?

It makes me wonder if the COE members in attendance even knew what was happening"

Richard asked a perceptive question. I don't believe I have seen the answer, could be no one knows or is not willing to post.


Anonymous said...

Wess wrote:

""Why would the "reporter" of COE meetings be kept out of the loop on this?

It makes me wonder if the COE members in attendance even knew what was happening"

Richard asked a perceptive question. I don't believe I have seen the answer, could be no one knows or is not willing to post.


From the dates of the resignations this seems quite simple to me...the COE reporter reports on official COE meetings (like the ones that started yesterday)... these resignations took place when there were no meetings going on, didn't they? So it would be make perfect sense for the Chairman (Roy Holladay) to report on this. It would not be the duty of the COE reporter to report on things outside of COE meetings, as he is not on the COE. Not sure what is meant that some of the COE members in attendance didn't even know what was happening...was this referring to something else???

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Tue Aug 11, 01:06:00 AM NZST

Not knowing the order of the events and the actual meeting schedule a picky point remains. If the reporter was reporting on the previous weeks meeting and not meetings of the week of 27, July there was no error. they were CoE members prior to their resignation dates. To use a Gavinism, I am not the "sharpest knife in the drawer" and could be missing an obvious detail.