What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 6

This is my seventh post examining the arguments presented in a series of documents by ex-members of the United Church of God GCE to explain their criticisms of the Council of Elders. The previous posts can be found via the links below:

1. ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts
2. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1
3. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2
4. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 3
5. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 4
6. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 5

I have also posted a critical analysis of one of the UCG documents: Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America – The Facts

This post, which will be the final one examining the document What Really Happened in Latin America, begins from where I left of, at the bottom of page 9 of the document, from the heading Developments with Eduardo Hernandez. The authors write:

Although Mr. Luker was now the appointed regional director, he never personally contacted the Latin ministers (except for Eduardo Hernandez), choosing instead to have Mr. Seiglie as his emissary even though all the pastors speak English. From the beginning Mr. Luker had been advised by several men knowledgeable of the Latin ministry that it was not wise to have Mr. Seiglie in this role, for numerous reasons—including first and foremost, an obvious conflict of interest.In a July 23, 2010, letter to the Council, Eduardo Hernandez, the sole elder over seven churches in Colombia and Ecuador, appealed to the Council not to send Mr. Seiglie to this task (letter available on request).

From what I have been able to gather as a very distant observer, this point is probably true. It is never wise to bring in a person to try to solve a conflict if there is a known likelihood of that person being perceived as impartial. However, it is important to recognise that no matter how unwise the decisions made by the COE in handling the situation, this does not discharge the Christian responsibility of other parties in the situation. This point is of critical importance because what we come to see, shortly, is that the authors are trying to set up excuses to convince the reader that the actions of the Latin American ministry were justified.

The authors continue by stating that Eduardo Hernandez, despite having concerns and objections, “pursued every avenue of reconciliation”. He was invited to meet with the administration in Cincinnati in September, and at that meeting was led to believe that the other Latin American ministry would receive similar invitations following the Feast of Tabernacles.

The document then states that for nearly six weeks there was no communication from the administration until, on November 11, Dennis Luker sent a letter of ultimatum to the Latin American ministry requiring them to accept him as their regional director or be removed from the GCE and UCG.

Eduardo Hernandez also received this letter of ultimatum and sent a reply, in which he stated the following:

That letter has nothing to do with what you, the President of the Church and the Council, had told me and had given me to believe would happen regarding Latin America. In fact, it goes completely against everything we supposedly agreed to during my visit to the home office on September 13-15 of this year… Today I finally know that no process of reconciliation is possible because there is no desire on the part of the Council and the administration for that to occur.

Eduardo Hernandez’s comments seem to summarise the overall argument of the authors of this document: The actions of the Latin American ministry were justified by the perceived disinterest on the part of the COE and UCG administration in pursuing reconciliation.

Let us consider a few questions:

• At the time Jesus Christ died, was the world seeking to be reconciled to God?
• Would Jesus Christ have said to the Father, “they have no interest in seeking reconciliation – I won’t make a sacrifice for them”?
• What does Matthew 5:23-24 really mean?
  

  So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

For Christians, it doesn’t really matter whether the other party is pursuing reconciliation or not. Our Christian responsibility is to pursue peace, regardless of the interest held by the other party in initiating the process of reconciliation. Yes, it may be absolutely true that the COE or administration didn’t do enough to seek reconciliation, but that in no way discharges the responsibility of the other party to seek reconciliation. Jesus Christ even taught (Matthew 5:24) that the act of seeking reconciliation stands above making our offerings to God in priority! It is not enough to stand back and wait for the other party to start the process.

By their own admission – for if reconciliation was truly being sought by the Latin American ministry we would be reading about it in this document – only Eduardo Hernandez correctly pursued his Christian duty to seek reconciliation. The silence of the Latin American ministry on their efforts at seeking reconciliation is deafening. They are absolutely complicit in the failure of the reconciliation process! “Disillusionment” is no excuse!

The remaining Latin ministers, by this point several months later, were totally estranged and disillusioned by all the previous actions taken, and chose to disregard Mr. Luker’s ultimatum.

Q.E.D.

Skipping down a little, on page 11, below point 3, the authors further demonstrate the complicity of the Latin American ministry (my emphasis throughout):

Over a period of six months Mr. Luker (the regional director) never initiated contact with any of the ministers in Latin America (except Eduardo Hernandez). There was never an official invitation given to any of the men to come in and talk, even though this was later claimed by the administration. The chairman of the Council never contacted any of these men (except Eduardo Hernandez). As the agent for Mr. Luker, Mario Seiglie did make contact with some of the men, but because of their feelings about him, his conflict of interest and his actions in Chile, they chose not to talk with him, which was their right under the Rules of Association.

Who cares what was their right under the Rules of Association? This is about their responsibilities as Christians with a role in the Church of God. Where did Jesus Christ say we don’t have to pursue reconciliation because of our “feelings” about our brother? Where did He say we don’t have to pursue reconciliation because of the way a brother has behaved towards us?

The document finishes with the following (my emphasis):

As the leaders of the Church it is their responsibility to practice the biblical and Christian principles of love, humility and reconciliation that have been spoken of—not by a generic “We hope they know they can call us,” but by truly reaching out to those ministers and brethren who have been so devastated by their actions.

So true – yet so false. Yes, the leaders of the Church must practice that responsibility. But it is every Christian’s responsibility. If our leaders are in error it in no way discharges us of that responsibility. It is no wonder the Churches of God are so fragmented when this kind of thinking is presented as justified. Perhaps the membership of the Churches can demonstrate these principles where the leadership is so dismally failing.

What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 5

This is my sixth post examining arguments presented by ex-members of the United Church of God GCE to explain their criticisms of the Council of Elders. The previous posts can be found via the links below:

1. ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts
2. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1
3. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2
4. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 3
5. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 4

I have also posted a critical analysis of one of the UCG documents: Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America – The Facts

My plans have been to provide an in-depth critique of documents produced by both sides of the controversy that led to the UCG/COGWA split. However, this is a far more painful, slow process than I ever imagined.

This is the fifth of my posts examining the document What Really Happened in Latin America

As of the last post, I had reached the end of page seven of the above document. The document continues from where I left off in my last post with the assertion of the opinion that the removal of Saul Langarica was contrary to the accepted practices and procedures of UCG and “common decency”. This claim is a typical example of these authors’ heavy use of irrelevant opinions. I say irrelevant because neither “practices” nor “procedures” are anything like “rules” or “laws”. If a rule or law is violated there is a clear case of wrong-doing. However, if a procedure or practice is not followed then it introduces a question – “why?” It is necessary to know why a procedure or practice has not been followed to determine whether there has been wrong-doing.

Let me give an example: My work in a public mental health service sometimes involves visiting clients at their homes. My employer has a procedure regarding home visits, one aspect of which is that, for safety reasons, we are not to park in the driveway of clients. On occasions I have park in client’s driveways, contrary to this procedure. Why? The procedure exists because of the potential risk to my safety if my car could be blocked in by another vehicle parking behind it. However, I have clients who live on large properties with driveways in excess of 500m long. It is clearly safer for me to park in the driveway, close to the house (where there is too much open space to be blocked in, anyway), than to park on the street.

In the case of Saul Langarica’s removal there were exceptional circumstances potentially required a quick response to protect the membership. If it later turned out that the information that led to Saul Langarica’s termination was false, he could be reinstated. However, if the information was true and no action was taken, the consequences could have been irreversible.

The document continues with an allegation regarding why the procedures and practices were not followed – but it is important that the reader bears in mind that there is no factual basis to this allegation contained within the document – it is simply a paranoid assumption. The document itself reveals this, as we shall soon see…

The final paragraph of page 7 and the first paragraph on page 8 continue with a development of the allegation that the primary reason for Saul Langarica’s removal was to seize control of the assets of UCG Chile. Note the following statement on page 8 regarding Saul Langarica’s removal:

Our documents require a spiritual reason for such a removal. The reason in this case was physical, in order to gain control of assets.

As is common with these authors, documents are referred to without any quotation or referencing that would allow anyone to verify their claim. This doesn’t necessarily make the claim false, but it certainly makes me suspicious. It is this practice in particular that has made the process of examining these documents such a tedious process for me, personally. I certainly wouldn’t expect many people to devote the frankly absurd amount of time that I have to verifying claims made in this controversy – so how is anyone really to know what are facts? Now, I don’t know if they are referring here to the UCGIA documents or to Chilean documents. I haven’t been able to access any of the Chilean documents, so I will assume they are referring to the following part of the UCGIA constitution (emphasis by underlining is mine):

4.5 EXPULSION, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF MEMBERSHIP
Membership in the General Conference may be suspended or terminated, or an elder may be expelled by the Council, based upon biblical standards and principles. An elder whose membership has been suspended or terminated, or who has been expelled, may exercise no rights under this article or the duly approved bylaws of the Corporation except as provided in 4.5.2 below.

4.5.1 Causes of Expulsion, Termination or Suspension
Any elder who fails to meet the scriptural qualifications of a minister based on biblical standards, shall be expelled from the General Conference. An elder who is expelled from the General Conference is immediately precluded from performing any ministerial duties in any congregation of the United Church of God, an International Association. An elder’s membership is terminated upon his death or upon his resignation from the ministry or resignation from the membership of the Church. An elder may, based on scriptural teaching, be suspended for misconduct.
4.5.1.1 Council of Elders Determination
A Council of Elders determination that a member of the General Conference is disqualified and must be removed from the General Conference or suspended, is always based on biblical and spiritual criteria, is within the sole discretion of the Council, and is conclusive except for such review as is provided for below.

So we see that an elder may be removed based on biblical and spiritual criteria. This is not quite the same as saying “Our documents require a spiritual reason for such a removal.” When I read their statement what came to mind, out of the context of the actual constitution, was that the reason for removal would have to be a major deviation in the individual’s spiritual direction. However, “biblical and spiritual criteria” brings to mind for me I Timothy 3 as a starting point, plus all of the characteristics of good Christian conduct.

So why was Saul Langarica removed? An explanation by Mario Seiglie can be found in the post on the Realtime United blog Update from Mario Seiglie in Mexico City:

Unfortunately, things escalated in Chile when I [Mario Seiglie] was barred from a meeting at our Church building by the local ministry [including Saul Langarica]. One of the reasons they did not want me present was that, in the meeting they did not allow me to attend, they read Mr. Walker’s letter saying he was not going to accept his removal as Regional Director and that he would continue in his capacity as Regional Director over the Latin ministry whether he would be a part of UCGIA or not. Those are his statements, not mine. This is a complete disregard of the orders from his superiors and a call to separate from the organization. He claims he has much support from members and ministers around the world, but no evidence has been forthcoming. Most of the local ministry in Chile supported him and then proceeded to form, along with other Latin ministers, their own organization called the “United Church of God of Latin America,” and now have their own Web site.

It was after these subsequent events that the President and interim Regional Director of the Latin areas, Dennis Luker, finally decided to remove the local pastor, Saul Langarica, from his responsibilities. This is according to the Chilean Constitution and Statutes of the United Church of God–Chile where the Regional Director of UCGIA has the authority to do so. Also some of the decisions the former pastor had made regarding the suspensions of certain members in the Santiago congregation were halted pending the review of each of the cases by the new pastor, Jaime Gallardo Casas.

If you doubt this explanation, please also read the following, which was posted on the “Abigail Cartwright” UCG Current Crisis Blog under the Letters from members section (under “This letter was sent by a concerned member from Latin America”):

Last night there was a chaos outside our hall. Mr. Seiglie came with the Royal family and the ones who sympathize with them, about 20. They shout and threatened to enter the building, but Mr. Langarica and Mr. Roybal didn´t allowed them. They were even physical. I saw some of them pushing Mr. Roybal asking him what he was doing there, while Mario Seiglie shouted that he had been sent with credentials from the Council.

At this point, we are still stuck on this one little paragraph of the document What Really Happened in Latin America:

Our documents require a spiritual reason for such a removal. The reason in this case was physical, in order to gain control of assets.

We have addressed the claim that “our documents” required a spiritual reason for Saul Langarica to be removed. The above report by Mario Seiglie also goes some way to addressing the allegation that the reason was “physical” and was to gain control of the assets. It should also be noted what the same document said earlier about Saul Langarica’s removal:

Mr. Langarica was not spoken to about this and no one explained why he was being removed (this is contrary to the approved policy of UCG). He received an attachment to an e-mail informing him of his removal, but still without any explanation as to cause. It was reported on Wednesday that Mr. Langarica was planning a meeting to change the legal documents to prevent Mr. Seiglie from gaining control of the assets, but this charge was not true.

No other evidence is presented to explain why the authors would believe the reason was to gain control of the assets. Thus, the allegation remains speculation. Gaining control of the assets probably was a desired outcome – to protect the members of UCG from their assets being controlled by another group. But that is not the same as it being the sole reason for Saul Langarica’s removal, as has been alleged by the authors.

It is worth considering, in relation to this allegation, whether these assets were of any value to UCGIA. This is not something I can answer with facts. However, the impression I have gained from both sides over the course of this controversy is that Latin America was heavily subsidised and, consequently, represented a liability in accounting terms. If so UCGIA would have stood to gain the most by letting Latin America quietly separate itself into an independent organisation. Thus, the claim by COE members that actions were taken to protect assets that were paid for by UCG member tithes from being seized by an organisation that was no longer a part of UCG is both plausible and justifiable to me.

Even the very next paragraph of the document seems to support this, as it includes the following statements:

Nearly all of the countries in Latin America are unable to be financially self-sufficient, and they depend heavily on these subsidies (which amount to approximately $700,000 annually). These subsidies, which pay for hall rentals, church expenses, member assistance and ministerial salaries, were cut off with no warning to the ministers or members.

While the “cutting off” of subsidies described here sounds bad, it is worth bearing in mind that at this point there was news reaching the COE that a new organisation had been formed (see the Realtime United post by Mario Seiglie linked above). These steps were taken to ensure that UCG money went to UCG members. This is explained by Aaron Dean in a Q&A that was previously available online. I can’t currently find a link to it but will reference it later if I can locate it.

The document continues:

The Constitution of the United Church of God states that any congregation pastored by a recognized (credentialed) elder of the UCG is an official congregation of the UCG (Article 3.2.2.2). Since the credentials of the remaining ministers were not revoked (only those of Mr. Langarica and Mr. Roybal), their congregations were official congregations of the UCG and they were still elders in good standing of the UCG. Mr. Seiglie ignored this fact and set up alternative services throughout Latin America and established alternative Feast sites. With credentialed ministers of the UCG and legitimate UCG congregations already in existence, it was actually Mr. Seiglie and the administration that were violating the Rules of Association. Even though this was pointed out on numerous occasions to those on the Council and in the administration, nothing was done about this problem for almost six months.

Let’s have a look at that article:

3.2.2.2 The Local Congregation
An assembly of members, wherever located, pastored by a minister recognized by the United Church of God, an International Association (UCG), and governed by the UCG’s published rules of association, shall constitute a local congregation of the United Church of God, an International Association. Each local congregation is guided and shepherded by a pastor, assisted by elders, deacons and deaconesses. A congregation may establish one or more local advisory councils to assist the ministry in serving the needs of the local congregation, the Church as a whole and, as they have the opportunity, their local community. The local congregation also works in conjunction with the Council of Elders, the home office and the national councils to administer the established policies and procedures of the UCG.

By my reading, there is nothing in this article that prohibits establishing additional local congregations. I believe what the authors may be thinking of is the following, from the Rules of Association:

Rule 3-110 Administration
Each National Council shall maintain its own legal and administrative structure and direct its own affairs in accordance with its legal documents, these Rules of Association, the Constitution of the UCGIA and other applicable law. Each National Council will be, in its own country, the official representative of the UCGIA. In turn the UCGIA shall have, or be represented by, only one duly constituted National Council or equivalent body in each country, area of incorporation or geographical responsibility.

Thus, the claim that the rules of association were being violated by the COE by setting up congregations (under the direction of a Regional Director appointed by the COE) is simply untrue. Besides that, what possible reason would the COE have for violating their own Rules of Association in this manner?

The next part of the document addresses the publication by members of the COE of the document Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America. The authors describe a private appeal to the COE being signed by 166 elders urging efforts at reconciliation with Leon Walker and the Latin American ministry be made. The document states COE members responded with a letter to the membership questioning the motives of these elders and suggesting it was an attempt to undermine church governance.

I have already commented on the first COE document to members here in my post Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America – The Facts. In part I agree with the authors of What Really Happened in Latin America – the language of the document was in many places inappropriately accusatory. Mind you, the more I have examined the document What Really Happened in Latin America in detail, the more I am inclined to agree with the accusatory tone taken by the COE members. Nevertheless, it remains unfortunate that the document could not be written in a more impartial manner. The authors of What Really Happened in Latin America state:

It is difficult to state strongly enough how uncharitable, unchristian, unusual and improper this action was.

It is very clear that far more effort was being put into attempting to publicly discredit and humiliate Mr. Walker than in trying to effect any kind of reconciliation. The atmosphere created by these documents further alienated not only the Latin ministry, but many other ministers and members.

While I agree that name-calling is inappropriate, I note it is occurring here, too (though to a lesser degree). I would also disagree with the assertion that more effort was “clearly” being put into discrediting and humiliating Leon Walker than into reconciliation efforts. To me it wasn’t, and still isn’t, clear at all where the most effort was being expended. But I won’t base by conclusion on baseless assertions by authors who have repeatedly proven themselves selective with facts.

At this point, as you may be able to tell, I am getting tired of and frustrated with this document. So once again I will break here, still without having concluded my analysis of this one document. Hopefully my next post on this document can, finally, be the last..

What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 4

This post continues what is beginning to seem like it may be a never-ending analysis of the document What Really Happened in Latin America. Today we begin from page 7, immediately following the heading, “Response of the Latin Ministry”.

The document states that on June 21 (the day on which Leon Walker was required to respond in writing to the demand to return to the US) the elders in Latin America wrote to the COE stating that they did not agree with the removal of Leon Walker. They requested the decision (not yet made – as Leon Walker still had the option to meet with the COE in the US) be reversed and that they have a say in who would be their regional director. The document asserts that requesting a say in who is their regional director is their right under article 1-130 of the UCG rules of association.

Let us examine that final assertion a little. To begin with, how about I do what nobody else has done that I have seen so far and actually link the official versions of the relevant documents:

• UCG-IA Rules of Association
• UCG-IA Constitution
• UCG-IA Bylaws

Now, starting with rule 1-130 from the Rules of Association:

Rule 1-130 National Councils
National Councils (or their equivalents) administer areas outside the United States as established by the Constitution of the UCGIA [Article 3.2.2.1 of the Constitution of the UCGIA]. In areas where there is no National Council (and no desire to have one), the brethren, in consultation with the Home Office, the Management Team and the Council of Elders, will determine the status of administration they will seek within the United Church of God. The choices are either a local congregation (or congregations) functioning under the administration of the Home Office and Management Team, or a local congregation (or congregations) functioning under the administration of a neighboring National Council.

I’m no legal expert, so I have to admit I really couldn’t say how this would be interpreted in a legal sense. The important part, with respect to the Latin American situation, is only the very beginning: “National Councils (or their equivalents) administer areas outside the United States as established by the Constitution of the UCGIA“. So, until we examine the constitution article 3.2.2.1, everything hinges on the meaning of this word, “administer”. Does that include deciding their own regional director? I suppose that will depend in part on the rules established by that National Council. This is probably complicated if the person holding the position of Regional Director is salaried by the US administration (as was the case with Leon Walker). It is further complicated by the requirements of any National Council to abide by the Rules of Association and Constitution to be affiliated with UCG-IA.

So how about we have a look at article 3.2.2.1 of the Constitution:

3.2.2.1 National Councils
A council or board that is established to meet the requirements for legal recognition of the United Church of God, an International Association or serve the administrative needs of the Church in nations other than the United States of America, are national councils. The national councils shall conduct themselves in accordance with the scripture, this Constitution, their local bylaws, the rules of association and applicable law.

So what does a national council do?

• Meet requirements for legal recognition of UCG-IA

or

• Serve the administrative needs of the Church in other countries

These national councils are required to conduct themselves in accordance with scripture, the Constitution of UCG-IA, their own bylaws, the rules of association (of UCG-IA) and any other applicable law.

So now, in my inexpert opinion, it appears that the UCG-IA rules do not specifically give the national council of any country a particular “right” to select their regional director, unless such a right is specified in their own bylaws. I have no idea what the bylaws of the Latin American national councils are (note the plural, as they were apparently five national councils in the area – see page 4 of What Really Happened in Latin America). However, I am assuming that the authors of What Really Happened in Latin America would have referred to those bylaws had they contained anything relevant to the situation. They don’t, and nor have I seen any reference in any other arguments presented elsewhere. The closest they get is to refer, in the next sentence of the document, to other national councils having this “right” specified in their bylaws:

As mentioned above, most international areas have this right written into their governing documents (Germany, Italy, England, Australia, South Africa, etc.).

What is glaringly missing here is any statement that Latin America had this “right” written into their governing documents.

This might begin to answer a question that has been bugging me: If the COE have been violating the governing documents of UCG-IA as has been continually asserted, why has the matter not been dealt with via legal channels? I had been thinking the argument would have been based on I Corinthians 6:1:

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?

However, that makes no sense when one considers that it has been often mentioned that UCG was established with legal documents intended to prevent “what happened in WCG”. If I Corinthians 6:1 forbids us to use the legal system, why build on it as a protection to begin with? So why not use those protections when those in charge (the COE) are allegedly doing pretty much what the documents were put in place to prevent?

Joel Meeker, among others, has been at pains to use the argument of not being a “hireling” to justify behaviour on the part of those who have split (search for hireling in Joel Meeker Answers Challenges Regarding His Resignation Letter). However, isn’t splitting to form a new organisation instead of using the protections put in place at the foundation of UCG to protect the whole church from the “misconduct” of the COE exactly what a hireling might do: run away with his supporters? The problem (for them) is, though, the more I examine the case that has been presented, the more the facts indicate that there has been no violation of UCG’s documents in any legal sense. So that would explain why no legal challenge…

But I have digressed. Back to the document at hand…

The Council of Elders met in a special session on Wednesday, June 23 and Thursday, June 24, 2010, to select the next president of UCG. Several Council members were unaware that Mario Seiglie was already en route to Chile until it was noted that Mr. Seiglie was not present in Cincinnati for these meetings.

I’m not sure of the relevance of this, except that in the account that follows it is implied that there was an orchestrated plan, involving Mario Seiglie and Dennis Luker acting as President, to take control in Latin America. The fact that Mario Seiglie was already on his way before Dennis Luker was even made president tells us … what?

On the afternoon of Thursday, June 24, 2010, President Dennis Luker, newly elected that same day, signed a document removing Saul Langarica as pastor of the Santiago congregation. Why was Mr. Langarica removed, but not the other pastors? The only area with a substantial bank account in Latin America and also the owners of a church building was Santiago. Mr. Seiglie made contact with a church member in Santiago who was also a lawyer and was familiar with the Chilean legal documents. The documents gave authority to the Spanish Regional Director for naming the pastor in Santiago. Upon replacing Mr. Holladay on Thursday morning, Mr. Luker also took on the title of regional director. That afternoon he signed the document removing Mr. Langarica as pastor. This action also removed Mr. Langarica as the president of UCG, Chile—a legal entity and charity in Chile. Mr. Langarica was not spoken to about this and no one explained why he was being removed (this is contrary to the approved policy of UCG). He received an attachment to an e-mail informing him of his removal, but still without any explanation as to cause. It was reported on Wednesday that Mr. Langarica was planning a meeting to change the legal documents to prevent Mr. Seiglie from gaining control of the assets, but this charge was not true. There was a congregational meeting in Santiago on Thursday evening but it was to inform the brethren about Mr. Walker, not to change any documents. Mr. Langarica was removed based on false information.

• The only area with a substantial bank account in Latin America and also the owners of a church building was Santiago.
• I take it the implication is this was a dastardly plan to seize Latin American assets. What would be the point? As is repeatedly noted in these documents defending those who have split from UCG, Latin America is heavily subsidised by the US. If money is what they needed, it would have been much easier to just cut off Latin America altogether.
• Saul Langarica was not spoken to about why he was removed, and this was contrary to UCG policy
• As I have pointed out before, a policy is not the same as a law or rule. If the defence of the COE is to be believed, following policy would have simply left the Latin American church open to being effectively hijacked by men who did not appear, at that point, to have the best interests of the members in mind.
• Saul Langarica was falsely alleged to be planning to change the legal documents, and was thus removed based on false information
• If the school at which one of your children is a student receives allegations that have a degree of plausability that a teacher has been sexually abusing students, would you accept the school arguing that they allowed the teacher to continue to teach because the allegations had not been proven? Sure, the teacher might be innocent, but why risk it? We can always reinstate and compensate later.
• Planning to change legal documents could have some serious implications for the membership of the church in the area, and it was right to take swift action to protect those members. What is important is what then follows.

What did follow will have to be the subject of a future post.

What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 3

This is my fourth post examining arguments presented by ex-members of the United Church of God GCE to explain their criticisms of the Council of Elders. The previous three posts can be found via the links below:

1. ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts
2. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1
3. What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2

This is the third of these posts examining the document What Really Happened in Latin America

In the last post I left off after examining details of an email allegedly sent by Leon Walker to five Latin American pastors. We now continue on page 5 of What Really Happened in Latin America:

This e-mail was forwarded to the Council of Elders in June of 2010, by an elder who was not among the five to whom the e-mail had been sent. Upon reading the e-mail, a portion of the Council expressed anger toward Mr. Walker. Some demanded that Mr. Walker be dealt with for the comments he shared with the pastors, requesting that he be terminated immediately. The decision was made to send three men on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 to talk with Mr. Walker about his e-mail. Roy Holladay, Victor Kubik and Jason Lovelady (HR supervisor) subsequently traveled to Hawkins to meet with Mr. Walker. After a two-hour meeting, Mr. Holladay indicated that the issues were addressed and their questions were answered. Mr. Walker was led to believe this was the end of the matter.

1. Leon Walker’s email was forwarded to the COE by an elder who had not been one of the original recipients
• I’m not sure what the relevance of this statement is. It shows that at least one of the five original recipients on-forwarded the email, consistent with Leon Walker’s request that others be “made aware” of the issues in the email.
• The way this reads to me, it seems to be trying to imply some underhandedness on the part of the COE in obtaining the email. Maybe that’s just me, though.
2. When the email was read (presumably with most of the COE present?) a portion of the Council expressed anger towards Leon Walker
• Again, I’m not sure of the relevance.
• I consider this hearsay since the authors of this document have not explicitly identified themselves, nor even claimed that any of them were present when this occurred.
3. Some COE members “demanded” that Leon Walker be terminated immediately
• Still hearsay, not verifiable fact
• Not particularly relevant. The UCG’s rationale in having a Council of Elders instead of “one man rule” comes from the concept of the wisdom of a “multitude of counsellors” as described in Proverbs 15:22. The important thing here is not what “some” COE members suggested be done, but the decision that was made by following that Biblical principle.
4. The decision was made to send three men to talk to Leon Walker about the email.
5. After a two-hour meeting, Roy Holladay indicated the issues had been addressed.
6. Leon Walker was led to believe this was the end of the matter
• Without further detail explaining what “led” Leon Walker to believe the matter was ended, it would be better to state “Leon Walker believed this was the end of the matter.” The use of the phrase “led to believe” indicates the meeting was concluded in such a way that there was the deliberate intent on the part of those meeting with Leon Walker to leave him with the impression that the matter was completely resolved. It is not clear from the information we have been given that this was the case, and it could be that Leon Walker simply made that assumption.
• Regardless of whether Leon Walker was “led” to believe the matter was ended, revisiting it later is not precluded. Three men were sent on behalf of the COE – but could they be reasonably expected to know the COE’s final decision on the matter without conferring with the full group?

The next paragraph states:

He did not believe he had done anything wrong by sharing his personal opinion with five friends in the ministry since an official document of the church allowed for such communication. Besides, he was responding to the questions of these pastors and he did not initiate providing the information.

I feel like I am having to repeat myself, but this needs to be addressed:

1. Leon Walker did not believe he had done anything wrong
• Leon Walker is one man, judging his own actions. Proverbs 21:2 has something to say about that: “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart.”
• While one man, Leon Walker, believed he had done no wrong, a group of men (the COE) weren’t so sure. What ultimately matters, of course, is what the Lord thinks (Proverbs 21:2). Without having direct access to His opinion, however, what should men do? Seek a multitude of counsel among men God has chosen.
2. An official document of the church allowed for such communication
• Not explicitly. Please see my previous posts.
3. Leon Walker was responding to questions from the five pastors to whom he wrote and did not initiate providing the information
• Why then did Leon Walker introduce the four points of his email with (my emphasis): “But I would like to inform you of some of the issues involved, as you may not be aware of them“?!
• For the full text of the email please see pages five and six of Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America

The document continues by explaining that at the end of this meeting Leon Walker informed Roy Holladay that he would soon be leaving for a regular trip to Latin America – and Roy Holladay said nothing about cancelling it. As pointed out earlier, Roy Holladay at that stage was meeting with Leon Walker on behalf of the COE. Without having yet consulted with the full COE, there could be no guarantee of what decision might ultimately be made. The fact that Roy Holladay did not then request Leon Walker cancel his trip doesn’t in any way justify Leon Walker refusing to do so when he later was asked.

The document continues:

On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the Council was informed of the discussion from the day before. That evening the Council passed a resolution giving interim President Holladay the authority to deal with Mr. Walker, including terminating him (this resolution was later made public). The resolution itself is evidence that there was doubt as to whom Mr. Walker worked for; if the issue was clear, there would be no need for such a resolution.

1. The council was informed of the discussion
2. The council passed a resolution authorising Leon Walker’s termination
3. The resolution is evidence there was doubt about who Leon Walker worked for – otherwise no such resolution would be needed
• Interesting assertion – but is it true? Perhaps, given the gravity of the situation, the Council wanted to have had input on the decision, rather than one person just “firing” Leon Walker. Ultimately, though, such doubt is also irrelevant. The question really is: did the COE have the authority and the grounds to remove Leon Walker from his position? Given that he was paid by the UCG US office, not from the tithes of his own members, I don’t see how anyone could argue that the COE did not have such authority (and if there was a valid argument that they lacked the authority, it would have gone to court by now – what is the point of governing documents if, when violated, we just whine about it?). As for the grounds – Leon Walker directly refused an order by his employer (those paying his salary) to meet to discuss issues further. Those issues had significant potential implications for the Latin American membership and assets of the church. Some may see the decision as harsh, but it cannot be said it was without grounds.

The document then asserts:

Authority was given to the president to remove and replace Mr. Walker without ever having a discussion about discipline or offering any other remedy for his e-mail message. Mr. Holladay called Mr. Walker that same evening—Wednesday, June 16—and informed him of a Council request for him to go to Cincinnati for a meeting with them. But Mr. Holladay did not discuss termination with him on the phone nor anything about the Council resolution, even though Mr.
Holladay knew that Mr. Walker was leaving the next day on a trip to South America.

The giving of authority to terminate Leon Walker does not mean the decision had been made to do so – but clearly there was sufficient concern about his behaviour that the possibility had been anticipated. The part about “without ever having a discussion about discipline…” is grossly misleading, since the next step taken was to try to arrange a meeting with Leon Walker. It does not matter that Roy Holladay did not mention termination – had the meeting taken place, it is possible termination wouldn’t have occurred. Without first giving Leon Walker the opportunity to address the concerns, what good would it have done to threaten him with termination? How would you feel if your employer called you and said, “We suspect you’ve been stealing from the company. Please come explain yourself because if you have stolen we’re going to fire you”?

Yes, Leon Walker thought the issues had already been addressed. But we have also been told that he still thought he had done nothing wrong. The COE clearly felt differently – that is sufficient grounds to seek to meet with him again.

Leon Walker responded to the meeting request by asking for more information about the purpose of the meeting, then argued that:

The Council is not my supervisor. I am responsible to answer to the president [in a spirit of cooperation, and in an advisory capacity but not line authority as explained above and in the Rules of Association Article 4-140] and did so on Tuesday. Mr. Holladay did not ask to speak with me once again. In fact, he said he was merely passing on to me the Council’s request. Since there is no basis for the Council to make such a request I saw no reason to cancel the trip.

The COE is not my employer – I don’t work for the church at all. But I consider there is still a certain line of Spiritual authority that is unrelated to any legal documents. If the COE asks me to meet them, I think I would be wise to do so. What harm could it do me? What harm would it have done Leon Walker? His argument is specious.

Mr. Holladay wrote a letter to Mr. Walker on Sunday, June 20, demanding his return to the U.S. The request required Mr. Walker to respond in writing by 5:00 PM on Monday, June 21, 2010 or face termination. On June 22 Mr. Walker was sent a letter removing him as director of the Spanish work and demanding that he return to the U.S. or his employment with UCG would be in jeopardy. Mr. Walker did not return and he was subsequently terminated from employment as well.

This is another case where was is important is what is not said. There seems to be a vague attempt to imply that Leon Walker didn’t respond as required because the timeframe was too short. However, this is not explicitly stated. Why? Because Leon Walker received the letter before the deadline. How do I know this? I don’t. But I’m sure we would have been told if it was any other way.

What really happened? Leon Walker chose not to respond to the request to return to the US – knowing full well that this would result in his termination. All arguments that he was terminated “without ever having a discussion about discipline or offering any other remedy for his e-mail message” are blatantly and provably false. Leon Walker had every opportunity to have such discussion, and he chose not to.

The document then states:

Over the years the leadership of the church has been very tolerant when scheduling meetings with employees. The apostle Paul understood that there are reasons why schedules need to be changed (“Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to come to you with the brethren, but he was quite unwilling to come at this time; however, he will come when he has a convenient time,” 1 Corinthians 16:12).

Once again, our authors use scripture out-of-context and misleadingly (see ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts for other examples) . On the one hand we have an issue of Leon Walker being instructed to meet to deal with allegations of ethical misconduct. On the other hand we have Paul “strongly urging” Apollos to visit a congregation, but Apollos deciding that is not what he wished to do.

The section of the document detailing the dealings with Leon Walker ends thus:

None of this was done according to proper procedures for terminating an employee. Mr. Walker was removed from employment after 50 years with no severance, no offer of retirement and he has no Social Security. Mr. Walker is 74 years old.

Procedures are not laws. Nothing about the situation that has been described in this document was according to procedure. I am pretty sure it is standard procedure for employees to respond to employers’ requests. It is certainly good Christian conduct to do as another compels you: see Matthew 5:40-42. As for the matter of Leon Walker’s severance, retirement or Social Security: perhaps he should have considered that before he refused a directive upon which his continued employment hinged. Sound harsh? Canceling his trip and meting with the COE wasn’t really that difficult a request, on balance.

Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America – The Facts

The following post is about a controversy in the United Church of God that has contributed to a recent separation of a group of members and ministers. If you have no background in the situation, it is most likely of no interest.

Although I am only partly through analysing the document What Really Happened in Latin America, I thought I should take a break from that to also start looking at the other side of the situation – lest this blog begin to appear too one-sided. When coming to a conclusion in a conflict such as this it is important to examine all sides fairly.

For this post, then, I shall begin examining a document produced by UCG in response to the situation that emerged with Leon Walker (Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America). This document was released quite some time before the three documents from members of the GCE – which may be why the claim was made in the introductory letter by members of the GCE that UCG “went public” first. That issue is discussed in more detail in my post about the GCE introductory letter.

From the outset, the Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America document establishes a tone that permeates the entire document. Reading from the first paragraph:

However, since so many false rumors and allegations have been spread accusing the leadership of the United Church of God, an International Association (“Church” or “UCGIA”) of unethical and unjust actions, we are compelled to set the record straight to protect the Church from those who are spreading defamation and causing confusion and division.

It is my opinion that if a person is accused of being unethical, unjust, dishonest, etc., beginning a response to such accusations with counter-accusations of lies and “false rumours” is not going to help. Regardless of whether phrases above such as “false rumors” and “spreading defamation” are true, I think the better approach to take is to present the facts dispassionately and let the reader be the judge. This is especially true if you are being accused of acting harshly!

Continuing on, the background paper quotes a message that was posted on the Inside United: Realtime blog “to update members immediately as to this development [of Leon Walker’s replacement]”. The message begins as follows:

We are very sorry to have to make the following announcement. With the authorization of the Council of Elders, Leon Walker is being replaced in his administrative and pastoral duties associated with the Church’s activities in the Latin American region…

The message goes on to state that Leon Walker was requested, then directed to attend the Cincinnati office “to discuss certain email communications between him and the Spanish-speaking ministers he oversees.” The message outlines that Leon Walker twice refused. This message, which outlines the situation but provides no detail, was posted on the blog site on June 23. Eight days later the “Background to Leon Walker…” paper that we are examining here was posted. The reason for the subsequent posting of additional information contained in this background document is summarised in the opening paragraph:

we think the documentation provided herein is necessary to provide the needed background to understand what led up to the decision to remove Leon Walker. For reasons that will be explained later, we have said little to date about this.

The reasons for the lack of detail in the initial announcement are elaborated after the reproduction of the announcement in the background document:

We chose at that time not to give details as to the reasons for why Mr. Walker had been ordered to come to the home office to meet with the President and Council and to cancel his (then) upcoming trip to Latin America—the refusal of which resulted in Mr. Walker’s removal. We did not disclose details in the hope that he would recognize and acknowledge his wrongdoing and that we might continue in a productive relationship with him.

While I think the stated reasons for initially withholding information have some merit, there is a problem with the approach taken. Obviously, a decision such as the removal of the regional director of a large area creates fertile ground for gossip. The Inside United: Realtime blog was part of a broader strategy within the United Church of God to increase the openness of communication between the church leadership and membership. I imagine that the annoucement posted on June 23 2010 was intended to provide as much information as possible to quell rumours while limiting information to control damage to the reputations of the church, Leon Walker and others involved. So what is the problem with this approach? It is that the church does not (as far as I am aware) have an established plan for such situations. Because of that, no matter how a matter such as this is handled, it is likely to look bad. The decisions made about how to handle the situation, regardless of whether they are “right” or not, will be open to substantial criticism. If, however, an established process existed for such situations – one that was Biblically founded and had been developed at a time when the church wasn’t under immediate pressure to decide how to respond – then the opportunity for criticism would be lessened. Those with the duty of handling the crisis could not have been criticised for how they chose to communicate with the membership if their decisions were based on an independently developed procedure.

As it is, I wonder what the value was in the initial message. I don’t feel it provided enough information to be of particular benefit, and in the end perhaps confused things.

The background paper continues with a letter purportedly sent from Leon Walker to the Latin American membership. I have no reason to doubt this letter’s authenticity since it doesn’t seem to make any claim that hasn’t since been openly made in documents released by Leon Walker or those supporting him. I won’t comment on it here, because I think comments I have already made in three previous posts (ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts; What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1 and Part 2) adequately address the letter’s claims, and the purpose of this post is to examine the UCG background paper.

Following the reproduction of Leon Walker’s letter, the UCG background paper continues (my emphasis throughout):

We’ll discuss this letter’s disingenuousness and the excuses given for this defiant behavior later in this paper. The language of his letter sadly calls to mind the words of Psalm 55:21: “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.” While these words may sound like honey, the actions reveal a different story. Nothing said here justifies fomenting rebellion and division within the Church of God. (We might also note that there are many who would dispute the truthfulness of other portions of Mr. Walker’s June 22 letter, though in the interest of space we will address only the key points pertinent to the actions we have taken.)

What we see here is a response to the developing situation that has quickly become emotionally-laden. Highly emotional language is used where the same point could have been made with more measured words. For example, it could have read:

We’ll discuss later the inconsistencies of this letter with the facts of the situation. We will also examine Leon Walker’s defence of his decision to refuse the COE’s directive to meet at the home office, and why his defence does not legitimately justify his behaviour. Regardless of the story told in his letter, the actions Leon Walker has taken have create grave concerns among the Council of Elders that there may be an underlying attitude of rebellion that is placing the membership of the church at risk.

I believe that communicates essentially the same message, but with softer words that do not appear intended to destroy any shred of positive opinion of Leon Walker held by the membership. The approach taken, while it may have been intended to protect the flock, seems to have backfired in practice – and to me that seems no surprise. Leon Walker has been known and respected by many, many people for many years. How can anyone be expected to react when they see the reputation of a trusted figure so thoroughly attacked before their eyes?

Also requiring comment are the parenthetical sentences that close the paragraph:

(We might also note that there are many who would dispute the truthfulness of other portions of Mr. Walker’s June 22 letter, though in the interest of space we will address only the key points pertinent to the actions we have taken.)

Quite simply, this should never have been stated. It is irrelevant that there are “many” who would dispute the truthfulness of other portions of Leon Walker’s letter if we do not know what is disputed, or why. After all, I could say, “There are many who dispute that the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre were initiated by terrorists.” My statement is absolutely true – as Google will readily reveal. But by not providing the specifics I conveniently avoid the fact that the “many” I refer to are mentally unbalanced conspiracy theorists with no sound basis for their views.

The document goes on to state:

In his determination to retain his position and control, he has led well-intentioned but misinformed members and elders into a separation from the United Church of God and the significant support we provide them (Latin America being the most heavily subsidized international area of UCGIA). These are not the actions of a truly caring shepherd whose primary concern is caring for the flock.

The middle of this paragraph is true – but the beginning and end may not be. Firstly, it may not be Leon Walker’s determination to retain control that is the problem, but rather his lack of insight into his own part in the crisis that unfolded. I think it likely he genuinely believes he is on the side of truth in a spiritual battle, and blind to his own errors that contributed to the problem in the first place. Secondly, because Leon Walker seems to believe he is fighting selflessly for the truth, I don’t know that it can be said that he is not a truly caring shepherd.

The strong, emotional language continues:

Regrettably, Mr. Walker has led others of our Spanish-speaking members into this same hostile, rebellious spirit… Sadly, the local pastor and the (now radicalized) pastor of the United Churches of God in Mexico barred Mr. Seiglie from a congregational meeting on June 24…

The UCG background document then poses the question of how this state of affairs came about. It continues:

It should be obvious by now that no position of leadership or administration in UCGIA is permanent, and nothing in any of our governing documents makes any office, position or job permanent. We can and have changed presidents, operation managers, corporate officers and regional pastors—all of which have had much more authority than Mr. Walker as a regional coordinator. Yet he maintains that we have no right to replace him. This is simply untrue on its face.

… Of course, anyone in the “real world” knows that when the person immediately over you in authority orders you to stop what you are doing and meet with him or her immediately, as an employee you know that you can be fired for refusing to comply with that action—regardless of whether you might think the order was “reasonable” or not.

Now we are coming to a more appropriately-written response. I fear, however, that many people reading this will have become stuck on the association of God’s Church with practices in the running of a worldly organisation. The analogy makes a valid point, however, the spirit of which is further backed up by a variety of scriptures, such as Titus 2:9 and Matthew 5:40-42

The next few paragraphs are repetition, so I will skip comment and continue at the bottom of page four of the background document:

…we must now break our silence and state the truth so as to prevent further division within the body of Christ, the Church. Church leadership has chosen to not respond in kind with public attacks, but to simply state the facts.

We will now be blunt: It was Mr. Walker’s disdainful and rebellious behavior that led directly to his removal.

Wait a minute – is this document just stating facts, or is it in fact “responding in kind with public attacks”? I haven’t even edited to achieve the above juxtaposition – that is how it reads. Bearing in mind that the stated aim is to “break our silence … to prevent further division within the body of Christ,” this seems to be achieving rather the opposite. It is exactly the kind of emotive labelling used in the last sentence of the above quote that has been fuelling claims harshness by those critical of the COE. It was Leon Walker’s refusal to comply with a directive that led to his removal. That is in itself sufficient grounds, given the position of authority and influence that he held. Recasting him as an enemy of Christ is not necessary to justify the decision of the COE, and doing so only makes the COE look bad in the eyes of those who are undecided. A little further on, on page five, the background document states (their emphasis):

…one of our Latin American ministers forwarded to the Council a series of e-mail messages sent from Mr. Walker to Spanish-speaking ministers and between Spanish-speaking ministers, as well as other troubling messages…

The information in these memos, together with other examples of his lack of support together with rumors of a pending “split” in Latin America, dictated that Mr. Walker needed to meet with the Council immediately before traveling to Latin America to not only explain or defend actions that were, if true, clearly inappropriate, but to also be sure that he and the Council could continue to work together in a productive manner.

Now we are getting back to facts. The document continues with a reproduction of an email written by Leon Walker to five Latin American pastors. I will not comment on the email here, as this has been covered in my previous post, What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2. Please do examine it fully, though, as it is probably one of the most important facts presented in this controversy. The background document then proceeds with a critical analysis of the contents of the message. For the most part this analysis is commendable, sticking mainly to the facts in question, though with the occasional unfortunate intrusion of emotionally loaded language. Most of the comments made in the background paper are readily verified by simply reading Leon Walker’s email. Only if the email itself is false can most of the very valid criticisms of it be discredited. I am aware of no attempt by Leon Walker or his supporters to claim Leon Walker did not send the email, only attempts to justify its contents.

Picking up again on page 11 of the background document, there is a return to explaining the reasons for providing a detailed and public account of the situation with Leon Walker and Latin America:

What is truly regrettable is that some U.S. elders, including apparently at least a few salaried elders, are also supporting him, even to the point of justifying his divisive acts. We hope they have simply been misled and are unaware of the facts presented in this letter. It’s for that reason that we have had to be candid as to what is going on.

As unpleasant as it is to publicise a former member or minister’s actions that have led to suspension, termination or other such action, it is also understandable that such an action sometimes necessary. If an individual begins to accuse the church, and their accusations have a plausible ring, what action is justifiable but to present the facts of the situation. Two things are unfortunate in the case of Leon Walker: Firstly, that information was withheld in the beginning, and secondly that when information was publicised there was significant straying from the facts into the realm of emotive commentary. Both of these things are entirely understandable, but hopefully the situation can stand as a lesson for better handling of situations in future.

A number of scriptures on the subject of division are then quoted. Unlike the use of scripture on the part of GCE members who supported Leon Walker, these seem to be used appropriately to their context. Following, on page 12, is a statement of utmost importance to anyone trying to discern the truth amidst the controversy that has been unfolding:

Dear brethren, we must not be followers of men, regardless of what their reputations or works have been in the past. Only one is to be our role model and the one we follow, and that is Jesus Christ.

Whatever anyone decides, this is of absolute importance: No decision should be based on who you “trust”. Decisions should be based on following Jesus Christ. If it is not clear who is following Jesus Christ in deciding who to fellowship with, then look at the available facts. Do not look at who is in each particular group and say to yourself, “Well, I remember how he was rude to me…” or, “she was always so kind and caring and often invited my family to dinner.” Yes, Jesus Christ did say “by their fruits you will know them.” But we need to judge by the fruit being born now, not what we remember from the past. Jesus Christ was also clearly referring to something below the surface, because he described the Pharisees as “gleaming white on the outside”, but clearly rotten inside.

Finally, the document finishes with the following:

All elders and ministers are held to a very high standard. Those who are unwilling to meet that standard, either by continuing to spread division, by attacking the duly elected or appointed leaders of the Church, by providing moral support to those who do, and who undermine the work of the Church, will be held accountable.

Would we have it any other way? Better a culture in which a man may be unjustly punished in the effort to protect the brethren than a culture in which a blind eye is turned to indiscretion to “protect” the “old boys” (think of the Catholic church). As always, scripture says it best:

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. (1 Peter 2:18-19, ESV)

What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2

The following post is about a controversy in the United Church of God that has contributed to a recent separation of a group of members and ministers. If you have no background in the situation, it is most likely of no interest.

This post continues from where I left off in a previous post (What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1) in my analysis of one of three documents written by previous members of the UCG’s General Conference of Elders (GCE), entitled What Really Happened in Latin America. In my previous post I had commented on the contents of the document up to the end of page 4.

I will now continue from the end of page 4:

In April of 2010 Mr. Walker sent an e-mail to five pastors answering questions they asked him about the men who had sponsored the resolution to rescind the transfer of the home office to Texas. He explains in his June 25, 2010 letter to Mr. Luker: “They also mentioned to me their continued concern about the five Council members who sponsored the resolution to rescind the vote to transfer the Home Office from Ohio to Texas. They stated that they believed this was unethical and contrary to our documents. They also stated that they would never vote for any of these five to be on the Council. However, they could not remember specifically all of their names and they asked me to tell them who of the five were nominees for the Council in May.” Mr. Walker gave the pastors the names, as requested, information which is published on the members Web site for anyone to read. He did not circulate the e-mail beyond these five, who asked for the information, because they wanted to know if these were men whose names were on the upcoming ballot for seats on the Council. In the e-mail, Mr. Walker referred to the actions of the men who sponsored the resolution as being unethical, in his opinion. This was his private opinion shared with a group of friends. The document published by the church on “private discussion groups” in the summer of 2009 supports the right of every elder to express his opinion privately to those he considers friends, just as Mr. Walker did. He did not tell the pastors how to vote during the upcoming annual GCE ballot.

Let’s break this down:

1. Leon Walker sent an email to five pastors
• It is probably a good idea to read the entire email – this can be found on pages 5 and 6 of Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America, published by UCG (the UCG document that quotes his email will be analysed in a future post). I will quote parts of the email below.
2. The five pastors who received the email had stated they believed that sponsoring a resolution to rescind to a previous vote to move the headquarters of the church to Texas was unethical and contrary to the governing documents of UCG.
• I am interested in how all five pastors had the same opinion about this. That would tend to indicate either that they are right, and it was unethical and contrary to governing documents, or that they were all receiving information from the same source (or both). This is particularly relevant as we consider the next two points.
3. The five pastors who received the email had stated they would never vote for any of the five COE members who sponsored the rescind resolution to be on the COE in future.
• If true, this would seem to discredit any claim that Leon Walker was organising bloc-voting – if the pastors had already stated their intended voting decision, supplying the names requested isn’t actually influencing their choice of vote, right? However, there is a little more to it than that. Let’s read on.
4. The five pastors who received the email could not remember the names of the COE members they would never vote for.
• If the sponsorship of a resolution (to be voted on) to rescind a previous vote to move to Texas was so unethical and important, how is it that all five pastors had forgotten the names of the men involved and had to ask Leon Walker to remind them? As a psychologist with some experience assessing memory in adults, I find this a fairly implausible pattern of forgetting. On the other hand, if their opinion that the resolution was unethical came about later on (after the resolution had already been voted on), then it is quite plausible that none of them would remember who was responsible for it. To me this seems to indicate the ethics of the rescind resolution was proposed to these pastors as being an issue some time after it took place.
5. The five pastors who received the email asked Leon Walker to give them the names of any of the COE nominees for the next term who had been among the five who sponsored the rescind resolution.
• This claim very specifically attempts to counter the allegation of bloc-voting by suggesting names were requested by the pastors so they could correctly execute a decision they had already made. That, on its own, would not constitute bloc-voting and would be no more unethical than providing biographies of nominees to help inform people’s decisions.
6. In his email to the five pastors, Leon Walker stated the actions of COE members who sponsored the rescind resolution were, in his opinion, unethical. This was a private opinion shared with a group of friends.
• This is where it begins to get complicated. Leon Walker states he was asked to provide names because the pastors receiving the email had already decided the actions of five members of the COE were unethical. Why, then, was there any need for Leon Walker to state that this was his opinion?
• Leon Walker states this was a private opinion shared with a group of friends. However, it happens to be the case that he is their “boss”. Whether Leon Walker accepts it or not, the reality is that the opinion of a friend versus the opinion of a friend who is also your boss on an issue relating to your employment carry very different weights.
7. A document about private discussion groups published by UCG in mid-2009 supports the right of an elder to express opinion privately to friends; this is what Leon Walker states he did.
• After a little searching I believe that the document being referred to here is found summarised in the minutes of the Council of Elders teleconference meeting July 21, 2009
• I think point 6 is the key point: As long as proper Christian conduct and ministerial ethics are maintained, there are no restrictions on communication between elders. A legal opinion was obtained by the Council, which stated that bloc voting for candidates was unethical and not allowed per our governing documents, but discussions with other elders with regard to issues to be balloted upon is allowed and even encouraged by those same governing documents.
• What, then, is the line between discussion of issues and bloc-voting? The view Leon Walker expresses seems to be along the lines that as long as one doesn’t say “You should vote for candidate A, B and C”, or something to that effect, it is not bloc-voting. However, it would be my opinion that any organised communication that specifies a group of candidates and makes a reference to how one might vote for them is no longer discussion, it is bloc-voting. The line could become very fine, and I could see how a person could cross it in good faith. If I was in that situation, though, I would hope that I would recognise the error and be prepared to accept any consequences.
8. Leon Walker did not tell the five pastors who received his email how to vote in the upcoming annual GCE ballot
• It is true that Leon Walker’s email contained the words, “Of course, I will not tell you how you should vote.” It also, however, contained these statements (my emphasis throughout):
• I want to encourage all of you to vote onthese issues, as they are very important.
• You should be [note not “are” -shortfriction] aware of the fact that three of the candidates (Bob Berendt, Roy Holladay and Victor Kubik) were part of the 5 Council members who fought against the approval to transfer the Home Office from Cincinnati to Texas.
• In my opinion their actions were unethical and certainly against our documents. Therefore, should they be on the Council? That is for you to decide.
• I wonder if we can support the Strategic Plan, Operations Plan and Budget.
• Also please discuss these issues with the other ministers in your area
• This all seems much less clear-cut than if Leon Walker had simply been providing names as requested. It appears from the email that he is providing information which in many cases was not specifically requested, and it is clearly presented in relation to how to vote. While not stating how to vote, the opinion is clear (and in many cases, if you read the full text, given with no rationale besides “how can that [proposal] be justified?” with no attempt to examine how it might be justified)

Returning now to the main document under analysis, What Really Happened in Latin America, we read:

Mr. Walker gave the pastors the names, as requested, information which is published on the members Web site for anyone to read. He did not circulate the e-mail beyond these five, who asked for the information…

Yes it is true that Leon Walker did not himself circulate the e-mail, but he did recommend that the information it contained be circulated. Remember that he encouraged the recipients to vote on the issues because they were important – this in itself indicates he believes it is important to vote as he is voting, and thus to encourage others to do so in sharing the information. Is that bloc-voting? A fine line…

To be continued…

ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts

The following post is about a controversy in the United Church of God that has contributed to a recent separation of a group of members and ministers. If you have no background in the situation, it is most likely of no interest.

This post should probably have preceded my earlier post, What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1. It relates to the letter that prefaces each of the three explanatory documents authored by members of the GCE who have now presumably all broken away to form the Church of God a Worldwide Association.

I wasn’t going to comment on the letter, but after some thought I have decided I should because it contains a couple of statements of fundamental significance to how one interprets the three documents it prefaces. The letter can be found on pages one and two of the following document: What Really Happened in Latin America

The very first paragraph of the letter refers to a concept – submission to authority – that is too significant for a single blog post. In this post I will summarise my understanding of this concept as it relates to scripture. However, because this concept is so significant I would encourage any reader to conduct their own Bible study on the matter:

… Our Church of God culture and our personal convictions include a deep commitment to submission to authority, which includes upholding the office, even when the humanity of office holders shows through from time-to-time.

I think this is a true-enough statement. The letter continues:

What possible circumstance could warrant the writing, publication and distribution of documents that frankly counter the official statements of the leadership of our church? It can only be a crisis of the greatest magnitude, summarized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Imitate me, just as I also [imitate] Christ.” Only in the most extreme of situations, such as that of Paul stepping away from the example of Christ, would those Christians served by him not follow his lead.

The letter now poses a very valid question: Under what circumstances is it justified to distribute material that has the specific intention of causing members to question the leadership of their church? In the same paragraph an answer is suggested: Distribution of such material is justified when the leadership is not following Jesus Christ.

This is a fundamental issue. We are now left to consider two questions:

1. Is it scripturally correct to say that when the leadership of your church is not following Christ you are justified to distribute material to that church’s members undermining its leadership?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, then is it the case that the leadership of the United Church of God is not following Christ?

Let us start with question one. As I have said, this is a big subject so I am going to simply consider the scriptures presented by the writers of this letter as support of their view, and leave it to the reader to do a broader study on the subject.

The letter refers to two scriptures in relation to this question. I will quote their reference to those scriptures in the letter (my emphasis throughout):

What possible circumstance could warrant the writing, publication and distribution of documents that frankly counter the official statements of the leadership of our church? It can only be a crisis of the greatest magnitude, summarized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Imitate me, just as I also [imitate] Christ.” Only in the most extreme of situations, such as that of Paul stepping away from the example of Christ, would those Christians served by him not follow his lead.

Christian wives who seek to live by Ephesians 5:22 (“…submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord”) sometimes face this most difficult of marital questions: Has my husband’s leadership become so toxic to me and/or to our children that I must step aside from what I know God would prefer that I normally do?

Perhaps the authors of this letter have simply not structured their sentences well. To me, the first part of the quote I have emphasised is written in such a way that it says that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:1, summarises a crisis of the greatest magnitude. Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 11:1 in its context. Bearing in mind that chapters and verses are an introduction of men subsequent to the original inspired writing, I will begin quoting from chapter 10 verse 27 and continue to chapter 11 verse 3, excluding chapter and verse markings for readability. I strongly urge every reader, though, to look at the broader context including all of chapters 10 and 11.

If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, This has been offered in sacrifice, then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

How interesting. Paul is not summarising a crisis at all. Rather, he is speaking about conducting oneself in such a way as to not cause offence. Note that the translation I have quoted (ESV) uses the word “imitators” rather than “followers”. The Greek word, and the context, support this translation. His statement “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” means he wants the Corinthians, like him, to avoid causing offence, while still following Christ in this regard. In effect Paul is saying, “If Jesus Christ ate at an unbeliever’s house he would eat the meal without asking a question about it’s origin. However, if another there said, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice’, Jesus Christ would not eat it. This is what I, Paul, would do, because it is what Jesus Christ would do. It is what you should do, too.”

This passage says nothing of whether a member should continue to fellowship in a group led by Paul. It is about whether a member should conduct themselves in the manner of Paul.

Now let’s look at Ephesians 5. Again quoting from the ESV and without verse markings, I am quoting from verse 15 to verse 24; my emphasis throughout.

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

It is my opinion that these two passages of scripture are remarkably fitting to the “crisis” that the church faces, but do not quite mean what they have been made out to mean. After all, when is Christ’s leadership ever “toxic”? No, this passage gives no hint of an exception, and makes no reference to levels of leadership between the individual and Jesus Christ himself. The instruction is clear: The church shall submit to Christ. You shall submit to Christ.

Let’s revisit our first question: Is it scripturally correct to say that when the leadership of your church is not following Christ you are justified to distribute material to that church’s members undermining its leadership?

I don’t have a simple answer to that question, but I hope the discussion above broadens your thinking on it. My current thinking would probably be summarised thus: If the leadership of your church is compelling its members to break God’s law, you have a duty to protect the membership from being deceived by teaching the truth. If the leadership of your church is sinful and unrepentant, you should not follow their example, and you should carefully consider whether God’s spirit is working in that church at all.

The second question (“Is it the case that the leadership of the United Church of God is not following Christ?”) is I think best answered by looking at the facts of the current situation. That is the purpose of my other posts.

Now, to the remainder of the letter (my bold, their italics):

Over the past six months the current leadership has chosen to dismiss all meaningful efforts to seek reconciliation through face-to-face meetings within the ministry. In addition, the leadership has also chosen to go public with their communications.
…
As a result of these actions, we feel it is our responsibility, as ministers, to inform the membership of the church what is the truth about the core issues that have caused so much upheaval within the United Church of God over the past two years. This is not the best way to handle this type of conflict. And we realize that the membership should never have had to be brought into this discussion. Thus, we would be the first to admit that dealing with these issues should have been done in private, with the leadership and ministry discussing and striving to find understanding and truth in the matters. However, since all efforts to accomplish this in private over the past 18 months have proved fruitless, and since the administration and Council have gone public with their accusations and justifications, we believe our release of this information is needed and appropriate.
…
Our desire is to speak the truth in love. It is the only way that true peace, unity and desired reconciliation can be accomplished.

These passages are very concerning. Firstly, the strong statement that membership should never be involved in discussion of leadership conflict. Why not? References to leadership conflict are recorded in letters to the church that are part of the canon of scripture (see Galatians 2:11-14 for a well-known example). Secondly, the claim that the administration and council “went public” with accusations and justification. The first public statements I saw from the council or administration followed numerous demanding open letters requesting explanation of rumours circulating among members. I would encourage anyone to please post any evidence they have that public statements from the COE or administration preceded public statements against the COE.

Let us indeed, speak the truth in love. But, reader beware: Just because someone says it doesn’t make it true.

What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1

The following post is about a controversy in the United Church of God that has contributed to a recent separation of a group of members and ministers. If you have no background in the situation, it is most likely of no interest.

Over a number of years now a rift has grown within the United Church of God, culminating in a recent split and the formation of the Church of God, a Worldwide Association. Three key documents were released in mid-December 2010 outlining the core issues behind the rift from the point of view of discontented members of UCG’s General Conference of Elders (GCE). The documents can be found here: New Documents from Members of the GCE

This post will analyse the first of these three documents: What Really Happened in Latin America

Future posts will look at the other two documents, and replies by UCG’s Council of Elders (COE).

The aim of this post is to encourage interested parties to make a proper, thorough and impartial analysis of the arguments being presented; to emphasise only facts and dispose of everything else.

Let’s begin with the introduction, page 3 of the above-linked document:

In the early stages of dealing with the regional director and ministers, the interim president (Roy Holladay) and the Council of Elders quickly took punitive action. Leon Walker was terminated while on his trip to Latin America and his credentials were removed in short order by the Council of Elders. There was no discussion with Mr. Walker beyond the meeting in Hawkins, Texas (explained below), which is contrary to the approved process for suspending or removing an elder.

Here we have the following claims:

1. The COE quickly took punitive action
• Not a fact. This is an opinion. The action taken by the COE may have been intended as punishment, or it may have been intended limit the potential for damage to Church assets and membership while further information was sought.
2. Leon Walker was terminated while on a trip to Latin America
• Agreed by both parties to be fact.
3. Leon Walker’s credentials were removed
• Agreed by both parties to be fact.
4. There was no discussion with Leon Walker, besides a meeting in Texas
• This is probably true, but perhaps a little misleading. It is a fact, agreed by both parties, that the COE requested Leon Walker terminate his trip in order to meet with the COE. Had Leon Walker terminated his trip and met with the COE there would have been a discussion. No doubt it would have been possible to have a discussion without the trip being terminated, but that is a different issue to there being no opportunity for discussion before terminating Leon Walker.
5. The absence of discussion was contrary to the approved process for suspending or removing an elder
• I am unable to verify this as yet and I would welcome anyone to do so. It is frustrating to me that any party would make such a claim without providing means to verify it (this has been a common practice on both sides). It should be noted, however, that violating a policy is a different matter to violating a rule or law. Please consider the Wikipedia article on policy.

Let’s continue:

Saul Langarica and Larry Roybal were removed once Mr. Luker became president and took over as director of the Spanish region. No one spoke to these two men at all prior to their removal from the ministry. All subsidies to Latin America were stopped effective July 1, 2010 without any warning, cutting employees’ salaries, cutting monies for congregational expenses such as Sabbath hall rentals, festival assistance and member assistance.

1. Saul Langarica and Larry Roybal were removed upon Dennis Luker becoming director of the Spanish region
• Fact.
2. No-one spoke to Mr Langarica or Mr Roybal prior to their removal from ministry
• Again, this strikes me as telling only half a story. A “letter sent by a concerned member from Latin America” on the “Abigail Cartwright” site tells of Mario Seiglie being refused entry to the UCG hall by Saul Langarica. I am assuming Saul Langarica had not, at that point, been removed from the ministry, since he was using the UCG hall. However, the “Abigail Cartwright” site does not date the letters published, making it difficult to reconstruct an accurate timeline. I’m sure Saul Langarica could have had a discussion about issues leading to his removal from the ministry had he not been refusing access by those sent by the Council. I think that is a fair assumption.
3. All subsidies to Latin America were stopped effective July 1, 2010 without any warning
• It is my understanding that this is an agreed fact. More can be said on this in a later post, as it is addressed in responses by the COE which will require their own analysis.

Continuing:

Various reasons were given for these extraordinary actions, the most common one being alleged insubordination on the part of the regional director, Mr. Walker. It is strange that a single act of “insubordination” should lead to such dire consequences for an entire region. Roughly 10% to 15% of the entire attendance of UCG resides in this region. One would think that extraordinary efforts would be taken to reach out and salvage a relationship with the members and elders. Instead, the course of action taken was horribly ill-advised, confrontational and heavy-handed. It also quickly became framed solely as an issue of submission to the governing authority of church leaders—while ignoring the real causes for this crisis.

This is largely opinion. It is important that we do not confuse actions that are unethical, immoral or sinful with actions that are unwise. If someone, be it a parent, boss or an authority in the Church (see Ephesians 6), tells you to do something that does not require you to break God’s law, you should do it. After all, Jesus Christ said:

And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. (Matthew 5:40-42, ESV)

However heavy-handed the COE may have been, it does not justify insubordination in response. Any justification of behaviour on either side of this fence on the basis that the other side was being unfair is simply childish.

Reading on…

This story is a shame to the Church of God and its legacy.

Fact. No disputing that.

Mr. Walker, the ministry and the membership of Latin America left the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) in April, 1995 as an intact group. They did not join any other group but came to United in July, 1995. The agreement when they came was that they would stay together and that Mr. Walker would be their regional director. They came with 1500 brethren and a number of elders. This is the largest group by far that joined United in its 1995 beginning.

Irrelevant. The fact here is that the Latin American church joined UCG. How they came to do so is irrelevant, what is relevant is what it meant to their organisational structure to be a part of UCG.

There were no legal obligations (outside of the governing documents at that time) that Latin America had to accept when coming to United because the Rules of Association were not adopted until 1999. There was no clear line of authority, specifying for whom Mr. Walker worked. This question was never completely answered during the early years, but all parties were happy with the arrangement and nothing happened to alter the structure that had been in place since WCG days. In fact, the relationship between all of the international areas (not just Latin America) with the president and Council has never been defined in terms of supervision and authority.

1. At the time Latin America joined UCG there were no legal obligations besides the governing documents at that time
• The qualifier here is strange to me. Either there were legal obligations or there weren’t. This sentence is entirely meaningless unless the reader knows what the governing documents “at that time” were. Anyway, this soon become irrelevant because it is implied that there later were legal obligations. Since the current crisis is happening now, not in the past, the existence of legal obligations in the past is utterly irrelevant. Keep in mind that Leon Walker and other ministers and elders in Latin America were able to vote as part of the GCE, meaning they had a say in any later-introduced legal obligations, anyway.
2. In the early years there was no “clear” line of authority, specifying for whom Mr. Walker worked. Everyone was happy with the structure and there was no change to the structure that had been in place since WCG days
• Once again, irrelevant. It is the present that is relevant to the present situation.
3. The relationship between all of the international areas (not just Latin America) and the president and Council has never been defined in terms of supervision and authority.
• Can anyone confirm this? There must be some level of definition, or the COE would have no power to remove Leon Walker or Latin American ministry. In the absence of a defined chain of authority there is a standard to be followed – see Matthew 5 as quoted earlier.

There follow three paragraphs outlining the 1999 adoption of Rules of Association and the structure chosen by Latin America. I quote parts:

They developed their own infrastructure, handled their own region, hired and transferred ministers within the region as determined by the pastors and the regional director—with no direction, supervision or administration from the Council or the president (only an advisory role according to Rule 4-140).
…
At no time was the regional director or the individual countries in Latin America informed that they came under the direct supervision or line authority of the president, the home office or the Council of Elders. They operated as most other international areas and in accordance with the Rules of Association. That is true to this day in Germany, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Italy, New Zealand and the Caribbean. They choose their own leaders (chairmen or office managers) and manage the affairs of the congregations within their regions without U.S. supervision.

It is hard for me to analyse this against facts and still post this blog post in less than three months time. I would like to acquire the relevant Rules of Association and governing documents and assess them against this section. What I can say, for the moment, is that what intrigues me is what is not said here. The implication of these paragraphs is that the COE had no authority to remove Leon Walker or any of the Latin American ministry. However, it is not explicitly stated that the COE acted outside their legal authority. My assumption, then, is that the authors of this document understand that the COE acted within their legal rights, but believe that they acted outside their spiritual or ethical rights.

The document then continues with an account of the circumstances leading up to Leon Walker’s termination. As this post is lengthy already, I think I will post this now and continue my analysis another day…

This hurts you more than it hurts me

For quite some time I have been doing research on corporal punishment, with a plan to post my findings here when I have read widely enough on the topic. That will still be quite some time off, as there is a lot of reading to wade through.

My plan to write on this topic has been inspired by a frustration at the sometimes narrow-minded approach of anti-spanking lobbies to reducing the incidence of child abuse. I have seen an awful lot of energy invested by these groups into trying to make parents who choose to use spanking as one of their tools of discipline feel sufficiently ashamed and guilty to stop, but not a lot of energy into providing parents with alternative, acceptable discipline strategies. That may be okay for parents who have a wide range of strategies, but it’s not so great for parents who don’t. I have personally observed parents who’ve bought the “spanking is always bad” theory faced with two serious problems:

• having children who receive no discipline at all, and believe they have power over their parents (and also may feel unloved because their parents seem to them not to care enough to set protective boundaries);
• experiencing outbursts of rage that may include hitting, pushing or emotionally abusing a child when the child’s behaviour goes beyond what the parent can cope with.

My concern is that a wide range of parenting issues and behaviours that contribute to the serious problem of child abuse are being overlooked while spanking is targeted in a kind of “witch hunt”.

But before I write about any of that in a future, I wanted to make sure to acknowledge that there absolutely are cases where corporal punishment is harmful, abusive and destructive to children’s development. While the research I will be examining on the topic of spanking will be published secular research on the topic, I do come at this topic with pre-conceived views arising out of my religious convictions. I think the following story, then, is an appropriate place to start.

Tim’s mother, Debra, wanted to make a better life. She’d had two children, Tim and Donna, in her teens and tried to raise them as a single mum in Washington, USA.

She decided to move state, seeking to reunite with the children’s father and try to have a proper family. Her step-mother, Retha Skyles, offered to help. She said she would look after Tim and Donna in Washington while Debra established a home interstate. She arranged for Debra to sign a document giving her temporary legal custody.

While Debra was away, Retha moved state and told Debra she had signed over all her parental rights to Retha. She wouldn’t tell Debra where her children were. Six years later, with Debra having given up any hope of getting her children back, Retha Skyles returned to Washington with Debra’s children, Tim and Donna, still in her care.

Donna was a child who, by her nature, tended to be obedient with little urging or discipline needed. Tim, however, was a boy who needed more explicit discipline to understand and accept boundaries on his behaviour. Unfortunately for Tim, his new “mother”, Retha, did not know how to discipline a child.

When Tim, now around six years old, disobeyed Retha this is what would happen: He would be made to bend over, bare-bottomed, and receive beatings administered with a wooden cutting board. If Tim cried, the beating would intensify to punish him for crying. This abuse didn’t stop until all crying and negative facial expressions had ceased and Tim was in silent submission.

Retha was confused when this approach didn’t seem to be working with Tim. It had “worked” with her own children, and it seemed to be effective with Donna. But Tim’s behaviour wasn’t improving. He was starting to behave oddly and have strange tantrums of inhuman screaming. Retha took her to a doctor, telling him that Tim was in her care because her daughter had used drugs. The doctor suggested Tim “might” have mild brain damage from the in utero exposure to drugs. Retha, knowing that she did not have legal custody of the children, didn’t dare seek any further professional advice. She determined to devise new methods of discipline on her own to manage this ostensibly brain-damaged child. She was determined to eradicate all roots of his evil, while keeping him protected from his “drug-abusing” mother.

When Tim was 8 year old, Retha moved in with her own mother. Retha’s son, Glen, was already living there. Glen recalls, “One would almost not know that Tim was there. Except for periodical screaming and butt-beating sessions, he’d be virtually invisible except [at church], where he sat quietly, and was always known as a remarkably “good little boy.'”

Retha had discovered isolation seemed to have some effect on Tim. She would seat him inside a circle of chairs draped with blankets. Tim’s behaviour came increasingly odd. He would bite his fingernails and chew holes in the blankets.

Tim had learned not to cry when punished, holding back with a grimace. However, his grimaces were seen by Retha as defiance, and he was beaten more severely for them. Retha asked her son Glen to build a box four feet by four feet by seven feet, with a bed on top. Glen built it, as asked, with one side open. Retha then closed the remaining side and kept Tim inside the box, only allowing him out to attend church and to defecate. He had a jar in the box with him to urinate in. Retha was calling him “the devil’s child.” He was occasionally cleaned with a wash-cloth, and wasn’t allowed to wear clothes. In his box there were no blankets or pillow – nothing for comfort. He would sleep curled in a tight ball.

To pass the time, Tim would imagine what it might be like to go outside. He thought all children lived in boxes, but imagined some mother’s were a little nicer than Retha. One day Glen gave him a stuffed toy dog. It was the first soft thing Tim can remember. “I used to talk to it,” says Tim. “I dreamed that it would come to life and break the lock. I thought maybe it would help me.” Later, Retha cut the toy to pieces with a knife.

Eventually Glen, who had been a victim himself of abusive “discipline”, realised the seriousness of what was happening to Tim. He went to his minister for advice. The minister, having heard his story, sat in silence for a moment. He then accused Glen of a variety of sins and warned him to stop speaking evil of his mother, threatening that there would be serious consequences if Glen told anyone else.

Glen finally went to Child Services, who within reasonably short time removed Tim and Donna from Retha’s care. The story of the “boy in the box” soon exploded in news reports around the world. It was 1987.

The above story was reconstructed from the following accounts:

• Poison Doctrine: the Dichotomy of Armstrongism by CW (contributing writer) on the blog As Bereans Did
• Years locked in boy spur boy’s search from The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, June 9, 1996
• Accusations about boy in box denied from The Daily Record, Ellensburg, Washington, October 12, 1987
• Woman claims boy-in-a-box story ‘twisted’ from the Spokane Chronicle, October 14, 1987.

Retha Skyles was a member of the Worldwide Church of God, a predecessor of my current church. The minister from whom Glen sought advice was a Worldwide Church of God minister in Tacoma, Washington.

Let’s be clear: Child abuse is unacceptable. The abuse described in this story is shocking, gut-wrenching and should never have happened. The minister Glen went to for advice should have believed him and acted swiftly to protect Tim.

Retha Skyles’s idea of spanking (or any other form of discipline) is not something that anyone should defend. Her disciplinary practices were abusive, without question. They were damaging, without question. Such practices are to be thoroughly condemned. Such practices are a big part of what motivates the anti-spanking lobby.

Any Christian who is aware of an individual using methods of discipline that are abusive should immediately report that individual to child protection services. While it is understandable that many might feel they should speak to their minister about their concerns, ministers are not necessarily trained in recognising or handling child abuse. Unfortunately, Glen learned that with considerable personal consequences. No Christian should assume that because another person is a Christian they wouldn’t abuse children. Children are abused across every imaginable range of backgrounds and cultures.

Does Tim’s story demonstrate that spanking should be outlawed? That is a question I will cover in more detail in my future post examining the research on spanking. But this much can be said now: Many readers will know from first-hand experience of being spanked as children that it shaped our behaviour without lasting negative consequences. Sadly, too, many readers will have first-hand experience of spanking that did have lasting negative consequences.

There are many, many forms of discipline that don’t involve spanking yet can become abusive and harmful. In my next post on the topic, I will be examining the research with this question in mind: if spanking was outlawed, would children be better off?

That faulty covenant, that unnecessary sacrifice

J, who maintains the blog Shadows of WCG Next Generation for ex-WCG folk, has recently had some things to say about the law and righteousness. In his post LCG Member Misses the Mark he makes some valid points that I agree with. Of minor interest, however, is something J says of the law:

it never did what it was supposed to do, it was a shadow of what was greater.

I think this highlights one of the fundamental problems with standard Protestant theology on the law and the Old Testament: a view seems to develop that God somehow was getting things wrong to begin with, then Jesus came along and fixed up a system for salvation that actually works. Salvation through Jesus Christ was planned from the very beginning. I’m sure virtually no Christian alive would argue with that. But it is interesting that a Christian can think of God as having put in place the law to do something that it failed to do. God does not fail.

More interesting to me though, and the point of this post, is what J says in his post Herbert Armstrong: Righteousness is obedience to God’s Law. J had earlier replied to a comment on an earlier post by saying:

Herbert Armstrong stated righteousness is obtained by lawkeeping

He cited an article by Herbert Armstrong entitled The Mystery of MELCHIZEDEK Solved! as the evidence of this claim. Specifically, he refers to the statement in the article:

Righteousness is obedience to God’s law

I suggest you look at the article yourself, search for that quote and read it in context. There is a difference between saying righteousness is obtained by lawkeeping. Before you accuse me of arguing semantics, consider the rest of what I have to say.

If I say “a world record for a 100m sprint is when you run 100m faster than anyone else in recorded history” I have simply defined a world record. You could say I’ve told you how to win a world record, but I haven’t. To obtain the accomplishment that I have defined requires something much more profound than just “do it faster”. It would require intensive training, etc. Likewise, one can’t just be obedient and therefore make oneself righteous. And HWA taught that – it requires the miraculous transformation through faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, the receipt of the Holy Spirit and all that goes with that.

Just sentences before J’s HWA quote, in that same article it said:

None can be righteous but God or one made righteous by God’s power or Christ in a person!

QED, Armstrong did not teach that a human being could be made righteous by keeping the law.

In a comment to J’s post, “Byker Bob” acknowledges this, but says:

He taught that the problem with the OC was not the OC itself, but humans breaking the covenant. To me, that always seemed like hedging the bet! If you don’t have faith in Jesus Christ, or His payments for you sins, you also try to be a good Jew so that that will get you into the kingdom.

This brings me back to the first point I made in this post – this strange idea that God can get something wrong. Implied in BB’s comment is that the problem with the Old Covenant was the Old Covenant, not the humans who broke it. If that is so, the death penalty for sin was somewhat misapplied, was it not? Furthermore, couldn’t we then argue that Jesus Christ, being God who established the “faulty” Old Covenant “deserved” to pay the penalty for all those sins that were the fault of the Old Covenant, not us? This would entirely eliminate the tremendous grace in Jesus Christ’s act of sacrifice!