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.

Read Full Post »

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..

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full 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.

Read Full Post »