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:
- ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts
- What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1
- What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2
- What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 3
- What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 4
- 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.
Your closing is precisely right–it has been the failure of the false shepherds that has scattered the flock of God. As it says in Jeremiah 50:6: “My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray; they have turned them away on the mountains. They have gone from mountain to hill; they have forgotten their resting place.”
The failure of other parties to act as they ought does not in any way absolve us of our own responsibilities as Christians. We will stand before our Lord and Judge held accountable for our words and actions and no excuses will be accepted, only repentance.
The Rules of Association along with UCG’s system are simply idols of men that is going down as part of the will of God. As has been duly proved, Mr. Seiglie, as well as Mr. Walker, and all other members of the COE in the second half of 2005 who voted are individuals true Christians should avoid per Romans 16:17. Jesus Christ is in charge and still leading and gathering His true flock. Those serious about truth will continue to seek to follow it.
Sometimes the path to peace and reconciliation requires separation.
One of the things that has clearly shown through all of this is the attitude of most people on both sides is that they are “owed” a church.
On what scriptural basis is any true Christian obligated to support a COE or a MBOD as the government of Jesus Christ? Scripturally, true ministers of Jesus Christ are required to be faithful stewards of the Word. Are these individuals to whom we are being told to submit or give allegiance faithful with God’s Word? Based on their own documented actions in 2005 they were not.
Groups may choose whatever type of corporate governance they desire, but to equate that as the government of Jesus Christ and state that people “owe” submission to it is idolatry.
Ultimately, what fellowship can true believers have with idolators?
What are the actions of 2005 that you speak of?