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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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…
[…] About « What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2 […]
[…] What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2 […]
[…] What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2 […]
[…] What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2 […]