Clarifications For Mr. Haney's Letter
After reading Mr. Haney's letter, I thought that there needed
to be much
clarification over many things that were clearly not understood -- the major
point being
the job of the council and the board. He constantly mixes up what each of
their
responsibilities are. This needs to be clarified along with many other things
so that
people have a clearer picture of the "present distress." There is a
great deal
more that can be said about each point, however, I chose to keep it more to
the point for
sake of brevity. Let the record show that I have been a loyal supporter of RCM
since he
was my instructor at Big Sandy and a member of the "faithful 89er's"
as he has
repeatedly said. He was my employer and a friend.
Suggesting that we are dragging Mr. Adair out of the grave by quoting him in
what he said
about the present distress is ridiculous. Mr. Haney himself quoted him! Is
this wrong. No.
If so, then we should never quote any individual who has died. We should never
quote Mr.
Armstrong or all the dead Greeks and Romans we love to quote so much. Mrs.
Adair
is quite well aware of what her husband thought on this current matter and has
made it
known. Mr. Adair was one of the most well balanced and peace-making men at
Headquarters
that I knew. And his perspective might well be important to those few
individuals wanting
to get the entire facts of this situation.
Point 1
Mr. Haney says he wants to deal with the "known facts" of this
situation and
stay on the "moral high ground," yet he continuously shows he knows
little of
the facts and repeatedly "slams" Mr. Salyer and the board calling
into question
their commitment to the truth.
Point 2
The facts are as follows. Of course the council could not remove CEM and RCM
from the
board. That's not the councils job! It never was! RCM set it up that way. It's
the job of
the board to remove people from the board. It's the councils job to remove
people from the
council. If this is still unclear, then why did the council and not the board
decide to
suspend a certain minister from the council of elders? Because that's not the
boards job.
They are two separate bodies. Let's not confuse the two which everyone seems
to be doing.
The council does not have control over the board in respect to who is on the
board and the
board does not have control over the council in respect to who is on the
council (although
early on it did). This is why the BOARD and NOT the COUNCIL removed CEM. It
would make no
sense for the council to remove him from the board. The council gives
direction to the
church and the board backs up that direction with the corporate responsibility
of that
direction.
Point 3
You will notice that the statement on page 2 of the Church Government and
Unity booklet
(1995), second ed., "This booklet is NOT intended to be a thorough
discussion of all
the details and ramifications of church government," is not in the
original 1993
edition. This was later added. It was added for good reason. The booklet
wasn't a thorough
discussion. However, if you can't take this booklet and get a good clear
overview of what
Dr. Meredith thinks about Church Government, I suggest you read it
again. He spends
enough time on it to let anyone who is reading it know what he thinks about
it. He
outlines if fairly clearly. The council also took this booklet and discussed
it in the
context of what the proper form of church government should be. They took the
scriptures
from the booklet, reviewed them and came to the conclusion that RCM was indeed
correct on
the proper form of church government. If RCM didn't think that this booklet
should be used
to give an understanding to the proper form of church government, then why
didn't he
object to the use of this booklet in the meetings? I will address the
"power
hungry" statement later.
Point 4
Who told Mr. Haney that the loans were to be repaid on demand? The vast
majority, if not
all the loans given to the church were under contractual agreement. The people
who loaned
the church money were given contracts, time schedules and interest information
for
repayment of the loans. Obviously if loans are being called in for full
repayment
-- this is done to "force" the boards hand. What is Mr. Haney
referring to when
he says "special authorization"? Any repayment of loans would
require
authorization. It would be ridiculous to think that everyone could call in
their loans at
any time for repayment. If everyone did that -- it could bankrupt the Church!
The chief
accountant (I'm not talking about Mr. Pope) is very clear on that and knows
what repayment
on demand could do to us financially. Where is the proof that we are cutting
back on the
media effort? I think the record clearly shows that we RENEWED the WGN
contract through
June. Nevertheless, does WGN constitute the WORK OF GOD? What would be the sin
to go off
WGN if it's
decided that we can't afford it at the time. Was it a sin when we went off
KTLA which had
major television outlets all over the nation? What if it was decided that we
would be
better concentrating our efforts in local areas that have ministers to
support the
growth of the church? These are things that the council should decide. And the
council
decided to renew the WGN contract through June. Please.....let's stick to the
FACTS!
Point 5
Here's where Mr. Haney starts attacking Mr. Salyer. This allegation is
ridiculous. First
of all, maybe Mr. Salyer did teach some heresy. If he did, name it. What did
he teach?
Even so, how many men that came with Global taught heresy at one time or
another? Possibly
all of them-- and RCM is NO EXCEPTION! He taught the heresy on the healing
doctrine. I
know because I was his student at AC when he did this. He'll admit this --
it's a matter
of record. HOWEVER, he repented of that as I'm sure all the men have that
taught any form
of heresy. Shall we go through naming all the ministers and what they taught?
That would
be ridiculous!! They repented -- move on! I'll address the "voting"
later.
Point 6
Again, here we go with the WHO CAME OUT FIRST game. This is childish. Mr.
Haney obviously
is not aware that Mr. Pope left before them all -- including RCM. So let's not
get into
this game. Mr. Salyers point was that God could have used any man to start
Global. If God
can raise up stones to do the work then He could use ANYONE! And once again,
Mr. Haney is
attacking Mr. Salyer by what he did in WCG. Let's get past this. If we can't,
then no one
deserves to lead God's flock. Mr. Haney says RFM was "willing to stay in
WWCG for
quite some time after Mr. Meredith's departure." Does Mr. Haney know that
RCM KNEW
that RFM was coming with him?! RCM knew that RFM was joining him later. Once
again -- if
we condemned everyone for leaving after RCM -- then we'd ALL be condemned! You
could just
as easily say that it was RCM's personality that got him kicked out of WCG as
his
teaching. How many different personalities are there on this earth? As many as
there are
humans. If you have 2 men that have different personalities and yet share the
same zeal
and love for the truth - will they express it in the same way? No! But does
that mean that
the one that is more boisterous and vocal is more righteous than the one that
may have a
more quiet or studious resolving approach? It's ridiculous to even suggest
that. So an
individuals personality may dictate what may happen to them -- because of how
they
approach situations and deal with individuals. This isn't necessarily good or
bad -- it's
just the way they are. So to suggest that RCM was kicked out of WCG before
another
minister and say that this PROVES that RCM was more zealous and more "on-
track"
for the truth is lunacy. This doesn't take away from RCM -- but it shouldn't
take away
from anyone else either.
Point 7
If RCM says the same thing (some 20 years later) about the same person that
got him into a
lawsuit settlement of 1.26M -- how could you NOT compare the two. It's the
exact same
thing! Does Mr. Haney know this? How can we not compare -- it's exactly the
same (just a
different group of men). Whether or not we think we should be able to say
stuff like RCM
said is irrelevant. We should learn from the past and not make the same
mistake again. If
someone is going around and spreading libel -- this is a liability to the
Church! Any
minister needs to be careful what he says for liability sake. Is RCM above
this? No. None
of us are. I don't think Mr. Haney understands what happened in point 7.
Point 8
Once again, think that people are confusing the board and the councils
responsibility.
It's not the councils responsibility to determine the speaking schedule at San
Diego. If
it were, then it would be the councils responsibility to determine the
speaking schedule
in each and every church area. This, of course, would be silly. The board
simply gave the
speaking schedule responsibility to CAD. One clarification must be made here.
RCM spoke
the week before he was scheduled to speak when HE WASN'T ON THE SCHEDULE. So,
you see,
there was no conspiracy to "censor" RCM. When RCM spoke on the
sabbath, he
contradicted the UNANIMOUS decision of the COUNCIL on the proper form of
church
government. RFM was then allowed to speak the next sabbath to correct
this.
Point 9
Frankly, this point is just argumentative. Mr. Haney is missing the point of
what Mr.
Salyer is saying here. If there was a conspiracy to "investigate [RCM's]
every action
and remove him from office," then why was the editorial staff doing to
much work for
him on the booklets and articles bearing his name? Why wasn't there an attempt
to cut back
on his articles, etc.? There is no contradiction here! I personally saw the
work that the
editorial staff did to help RCM. I personally thought they deserved more
credit for what
was done, nevertheless, they did their job faithfully serving RCM.
Point 10
We're back with the misunderstanding of the board and council again. Of course
it was the
councils job to SUSPEND one of it's members (he was not removed). The board
has no control
over this function! Mr. Salyer and Mr. Meeker were to carry out an
investigation, however,
when they asked who was performing the current investigation they were not
told! No one
would tell them. How did the information appear before the council on this
individual? Did
it just magically appear? Why wouldn't anyone tell them who had been doing an
investigation? Sounds fishy to me.
Point 11
Again, the board -- NOT THE COUNCIL -- has the power to remove anyone from the
board.
Let's not mix the two up. Tolerance is an honorable trait -- true enough. But
how much
tolerance do you have for someone who refuses to follow counsel? If you're a
pastor, how
much tolerance do you have for someone in your church area that won't listen
to you?
Eventually, you have to take action. This just makes common sense. Every
minister knows
this and has probably had to do this at one time or another! Anyone that would
NOT want
the mailing list to be protected has to be questioned as to their motives. WHY
would you
not want to protect a mailing list of the sheep in your care?!? Frankly, it
was already a
confidential and protected list. Every member should be thankful for that.
They were just
re-affirming that in the meeting. RCM never had access to that list before. I
know because
I was caretaker of that list for a time. There were only a few select people
that had
access to the member list as it pertained to their jobs. This is just smart
business
practice.
Point 12
Two things can be addressed in this point -- power hunger and voting. You will
notice that
the second edition of the Church Government and Unity booklet and the Sept.
GCN with RCM's
lead article on government were both published in close proximity to the
formation of UCG.
This is not coincidence. The UCG formation was the very reason for these
publications to
occur. RCM formed the council of elders to aid him in the direction and
decisions of the
church. He was the one that said it would take 90% consensus to change any
major or
fundamental doctrine or remove him from presiding evangelist and 75% consensus
to remove
anyone else from the council. A consensus is a general agreement or a
collective opinion. And it was very clear that it took a CERTAIN PERCENTAGE of
the council
to do certain things. Can we take this to mean that if RCM wanted something
that the
council didn't that he could just do it anyway because he was in charge? No.
It's very
clear that a CERTAIN PERCENTAGE is needed. I don't care how you look at it --
this
is a "vote." This is the way RCM set it up BASED ON HIS BOOKLET. And
there was
unanimous agreement by the council on 4 separate occasions! If anyone is
leaving right now
because they think this is wrong, then they are following a man! If they think
this is
wrong, they should have left in 1995 or never come with GCG in the first
place. If
government is a factor in determining which group we decide to fellowship with
(and it
should be) then why are people leaving NOW?! They should have left a long time
ago. If
they read the Church government booklet and the GCN article AND the June 11,
1998 letter
and didn't leave then, then leaving now simply constitutes following a man.
There's no way
around it! If you've been deceived and repented -- that's an exception.
However, I find it
hard to believe that 1/2 the church and most of the ministry have been
deceived on this
issue. That's not logical after what we came out of in WCG. We can argue
whether the
council was voting till we're blue in the face -- but the facts are that RCM
set it up
that way and no one said a thing about it when it was set up.
It's easy to say, "how can RCM be power hungry when he set up a
council?" Don't
forget when he set this council up! The same time that UCG was forming. He did
it as a
safeguard -- to make people feel safe that what happened in WCG wouldn't
happen again.
Think about it. If everything goes your way then everything is always good.
It's not good
anymore when you have people that don't agree with you. If everyone always
agreed with RCM
on the council then this split would have NEVER happened! It's only when RCM
felt that the
board and council were trying to "push him" to do things he didn't
want to do
and take responsibilities away from him that this problem started. This makes
perfect
sense -- I don't see any contradictions here. This is just the m.o. of human
nature! It's
not my intention to go into the government
issue here in depth. I'm trying to simply clarify wrong facts, etc. from Mr.
Haney's
email. There obviously was a power struggle. The only thing in question are
the events
that transpired leading up to the conclusion of this split.
I think that it would behoove every member in the church to ask questions --
seek out both
sides of this issue. Seeking out information on only one side is irresponsible
and not
God's way of dealing with, resolving situations and coming to solutions. Those
who have
listened to only one side of the matter are foolish (Prov. 18:13, 17). It is
each of our
responsibility before God to get knowledge and apply it wisely. If we simply
follow our
ministers without seeking both sides of the matter, then we place them between
us and God.
They are there to aid us in our walk toward salvation -- not to come between
us and our
Creator. With this in mind, it's important to stick to the facts as much as
possible.
There are some things that may not seem like facts, but rather mud-slinging.
However, if
one side is accusing another of a power struggle, then those things that were
perceived as
attempts at a struggle for power must be known. Full disclosure is what we
should request
and receive. How can the brethren judge for themselves if anything other than
a lop-sided
presentation is given? It's impossible. These are some (while there are many
more)
questions we should ask about each letter.
RCM's letter:
1. In what ways, specifically, did the board and council members want to
"cut back on
doing to Work of God?"
2. What threats were they making if you didn't go along? and "go
along" with
what?
3. When they told you that they would "remove" you from the board
and council,
was this in the council or board meeting? Was this taped? Were there
transcripts?
4. Why do you say that the board removed your wife from the board over your
objections
when both you and your wife voted for her removal from the board? How did CEM
vote? It
seems that this could have been prevented if you really wanted it to be.
5. What was the "completely different approach to doing the Work"
that these men
wanted to do?
6. Show me in the Bible where Peter ever made a unilateral decision on
ANYTHING.
7. Why do you condemn these men for "voting" on issues when you
yourself do it?
8. Why do you say that each "side has to divide up their
constituents" when you
are always calling certain people "your men?" Isn't this the same
thing?
9. Who are the "leading employees" that you are referring to? How
were they
threatened? What power did these employees have? This is very odd.
Board's Letter:
1. What are the transgressions that RCM would not acknowledge that were
pointed out to
him?
2. What unilateral decisions were being made by RCM?
3. What derogatory statements was RCM making about others? ( I realize this
one might
never be answered)
4. What misstatements and contradictions were brought to RCM's attentions that
he refused
to recognize or correct?
5. What field ministers and brethren did RCM talk to and engage in character
assassination
and can this be confirmed by these individuals?
6. Is there documented evidence to confirm that RCM started
"smear
campaigns?"
7. What was the personal and corporate liability of "allowing Dr.
Meredith to go
unchecked?" And "unchecked" in what ways?
8. What are these "charges of misconduct" that were brought to him
which he
claimed listening to them was "outrageous?"
Warmest Regards,
Brian M. Hoselton