From: Norbert Link
Dear Bob:
We are all very shocked and grieved regarding Colin's death. We spent all afternoon and evening together with Margaret to give her whatever comfort we could. The constant stress in this office contributed, no doubt, to Colin's death. We will never forget him and the fine work which he did for all of us.
I am sending you my answers to your questions. Two Board Members reviewed them and agreed.
Hope to see you soon.
Best regards,
Norbert
Global Church of God
13th. November 1998
Dear Mr Adair,
May I respectfully ask for your help in trying to understand a matter which has increasingly puzzled my wife and me in recent weeks. We are somewhat concerned and confused by the contradictory statements made in the Journal ewspaper of 31st August, 1998 and the subsequent "clarification" in the latest issue.
In our contacts with friends in UCGaia we are unable to answer their questions on the matter as we don't understand them ourselves. Could you, therefore, be kind enough to answer the attached questions individually, and in as complete a manner as you can.
In order to be able to stand firm within Global we do need to be sure of our ground, but we feel that our confidence has been somewhat shaken by these matters. They are not interested in political window dressing or evasive answers, and neither are we. The inconsistencies and completely contradictory nature of some of the "verbatim" quotations from Dr Meredith, which have not been refuted by San Diego, have, in our opinion, exposed us to ridicule by the discerning reader.
Anyway, we can talk about it all when we get together in private, although I would also like detailed written confirmation.
We hope that you have a safe journey across the "pond" and look forward to spending time with you both.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Devine.
Registered in Scotland. No: 156825. Scottish Charity No: SCO 23441
Registered Office - 5 Victoria Place, Airdrie, Lanarkshire, ML6 9BU
Set forth below are my, Norbert Link's, answers, as taken from our official Minutes and other official material:
QUESTIONS FROM THE JOURNAL
1. QUOTE Dr Meredith, during announcements before his sermon, said he had heard that many Global members were "doubting everything".
What was he referring to here and has anything been done to address those doubts?
Don't know what this reference is to, and I don't know what has been done, if anything, to address those doubts.
2. QUOTE (During his sermon) Global's government is not a democracy, he declared. "I appointed every single man on the board. I appointed every single one of the council of elders. They didn't gang up on me and get me to appoint them: I appointed them myself unilaterally, and I thought it was good to have a council of elders? Who does the program? I do. Who writes most of the lead articles? I do. Who writes the co-worker letters? I do. Is the board or the council suggesting anything else? No. No one has hinted at such a thing, even in the last couple or three months, since we had all of the discussions. We've been in total harmony.
Is the use of the phrase "total harmony" entirely accurate? If so how do we explain what follows?
The Minutes reflect, that the Board had authority, from the inception of Global, to appoint and remove any officers and directors, or to employ and to fire any of its employees. Further, that the Board understood, and acted upon this understanding, to have final authority to appoint the Council Members (NOTE: A most recent change in the Bylaws vests this authority now in the Council for those Council Members who are not also Board Members).
3. QUOTE We don't vote, but we reach a concensus where we say, "All in favour say aye!"
Please excuse my naivete, but, in my book, raising one's hand and saying aye! IS VOTING!
I would agree. The Word "voting" comes from the Latin "votum" or "votare," and only means, to let or make one's will known.
4. QUOTE ?it has been virtually altogether unanimous, or once or twice we had maybe one person who didn't
participate or something. But it's always been unanimous or unanimous minus one? on every decision. We're not going to have a big debating society, and they've guaranteed that.
Isn't 'Unanimous minus one' a contradiction in terms? Rather like being almost pregnant.
Agreed.
5. QUOTE All of the council and board members have guaranteed to me in our discussions and in write ups of our minutes that I am to be the unquestioned leader, the pillar, in the Global Church of God? Yet I'm not in total charge, where I can just run off with the ship, so to speak.
How can an 'unquestioned' leader not be in 'total charge'?
The Council and Board Members did not guarantee, nor is it stated that way in the Minutes, that the Chairman is the "unquestioned leader, the pillar." Rather, the Minutes reflect the following:
"The Council then discussed a sermon given in Tulsa by Dr. Meredith, during which Dr. Meredith attempted to quiet concerns by some regarding the government issue, and although this attempt was quite successful, it was felt that some of the statements in the sermon did not accurately reflect the government structure, as set forth in the Bylaws, as mentioned in Dr. Meredith's June 11, 1998 letter to the brethren, and agreed by the Council and the Board. Dr. Meredith stated that he did use too strong terms in his sermon, and said he agrees with what was told the public in his June 11, 1998, letter. Further, that the decisions of the Board and Council are final, with the proviso that Dr. Meredith will act as a strong leader, but not as the sole leader."
6. QUOTE He could be removed for 'gross immorality' not one slip, but continuing immorality, committing adultery a number of times, or get drunk over and over or rob banks or [indulge in] any immorality or illegality or heresy.
Where is the line drawn and who draws it?
At the time of the sermon, these potential ambiguities in the Bylaws existed. Our Bylaws, as they presently read, state that any Council Member can be removed for cause, as ecclesiatcially determined by 75% of the full Council.
7. QUOTE Another reason to have a "real board" rather than a dummy board, he said, is that a legitimate board "protects us" from being called a cult.
Avoiding being called a cult was the motivation for apostasy in our previous association wasn't it? Why mention this?
I never felt that this was a valid argument, and I most certainly do not agree with it.
8. QUOTE Still another reason for a legitimate board, he said, is that a church is required by law to have a legitimate board, and the Global Church is incorporated in California.
Would we have one if it wasn't?
Under California law, the Church could be (or could have been) organised as a corporation sole, with only one person in absolute control and power. When Global started, this option was conscientiously rejected, and it was rather decided to incorporate under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Act, which requires a functioning Board. It is under that form of registration, that we have received permission from the government to operate and that has granted us tax exempt status.
9. QUOTE The board has voluntarily agreed, and the council, to let me be the sole leader and to guide the discussions and to have far more input than anyone else.
Is this true? If so, have the State of California authorities been informed of it?
See my comments above. Further, in regard to the "guidance of the decisions," the Minutes state the following:
"During a lengthy discussion, the Council unanimously upheld and confirmed... the fact that the Council and the Board make decisions, as set forth in the Bylaws, that those decisions are reached by open discussion until there is a consensus, and that an issue should not be tabled, after it has been discussed and decided by the Council/and or the Board.
"The Presiding Evangelist, Chairman and/or President may, however, guide the discussions and lead in reaching the decisions to be made by the Council and/or the Board, and he should also lead in formulating the decisions, subject to review and consensus of the Council and/or the Board. Further, if it appears that a decision could only be reached with a very small majority, the Chairman should have the right to table the matter, in order to enable the Council and/or the Board to obtain further information, subject to a deadline of a week-or longer, as agreed to by the Council and/or the Board-after which he will lead the Council and/or the Board in obtaining a majority decision, as set forth in the Bylaws."
10. QUOTE If there are men out there trying to oust me, trying to get me, I will be the first one to tell you, okay? So, if they're trying to pull some dirty trick or get rid of me?then I will be the first one to warn the brethren about it so that you'll know. Then you'll have a way to put pressure on them to back off.
This part I find most alarming. He appears to be making a thinly veiled threat to the Board or Council of the Global Church that he will resort to recruiting the brethren in his defence in the event of disagreement, and he is here giving due warning of that fact to all concerned. Is this the case?
I believe that his statements speak for themselves. If you are asking whether it is the case that "there are men out there trying to oust" him, then the Minutes of both the Board and the Council Meetings reflect that both the Council Members and the Directors have clearly stated that their is absolutely no intent to ever do so, barring, of course, conduct which would warrant action against any Council Member.
11. QUOTE I'm not assuming that I'm the apostle with the same degree of leadership. But I am the pillar among the other ministers and council of elders and so on, and they recognise that, and we do have hierarchy.
Does the Council of Elders unanimously agree to this explanation? Is there a hierarchy in the Council?
I would not say that the Council would agree with the statement that he is "the pillar." See my comments above.
12. QUOTE {From Dr Meredith's letter to the Journal, published in the latest edition} While a few of my statements appear to have been misunderstood by the Journal, I certainly acknowledge that wrong conclusions could be drawn from some of the comments?to avoid further misunderstanding by any of your readers?
He seems to be using a common political ploy here?blame everybody else but himself. My important question is, do we really have a genuine spirit lead consensus or a political sham to facilitate a one man rule?
Again, from all decisions which the Council and the Board have reached, we do NOT have one-man rule. Our Bylaws and representations to the public and the membership don't ALLOW us to have one-man rule. If impressions are given to the contrary, they would not be in harmony with what the Council and the Board have agreed to.
13. Please understand that I am genuinely trying to understand which form of government Global actually has. From what I have read I can well understand others misunderstanding, and I don't think that it is entirely their fault. I fail to see how the Jounal can be said to "misunderstand" simply by printing an accurate verbatim report. I can only assume, in the absence of any denials that the quotation from the Tulsa sermon are accurate. Obviously, I have not shared my concerns with anyone else, but would appreciate a full written reply at your earliest convenience.
Where the Journal quoted statements with quotation marks, they appeared to be correctly quoted. In a few cases, however, statements were not totally accurately summarized.