December 15, 1998

TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE "SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT" BOARD LETTER

Dear brethren in the Churches of God in Britain and Ireland:

As many of you know I have been asked by Dr. Meredith to come over here and be available to answer any questions and provide support for the brethren in these beautiful islands. It is my pleasure to do this. While I will have met many of you by the time you receive this letter, there are many of you which I will not have been able to meet with.

Partially because, unfortunately I have been maligned or belittled simply because I have not come to support the recent decisions of the "board". It is reported to me that I have been referred to as both a wolf and a dog, by an elder in England who seems determined that you NOT hear both sides of the matter now before us. Since I am compared to these canines, I bring to your notice that it is not I who is doing the "barking"! I have simply come to be available and for questions regarding the truth about what has happened recently between Dr. Meredith and the "board".

I do not like speaking about myself, but since I am being disparaged so as to keep some of you from hearing me, I will say a bit in my own defense, like Paul who also found it necessary. What have I ever done to any in Britain or Ireland that I too should now be the focus of denigration? Is it that I still have confidence in Dr. Meredith? Those seeking to slander me also claimed confidence in him only a couple of weeks ago. As a matter of fact, the chief one who is attacking me, had only recently during and after the Feast, expressed confidence in me, even asking numerous times if I would please move over to the UK as the British pastor. Now I am referred to as a wolf and am supposedly "only ordained barely 3 years", and must be "called off" like a bad dog. What changed so quickly? Is my sudden character fault that I continue to support the same one my accuser also supported only a couple of weeks ago?

To set the record straight, I have actually been ordained four years ago, lacking about a month. Prior to that I served as a multiple church host at the request of Misters Meredith and Carl McNair. I "hosted" the Medford, Coos Bay, and Klamath Falls, Oregon churches, as well as the Redding, California church covering an area of more that 400 square miles. My wife and I did this with our own car and at our own expense for about two years prior to my ordination – traveling and giving sermons, counseling, and in effect "pastoring" those churches. As a matter of fact, I had to lay off most of my employees, divest myself of two very profitable businesses and take a rather large pay cut so that I could serve even further. I gladly did so. The reason I had been asked to take on so much, not yet being ordained, was because Mr. Meredith knew me and the ministerial training I had received at Ambassador College from 1981-1983, and felt that my successful business and management experience added to my competence in serving the Church of God.

After my ordination as an elder in February of 1995, my territory of service and numbers of church areas was doubled – adding the Reno, Nevada and Sacramento and Eureka, California Churches of God. I served a couple of more years before I was ordained again by Mr. Colin Adair as a pastor. That is my background. But it's not important really, except to the extent of my qualifications to speak to you be cleared up. I am a sinner. If I have offended any or done wrong, I repent and ask forgiveness, but a wolf I am not.

What is FAR more important than me, is the TRUTH about this matter and that you are able to judge these matters based upon FACTS and hearing BOTH SIDES, rather than one sided emotional or fearful accusations. I think it a Biblical error to judge after only hearing one side. That's why I have come. I HAVE NOT COME TO REVILE IN RETURN, nor should any of you my dear brethren. (1 Pet.2:19-23) My focus here is on more of a loving and brotherly approach to this crisis that has been forced upon all of us in a very unfortunate way, and to cover the Biblical instructions for dealing with these type of crisis situations.

Also, I'm here to answer specific charges and "set the record straight". Why do some not want you to hear the full version? Do they not trust your judgment? How can you decide fairly, after hearing only one side? Did not God say, "prove all things"? Prov 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. (KJV) As you may know, in my last 12 point letter dealing with the accusations by Mr. Salyer and the board, I suggested we not get into a "spitting contest". That is why I have not written sooner, though many have asked me to. Let me now only give brief answers to the barrage of picky and hateful sounding accusations continuing to be leveled against Dr. Meredith by Larry Salyer and the "board". Following that, I will show a bit about how God says we should judge, and respond. Point on the "SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT" document, herein referred to as the 2nd Board doc.

POINT 1
In the 3rd paragraph of the 2nd Board, the Board states that they felt they had to "tell it to the church". I find that very interesting since they refused to allow Dr. Meredith to "tell it to the church" by keeping the membership list from him. They said they had to "protect" the church list. THINK! What were they "protecting" the list from? The presiding evangelist – the one they say was to be the "strong leader"? Is that a level playing field? If Dr. Meredith really was a "strong leader", then why did they prevent him from taking this crisis to the brethren by first restricting his use of the list, and then removing his ability to speak by also taking control of the speaking schedule for sermons that were to be taped and sent worldwide? Why not be fair?

The Board had no problem using the list to present their position to you. Why did they remove Carl McNair from the Board for supporting Dr. Meredith's right to use the church membership list, only to use it themselves for their version of the story? Should not Mr. Meredith be able to "tell it to the church" as Mr. HWA did in his times of crisis? Mr. Meredith had a right to use that list to communicate with you all, in order to prevent what has now become a reality. You had a right to know. Now he has had to try to assemble a new membership list which is only partial, with large portions missing. Many of you have wondered why Dr. Meredith had not kept you informed about the crisis. This is why. As a matter of fact, some Board members had given specific instructions that no mail should go out without their prior approval, with Mr. Meredith's possible letters in mind. What if this had been done in the book of Acts, not allowing those who opposed mandatory circumcision to be heard by the membership or rest of the ministry?

POINT 2
It is indeed a cheap and base remark to try to make comparison between President Clinton and Dr. Meredith on page 2 of the 2nd Board doc. This shows a lack of basic moral class, decency and respect – and is absurd, serving only as a "below the belt" desperate attempt, against Dr. Meredith's person rather than the issues. No further comment needed here, since this is no more than a base attempt to defame Dr. Meredith's character by comparing him to a well known man of poor moral history.

POINT 3
The statement is made that "None of us were ever convinced that we needed to cancel WGN." While it is true that the Council did affirm that they would stay on WGN. Then in meetings immediately following, it has been reported by many that Mr. Pope in effect said, "We've got to get off WGN", "We can't afford WGN", and other comments about cutting back on our TV. At least one other Board member was making similar remarks. This statement by the Board that "None of us were ever convinced that we needed to cancel WGN" is simply not accurate representation or is playing a legal technical game with words! We've all seen technical "word games" that deceive - used by those in the legal profession or by those seeking to get out from under their words. Perhaps this is not an intentional lie, but I understand Fred Dattalo, Jerry Ruddelston, Don Davis, Bonny Miller, Sheri Bruce, Wayne Pyle, Carl McNair, Dr. Meredith, and others can attest to hearing comments directly from Mr. Pope that are contrary to the Board's statement in their "Setting the Record Straight" document. As the saying goes, "when there's enough smoke, there's fire". No wonder so many were so upset when the gospel via television was being threatened. I'm told by those present that those on the Board who wanted off WGN spoke of using the bulk of the WGN money for more hires and to replace WGN with a "few local public access stations". I personally even communicated with the Council on November 2nd, in a letter I sent to each member of the council. Why deny it?

POINT 4
Page 3 of the Boards "Setting The Record Straight" doc, the statement is made by the Board; "at no time did any Council or Board member ever make any "threats and insinuations" about firing Dr. Meredith – for any reason…" Again on page 5 of the same letter they again state; "There were no threats or insinuations about ousting Dr. Meredith." Yet further on the same page and beginning page 6, the comment is made to the affect that if Mr. Meredith didn't stop feeling attacked "you will no doubt create a self-fulfilling prophecy yourself, in which others are forced to act against you."

Which is it?

On one hand they say there were no "threats and insinuations" about firing Dr. Meredith, and then in the same context they tell of when such an insinuation was made! INCREDIBLE! It seems that what Mr. Salyer really wanted is for Mr. Meredith to just be quiet, instead of really trying to address Mr. Meredith's concerns. Nor does it seem Mr. Meredith's concerns were seriously addressed by Mr. Salyer as director of the ministry, when he was affronted with numerous reports that Mr Pack was publicly disparaging Dr. Meredith. That will be dealt with more later.

POINT 5
This same doc states that Dr. Meredith, Carl McNair and even Mrs. Meredith all voted to have Mrs. Meredith's name removed from the Board. This is under the "FACT" heading. Some of the "FACT" headings seem more intent on FACTion than actual facts. Perhaps the one taking the notes of these meetings (I'm told, Norbert Link – the lawyer) was recording the meetings based upon what he wanted to hear, rather than the way they really were, because Mrs. Meredith went to that meeting to make these men look her in the eye when they removed her – AND SHE VOTED NO! Both Carl McNair and Mr. Meredith DISAGREED with the NEED to have her removed, and only AGREED to allow her removal for the sake of unity. She DID NOT! SHE VOTED NO! Remember when Mrs. Meredith was put on the Board at Global's beginning when need was great and options few. Just like Debra in Judges, sometimes there is an "ox in the ditch" need. Just like Debra, Mrs. Meredith stepped forward. Mr. Meredith wanted to keep her on the Board as an ally and for her loyalty and dedication to the Work. Hindsight has proven that it had been a reasonable and accurate need, for who would have ever guessed that these few men on the Board after Mr. Adair's "vote" was taken out of the equation, would take over the control of the church from the Council of Elders and from Dr. Meredith, in a coup?

POINT 6
Mention is made of Dr. Meredith and Carl McNair voting "yes" to being able to remove Dr. Meredith from the Board with a Ύ majority. This Dr. Meredith has publicly repented and apologized for. But at least understand this was only after a long "tug-of-war". The Board wanted a simple 2/3 majority to remove Dr. Meredith. Mr. Meredith incorrectly thought for the sake of unity, 75% was better than 66%. But this tug of war over percentages shows the differences and the tone of the meetings. No wonder Dr. Meredith felt threatened like he was fighting to maintain what was slowly being taken away by the Board. Mr. Meredith has made errors – no question – and this was one of them. But does this repented of mistake justify his removal?

Now consider for a moment the intent of this 75% majority for the removal of Dr. Meredith from the Board… It was supposed to be so that a fair and honest removal could be made by Ύ majority of the Board, BACKED BY THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS, which had the same percentages for dismissal. Having the COUNCIL as the over all governing body IS WHY DR. MEREDITH STATES THAT HE WENT ALONG WITH THAT CHANGE! The intent then was for a fair and balanced Ύ majority who would independently reach their own opinions. No one ever thought Board members would be forced or removed from the Board if they had a different opinion like Carl McNair was, so as to force the will of a few on the Board onto the church! It was also thought that the COUNCIL, (not the Board) would be the overall church guide. That was the intent. But how was it actually done? Firstly is was done WITHOUT COUNCIL SUPPORT OR KNOWLEDGE, counter to the understanding of how it SHOULD HAVE been done. Further it was done in a quick opportune moment seeming to take advantage of Mr. Colin Adair's absence.

Once Mr. Adair died and his "vote" was removed, the Board was now reduced to five. Since the Board was now split 3/2 they now had an unnatural majority of 60%. Then they had a motion to remove Carl McNair because of his "tolerance" of Dr. Meredith and because he thought Dr. Meredith had a right to the church membership list to communicate with you brethren, about the current state of affairs – something evidently they thought was only their right. Knowing that Carl McNair could not vote on a motion about his own person, he had to abstain and leave the room – giving them an artificially and politically created 75% majority. Thus they removed Carl McNair. They then filled one of these two now vacated seats with a company lawyer, WHILE THEY STILL HAD THE TEMPORARY 75% MAJORITY THAT THEY CREATED. (Many in business and in the legal arena would argue that company counsel can not be unbiased in giving advice if they become a Board member and that such a move is highly unethical and unnatural. Be that as it may, the Board had quickly maneuvered to have this 75% power increased to 80% by appointing the lawyer.) Such power was now absolute to do their will – since they were all in opposition to Dr. Meredith's leadership, making possible their bold move to remove Dr. Meredith WITHOUT THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS APPROVAL!

I ask any level headed person: Do you think that this was the intent of the 75% clause? Do you think that anyone ever imagined it would be used in such an unnatural and opportunistic and clearly political power grab such as this? This 75% or 80% lead was artificially created by those seeking the power. IS IT ANY WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T SEEK THE COUNCIL ON THIS MOST MAJOR SPIRITUAL MATTER?

POINT 7
Comment was made that Dr. Meredith could have set up the church as corporation sole, and why didn't he so that he could have decided things like HWA used to. If I understand what is said here, it is that Mr. Meredith IS NOT taking as much power to himself as HWA did! In fact Dr. Meredith states that the reason he did not set the church up as a corporation sole is because he trusted the men and wanted to avoid even the appearance of being an overlord. It seems Mr. Meredith is "bad" no matter which way he goes.

POINT 8
It is stated that Dr. Meredith was even "championing the rewriting of the bylaws" in 1995. Strange! Men in those meetings have told me that it was actually Misters Pope and Raymond McNair who were "championing" those changes. Perhaps this too could be due to a twist by the one taking the corporate notes to give a slanted view to you? Further this is when the Council of Elders was added to the bylaws AND IT WAS NOW UNDERSTOOD THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD OVERSEE AND GUIDE THE BOARD IN SPIRITUAL MATTERS OF MAGNITUDE! Why didn't they get a chance here? Were they too simply to become "figure heads"?

POINT 9
Mention is made of the "minority" of Council members that supported Dr. Meredith. If that were true then WHY – WHY were they not used to accomplish the purpose of the Board for such far reaching decisions to the church? In fact this seems to me to be just another example of "word games" in the counting. Indeed not every motion ever brought before the Council had a majority opinion in agreement with Dr. Meredith. That's not what is being stated. Even the motion about Mr. Pack's removal, while a majority, was not unanimous. However, it is true that a majority of Council members AT THE TIME OF DR. MEREDITH'S REMOVAL did NOT support his removal – their vote was counted with their feet! Apparently, because of his quiet nature, some did confuse Mr. Apartian's lack of loud disagreement on each point with acquiescence. That was a mistake. However, Mr. Apartian was not the kind of waffling man he is portrayed to be. The fact is that Mr. Pack was suspended pending the outcome of an investigation by the Council, and Mr. Adair had died. That left 11 on the Council – including Mr. Meredith. The split was 5 for the Board! In my math 11 less 5 = 6, a majority.

POINT 10
Mr. Meredith seems to be being maligned and accused of dishonesty by Mr. Salyer and the Board, for later wishing he had voted differently than he did. Is this another case of the "kettle calling the pot black"? Mr. Pack was being investigated for serious allegations including public and divisive accusations against Dr. Meredith. The Council did not want to remove Mr. Pack for this outright, but decided to have Mr. Pack investigated first, and settled on a suspension pending the outcome of the investigation. Eye witnesses say Larry Salyer voted AYE to have Mr. Pack investigated as well as the others. Yet he and Mr. Meeker later refused to go and carry out the will of the Council and were insubordinate to the Council and their own vote! Why is not the same treatment being given to these men? Why? Should they be disqualified and "removed too" for their insubordination or change of mind for something they had just "voted" for? Should they be called liars for this? Of course not! Why not apply the same treatment then to Dr. Meredith? In fact the mild treatment that Mr. Salyer and others gave the Mr.

Pack matter is one more reason why Dr. Meredith and others began to think that there WAS a movement against him. When Dr. Meredith appointed Mr. Charles Bryce and Rand Millich to carry out the Council's will to investigate the matter regarding Mr. Pack – since Misters Salyer and Meeker refused – he was strongly rebuffed by the Board, and told he had no right, and that this matter should have been voted on again! If he really was a "strong leader" as they say he was, then why wasn't Mr. Meredith, as president, even allowed to carry out the will of the Council? Further why has Global's new Council seemingly rejected or ignored the findings of these two appointed men (Misters Bryce and Millich) as well as the comments of Mr. Pack's regional pastor Mr. Lambert Greer, concerning the matters that Mr. Pack was suspended for? Instead, the new Council, appointed by the Board has simply reinstated him!

POINT 11
Mention is made of Paul and Peter doing a work in the same areas at the same time to the same people, in order to counter Mr. Meredith's comments. Yes Paul did write Hebrews, and did travel some to Israel, as Peter opened up the way to the Gentiles. But it is clear that they did not minister to the same specific peoples save some few, possibly incidentally. Remember Paul's own words: Rom 15:20 "And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man's foundation"; (NAS) Their work was separate. There was not confusion as to whom was directing what.

POINT 12
Incredibly it is stated that the reason why the Board did not call the Council of Elders was because there was not time! Balderdash! The Council could have been called over the weekend and had been there by the Tuesday the Board decided to take over! They could have decided to call an emergency meeting later in the week as well as a fast – we could have all waited, fasted and prayed awaiting the outcome! I for one would have fasted and waited! THEY EVEN COULD HAVE HAD AN EMERGENCY PHONE MEETING WITH EACH MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL IN A GROUP PHONE CONFERENCE THAT VERY DAY OR THE NEXT! WHY DIDN'T THEY??? That is like a ship crew that was only a phone call and a day away from port, justifying their mutiny by saying there was not time to call or wait a day to leave it in the hands of their Navy! Such an excuse is filled with holes and is mutinous – a classic corporate political power grab.

POINT 13
Using the reasoning of the Board, if an "anointed one" only refers to Christ, then the two witnesses or anointed ones in Zech.4 would be called the two "Christ's" or "messiah's" Let's not make more out of this that we ought. This is simply making mention of the calling of God to His servants. We are a church that believes in the doctrine of the laying on of hands to an office. "He gave some, apostles; some, prophets; some, evangelists; some, pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11) By the fruits you could tell which was the leader between Paul and Barnabus. We're all called the "anointed" in a sense. 2 Cor 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; (KJV) Even the sick are anointed in the name of the Lord. No one is saying that Dr. Meredith is like Christ or better than anyone else. He is simply saying that he has an ordination to fulfill as evangelist and by the fruits, a leading evangelist, that was used to revive this work. Let's not make more out of this "anointed" thing than we ought!

POINT 14
The following statement is made in this Board letter: ("Consider too that Dr. Meredith says he went along with these Council votes because he would have been "out voted anyway." Yet he later says that the majority of the Council was behind him. Which is it?") Be careful on this one brethren! There is a clever sly deceitful twist being used here. By lumping "Votes on the Board" in with "Council votes", the two are being confused. Therein comes the deceit. Being out-voted on the Board is not the same as being out-voted on the Council. You can have a majority support in one and be out-voted on the other. By inserting the word "Council" into a quote Mr. Meredith made about being "outvoted anyway" ON THE BOARD, and so voting for unity's sake, and then trying to attribute that same sentence to Dr. Meredith regarding COUNCIL VOTES, creates their artificial contradiction! You will notice if you go back and reread what Dr. Meredith ACTUALLY said, in that entire paragraph and section ONLY THE BOARD is mentioned – NOT the Council! They've set up a "straw man", so it could be torn down!

There is no contradiction by Dr. Meredith. He did have majority support in the Council, while being outvoted for something else on the Board. Upon closer examination, it seems the real dishonesty is by the ones pointing the finger and accusing! While this may be clever, does it seem honest? "Kettle calling the pot black" again?

POINT 15
The point is made that Mr. Pope had to sign any checks and that there was a procedure laid out for repaying these loans. That "procedure" was altered more than once by a simple phone call. No use in covering this subject in it's entirety, as it has been covered before. But even recently large loans were repaid ahead of schedule with just a phone call and no special approval. Mention is made of Dr. Meredith trying to repay these loans, and this is made out to be "embezzlement" because these supposed strict procedures were not followed. The fact of the matter is that these "procedures" have been altered many times to repay loans – even asking some to be paid back late – to facilitate others who asked for early repayment, others being paid with simply a phone call. What is especially new is the accusation of embezzlement and the change of the terms used (for emotional impact?) to describe these funds. They're no longer referring to this money as what it is, "LOANS FROM BRETHREN". Now it is called "God's tithes and offerings". A loan is not a tithe! Don't fall for the emotionally charged twist.

God's tithes are Holy. But this was money that was LOANED by dedicated brethren. They didn't call it "tithes" or put a negative tone on Don Davis or his widowed mother-in-law, when they needed their money! They gladly took it. Now they are nearly accused of theft and embezzlement for wanting to be repaid during what appeared to be a coup! Incredible! Further explanation on this and other matters is forth coming from Dr. Meredith. Remember, in actuality no money was ever transferred out of Global's bank accounts.

POINT 16
It is stated by the Board that Dr. Meredith "broke his promise", by promising not to do anything over the weekend. No such promises were made, but were only asked for. Dr. Meredith did wait until Monday to send out his letter and went to the final Board meeting Tuesday – hoping that the Board would repent. Instead they fired him and tried to say he left. He did seek to contact you brethren and inform you of what was happening, contrary to the wishes of the Board. He also did seek to regain leadership of the church back from those who wrested it. But he did not leave willingly, he was fired! Nor did he promise to the Board "not to do ANYTHING".

POINT 17
Sometimes we can all become a bit sarcastic in moments of frustration. Are we really to believe that Dr. Meredith was actually trying to convince the Board to lie in a silly scheme? Christ said: "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' (NIV) (Luke 13:32) Christ was being a bit sarcastic here – referring to Herod as a fox! Was Christ calling Herod a fox? Yes. Was Herod literally a fox? No. Will someone accuse Christ of lying because he was being kind of sarcastic? Do not the proverbs say that there is a time to answer a fool according to his folly?

POINT 18
Since the Board was trying to say Mr. Meredith's was not following his own booklet about when we should follow church government, Mr. Meredith wrote a major article in the GCN to clarify a few matters. The Board says this article was simply "missed" by the editors, and thereby they seek to negate accepting it's contents. Mr. Raymond McNair was the editorial director. If he or they really did "miss" that article, why did they not correct that "error" when they saw it later or when Dr. Meredith again brought it to their attention in various meetings – some time ago? Why are Misters Raymond McNair and Larry Salyer's change of position and/or mistakes acceptable without question and Dr. Meredith's turned into an matter of dishonesty? Further the Board is accusing Dr. Meredith of taking too much power. Isn't it the Board who took control out of the hands of the Council with only 3 men, followed by the lawyer?

POINT 19
Concluding the Boards "Setting the Record Straight" letter, they tell us Dr. Meredith actually demoted Mr. Pack as a disciplinary measure and called it something else. Actually Mr. Pack himself told many, myself included, that he had received an inheritance and that he wanted to run a family health food business with his son for a while. Indeed the story I and many others heard was the same from both Mr. Pack and HQ, NOT just Dr. Meredith. Now I agree, that the communication was less than completely forthright and I would not have chosen to handle it as others did. I sincerely hope we are all more forthright in the future, yet without going to the other extreme – causing needless hurt in the guise of "communication". Mr. Meredith apologized for and promised to improve our lack of, and the incompleteness of, our communications in the future. But the fact is that Mr. Pack did have an inheritance and family business he needed to tend to. Like Abraham's wife was also his half sister…, so it is with the story about what happened to Mr. Pack. While it appears both stories were true, telling only part did not give a complete and accurate picture of what was happening. Mr. Meredith was trying to apply the "love covers a multitude of sin" principle (1 Pet.4:8). Perhaps he did not apply that principle perfectly or at least to the satisfaction of his accusers; however, to call Dr. Meredith a liar and say he is disqualified because he tried to protect Mr. Pack's reputation and avoid the spreading of friction and damage even further, is at a minimum, a gross overstatement. If we follow that logic we are in real trouble - beginning with disqualifying Abraham.

Don't forget to disqualify Mr. HWA for the many times he did this with his son! Nor should we forget the time Mr. Salyer did the same in the recent case of the former Pastor of the La Crescenta, CA church. Mr. Salyer DID NOT tell the whole story about the matter of that Pastor's removal from the ministry. This was done for the same reasons as in the cases of Mr. Pack, HWA's own son, and others! The intentions at the time are good, but we have room for improvement here. I hope and expect we ALL will learn how to apply the principle of "Love covers a sin", without making anyone feel misled. (I hope none feel I am attacking HWA. He was a very righteous man and a better man than I, but he was not perfect and the truth on this record stands public. I love and admire Mr. HWA. I only suggest we're even handed in our criticism.)

POINT 20
Finally Dr. Meredith is accused of being dishonest because he asked Mr. Ritenbaugh to reserve the name "Church of the Living God". I don't doubt he did this. I remember from personal experience, as one who tried to "get him to revive the work" myself during that last year or so of heresy just before Global started. I too was told to wait, as he was still trying to get Mr. Tkach to repent and see his doctrinal error! If he would not, Dr. Meredith would say something to the effect "perhaps we will have to do something – but let's give it every chance for repentance first"! This I personally remember well. So it was when Mr. Pope and Ritenbaugh tried to get Mr. Meredith to "jump". He wanted to be sure! As he told me once: "I don't want to jump out and start the work over again, only to find Mr. Tkach repenting and now I'm on the outside". My reply was, "In the unlikely event that that happened we would repent and ask to come back". Mr. Meredith agreed, but still wanted to wait further and try harder to get through to Mr. Tkach and correct the wrong from within. However, we did discuss what might possibly happen, just as Mr. Raymond McNair told Mr. Meredith that he felt he would be coming to Global soon, but had to wait just in case – giving every chance to Worldwide first, before making his move. Mr. Raymond McNair had a "back up" plan if you will.

It was the same for him as it was for Mr. Meredith – revive the work via another organization and name, ie Global! what is the problem with that? What's wrong with being realistic as to the probable outcome of a matter, but going the extra mile by trying and staying put anyway – just in case? I call that prudent – not manipulative! I'm surprised Mr. Raymond McNair would allow his name as first signature on such an ugly, baseless accusation based utterly upon assumption and unfounded accusation at its worse. I guess we should have all just come out and wandered around in confusion for awhile, not seeing the hand writing on the wall. Then Mr. Meredith would no doubt have been accused of being incompetent and slow for not foreseeing the reality and for not being able and ready to take action when it became absolutely clear to do so! Such seems to be the job of his accusers – no matter which way he goes. If his accusers were not able to foresee the clear road and muster the leadership to do what Dr. Meredith did, why attack him for it, and then take over what God began through him? If they DON'T feel that indeed God inspired Global's beginning (which was through Dr. Meredith), then why not go where they now think God is or build upon their own foundation? How can they insinuate that Global was started simply by Dr. Meredith's personal timing, scheme and control -- NOT started by God's inspiration or timing – then take it over and call it the Church of God?

If Global was started by a lying man who controlled events to bring about it's inception – surely God would not be a part of it – yet you later call it the Church of God and take it over? Which is it? The Church of God or of a lying controller? Is the Board saying that they now preside over a church who's inception was not of God? Please guys, at least display some sense of logic in your efforts to undermine. You end up undermining yourselves and showing your true colors.

POINT 21
This final point is not based upon anything covered in the 2nd Board letter, but is addressing a point of difference Mr. Raymond McNair brought up in Britain during his most recent visit here. Mr. Raymond McNair publicly said that his only real doctrinal difference between himself and Dr. Meredith (besides the doctrine of church governance) was the belief that HWA was indeed the Elijah to come. Mr. Raymond says he clearly believes that HWA was the Elijah, while Dr. Meredith says that he is not sure and won't teach something he is not sure about. But I find this brings an interesting point to light. If Mr. HWA was the Elijah to come, and since God did use him to establish this work and bless it's effectiveness more than any work of the Church on record since the days of the apostles – THEN WHY NOT CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE FORM OF GOVERNANCE THAT THE ELIJAH USED??? Why say HWA was a prophet, not just any prophet, but the Elijah to come spoken of in scripture, and then change the very doctrine of Church governance that the "Elijah" used? Whether we believe HWA was the Elijah to come or not – God clearly did use and bless the church through him with the same form of hierarchical government that Dr. Meredith uses. HWA did not allow God's Church to be ruled by committee voting and politics!

Now if I may offer a few closing remarks of encouragement: Brethren, it will be utterly impossible to fairly and accurately decipher who is right based solely upon the letters of accusation and counter reply between the Board and Dr. Meredith. I hope you all understand that. I am only writing this letter to show that you CAN NOT rely solely on such letters as evidence. What can you do to decide? What does God say to do? JUDGE BY FRUITS! Remember 3rd John. John was in essence disfellowshipped, as well as those who were with and sent by John, by another who managed to wrest control and leadership of that church. (3 John: 5-11) Remember Paul was accused, as was Peter. Paul said, "my answer to those who would examine me is this…" (1 Cor.9:3)

This accusing of the leaders by others in the church is nothing new. It is not the accusations that make the man – IT IS HIS LIFE! Christ said, "by their fruits you shall know them". When Christ was accused in Matthew 12, He responded by saying "either make the tree good AND it's fruit good, or make the tree bad AND it's fruit bad, for a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. For by their fruits you shall know them." Either Dr. Meredith's fruits have been good, because God has been working good through him or He hasn't and his fruit is bad. It can't be both. Judge by the fruits. What have they been for about 49 years? What have they been since Global started? Has Global produced good fruit through Global under Mr. Meredith's direction? Have YOU heard him teach any heresy? Have YOU seen immorality in Mr. Meredith? No one is saying that Mr. Meredith is without faults, but have you seen a man being led by God who has been personally growing as well as teaching faithfully the way of and gospel of God -- "the whole counsel of God", like Paul said in Acts…? YES!

Again, why was not the Council of Elders used or consulted in this takeover? WHY? There certainly was time! Why was there not an emergency Council meeting called? Why was there not so much as even a phone teleconference hook-up meeting with the Council of Elders to decide such major issues? Since this matter was done without the Council, when you really consider the matter and look at the fruit – not the accusations – do you see anything that would be a Biblical reason (not reason according to man devised and manipulated corporate bylaws) for removal of the physical leader of the Church of God? Do you see any Biblical example that even comes remotely close, that justifies a takeover by three men as we have seen? I do not. Until or unless I do, I will continue to follow the leader Jesus Christ put into office – as he follows Christ.

Having said that, what about our brothers that disagree? How should we treat them? How should those who disagree, treat those who feel Dr. Meredith HAS been following Christ? WITH LOVE! Brethren, I believe this is one of the main things that God is watching us for now – to see if there is anything that will cause us to give up on religion, or if ANYTHING CAN CAUSE US TO STOP LOVING OUR BROTHER!!!

In Acts 2 and 3 you will see a church that was of "ONE ACCORD". You will see a church that had so much love for one another that they "HAD ALL THINGS IN COMMON". If someone had need, their church brother would sell some of his possessions – if need be to help him! This was a loving Church, and it was not divided! The result was that the "Lord added daily such as should be saved". Their gospel was so strong that it brought on persecution. Rather than trying to "pull" Peter and John's sermons, the brethren prayed that God would "GRANT THEM ALL BOLDNESS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL". God did, and the LOVING brethren were there to encourage them – IN ONE ACCORD! But later, things began to change. God warned the Ephesus Church that unless they were to recapture the love they had at the first – their first love – He would remove their lampstand out of it's place!

As we look at the beginning of the Ephesus era of the Church of God, (remember "love covers a multitude of sins" [1Pet.4:8] and "keeps no account" of sins [1 Cor.13:5]) we see love and forgiveness, and kindness that would allow unity and Godly passion to thrive. The result was that God used even a very small flock TO DO A GREAT WORK, and MANY WERE ADDED TO THE CHURCH! However, once they began to lose this love that they had at the first – they diminished, and God had them removed! As Christ said, "two cannot walk together except they be agreed". Later this same church era began to "STRIVE OVER WORDS TO NO PROFIT, TO THE RUIN OF THE HEARER". (2 Tim.2:14) Paul told us not to do that! He also said: "Shun profane and vain babbling for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer." (2 Tim.2:16-17) Will we strive with our brother over the words of a brother (or Board) attacking and disparaging another brother? Will we now STRIVE? Will we partake in "profane and vain" words unto more ungodliness? Can we simply disagree but love our brother anyway – wishing him a blessing in return for his hurtful disparaging words? God is watching us to see. Which will it be? Will we respond with revile in return for revile, or blessing for revile?

Christ warned us in Matthew 24 of the love of many waxing cold. Will this apply to us? 1 Pet 2:20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: (NKJ) Do you want credit? I do! We're rewarded for our works. Let's let our works be works of LOVE for our brother (not judgment) – regardless of which side of this mess he comes out on. Let's remember FORGIVENESS, so that our God can also forgive us! (Matt.6:14-15) Do you realize this is ACTUALLY PART OF YOUR CALLING? 1 Pet 3:8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; 9 not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. (NKJ) Peter is in essence saying, "hey guys, let's really love our brother like we did at the first in Acts 2 and 3. Let's be kind and have compassion for each other as brothers, being courteous. If our brother reviles us, return a blessing – knowing that TO THIS YOU ARE CALLED, so that you can be like Christ…" How are we doing?

In 3rd John you will find that Diotrephes "prating" against John with "malicious words", even putting some out of the church for receiving the "evil John". John did not revile in return, but simply said he would "call to mind his deeds". John was suddenly "evil". You see, as far as the accusations were concerned, John was not the good guy he used to be. Oh no, John had somehow changed – according to his accusers. Now John was an evil and bad man. He had become so "bad" then now had to use "malicious words" to describe him. Sound familiar? Indeed there is nothing new under the sun. Follow John's example. Instead of spending his focus trying to revile back to his accusers what did he say and teach? "In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother". (1 John 3:10)

Remember also dear friends, James words about real religion: James 1:26 "If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless." (NKJ) James goes on to say in the next verse that pure religion is to PRACTICE LOVE, by our actions. I have not enjoyed writing this letter. But I have been asked by so many to please answer these accusations, that I felt that I too must set the record straight. Certainly the entirety of this letter is strictly my opinion as I see and understand. The reader is encouraged not to merely accept the things I have written in this letter, but to verify this letter's accuracy him or herself – or simply judge by the fruits. What have been Mr. Meredith's fruits? Have they been good? But please don't make the mistake of thinking that all eyes are on Mr. Meredith and the men on the Board – for God is also watching us! (1Cor.11:18-19) What will he see? Will it be a loving heart? "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren" (1Jn.3:14) "Let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth". (1Jn.3:18) I hope and expect this to be my last writing on this matter. I wish you all God speed – which ever way you go.