Issue # 2 What should be the qualifications of those serving on the Board of Directors-once a vacancy is created? Did the "Board" or the Presiding Evangelist Create the Council of Elders?

Issue # 3 The Standard of conduct for the GCG officers should be uniformly applied to all! Parameters of the P.E.'s Power and Authority

Issue # 4 What is the proper ROLE and FUNCTION of the Presiding Evangelist in the Global Church of God? Meaning of "Presiding Evangelist"?

IV. Presiding Evangelist's Future Statements Must Be Positive!

In order to properly carry out our God-given responsibilities as members of the Board, we all need to make certain that we practice God's form of government in every way possible. The Board of Directors needs to convene a Board meeting in order to make certain important decisions affecting God's Work. Let us, therefore, consider the following important points which will help guide us as we ask God to inspire us in making those decisions which will be pleasing in His sight.

What, then, are some of the important matters that need to be addressed in the immediate future-in order to make certain that the Board's decisions are in complete conformity to the revealed will of God and His form of Church Government, as revealed in the BIBLE, and plainly stated in our Church Government BOOKLET, and incorporated in the GCG BYLAWS?

Why Global Uses Hierarchical Government

Unless we believe in and practice God's form of Church Government, we ministers know He will not bless us. Furthermore, members of the Council of Elders and the Board of Directors of the GCG fully realize that God's form of government, both in the Old and the New Testaments, has always been HIERARCHICAL (c. Ex. 18:13-26; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11-16). His government has always been from the top down!-never from the bottom up, as in a democracy, where the people elect/choose their leaders. God is the one who appoints His servants-prophets, priests, kings, apostles, ministers, deacons, etc.

But some have not understood that hierarchical government is not synonymous with autocratic rule, wherein all important decisions are made by one man. Hierarchical government includes the New Testament concept of multitude of counsel wherein a group of individuals share in the decision-making process. A careful study of the N.T. clearly reveals that this is the type of hierarchical Church Government that Christ instituted for His Church.

Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong described God's hierarchical form of government: "As we progress through the Bible on the question of [Split] GOVERNMENT, the PRINCIPLE of government, from the TOP DOWN, is consistent. But the application, or details of STRUCTURE differs, and varies to adapt to the time, conditions and facilities. The revolters [who left the WCG in early 1974] from God's Work confuse structural form with PRINCIPLE of government, which is ALWAYS from the top (GOD) down" ("Dear Brethren" letter, May 2, 1974). That revolt against God's government resulted in about 35 ministers and over 3,000 brethren leaving the WCG to form their own "church," which soon fell apart.

In February 1998, the Council of Elders carefully considered the subject of the proper form of Church Government in the N.T., and unanimously concluded that Jesus Christ did not establish an autocratic form of government to rule over His Church. Instead, He established hierarchical government to be used by the Church of God. In addition to the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, the Bible reveals that "James, Cephas [Peter] and John" were all "pillars" in Christ's N.T. Church governmental structure (cf. Gal. 2:9). Peter was the supervisor over the preaching of the Gospel to the "circumcision" (the Israelites), whereas Paul was appointed to supervise the proclaiming of His Gospel to the Gentiles (vv. 6-14). Neither Peter nor Paul had direct authority over the other.

Mr. Armstrong's letter of May 2, 1974 also said, "Paul was called separately and directly by Christ. He was NOT one of Peter's sons in the Lord. He was not one UNDER Peter who, on his own, broke away from Peter and God's Headquarters, and set himself up as HEAD of a competing church seeking to DESTROY GOD'S Church…."

There were numerous leaders/pillars in God's early N.T. Church. James was the "bishop" (overseer) of the Jerusalem Church, rather than Peter, as indicated in Acts 15 and Galatians 1:17 and 2:9. Jesus Christ had strictly charged His disciples not to become "lords" over God's Church (Matt. 20:25-28). In other words, they were not to exercise autocratic authority, but were to work together in a collegial, collaborative, manner. The Apostle Peter himself warned the elders of God's Church not to lord it over the people of God. Instead, they were to be examples of humility and selfless service (1 Pet. 5:1-11).

In our February Council meetings we drafted the following paragraph which was to form an important part of our Bylaws: "[The Council of Elders is required] To meet at least three times annually, and to have final authority to establish the mission,goals and the overall direction of the Work and the Church, including administrative matters, except for the powers specifically given in the Bylaws to the BOARD and the Presiding Evangelist. It is intended that the Council also give advice and counsel to the Presiding Evangelist and to the Board of the Church" (ARTICLE V, SECTION 1.a ).

Other sections of the Bylaws (ARTICLE VIII in particular) empower the Board with authority of hiring and firing of employees and the setting of their wages/salaries. Also, the Board is authorized to appoint members to the Council, the Board and the Executive Committee. Members of the Board of Directors are charged with the responsibility of taking needed disciplinary action toward members of either the Council, the Board, the Executive Committee, or the employees of the Corporation.

In May 1998, when the Council of Elders again met, we reaffirmed the fact that the Global Church of God believes in and practices hierarchical government. Again, we unanimously agreed that the Bible clearly reveals that the apostles, collectively, were responsible-under Jesus Christ's leadership-for making decisions pertaining to Church doctrine (Acts 2:42; 15:1-31), and all major administrative decisions (cf. Acts. 6:1-6; 8:14).

The Council of Elders' discussions and decisions, both in February and in May of this year, concluded that we would not follow an autocratic form of government, but would follow the N.T. example of having a collegial, collaborative approach in all doctrinal and major administrative decisions. This is clearly what we have said we would do in our "Church Government" BOOKLET and in our BYLAWS. And this is how the early N.T. Church leaders administered God's form of government in the Church.

Important Issues Yet to Be Decided by the Board

Issue # 1 Biblically speaking, should only men serve as members of the Headquarters Board of Directors of the CGG? The Board needs to make certain decisions to reflect the Church's teaching concerning essential qualifications of those who serve as members of the Board of Directors. Since our Bylaws give the Board certain powers-the hiring and firing of all employees, the appointment of members to the Council, the Board and the Executive Committee-only men should sit on the Board, exercising those God-given powers-according to our ecclesiastically determined beliefs. And, the very fact that the Board must sometimes take disciplinary action toward ministers and other employees of the Church, makes it imperative that the Headquarters Board should be comprised of faithful ministers of God.

The Global Church of God adheres to the biblical teaching that women are not to be ordained as ministers of this Church. Contrary to the belief and practice of many in today's world, we believe the biblical example found in the New Testaments reveals that God did not intend that women would have positions of authority over men in His Church.

There is absolutely no N.T. example of Christ or His apostles ordaining women to the ministry. God inspired the Apostle Paul to give the following instructions to His Church: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man,but to be in silence" (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Furthermore, Paul says that "God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church…. If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:33-37).

What are some additional reasons why a woman should not serve as a member of the Headquarters Board of Directors? Firstly, to have the wife of another Board member serving as a member on a Board is in conflict with the Scriptures stating wives must be in subjection to her husband (1 Pet. 3:1-6). Each Board member must be able to reach a decision, after carefully weighing a matter. Then the member ought to be able to express their sentiments authoritatively by exercising their God-given right to express that opinion in the form of a vote. If a wife serves as a board member, her vote will often turn out to be a "clone vote" of her husband. When this occurs, the principle of a "multitude of counsel" is nullified.

The Board needs to take decisive action to bring our Church practices into conformity with the teachings of the Global Church of God. Since the Board must regularly make important decisions-concerning the appointment of members to the Council, Board and the Executive Committee, as well as making important decisions regarding ministers and employees-it is only proper that Global should not have women Board members exercising authority in these matters.

1) The Board now faces having to make a very weighty decision concerning a fellow minister's alleged conduct, and must decide whether he will be able to continue serving in the ministry of the GCG.

2).The Board regularly has to make decisions concerning the hiring and firing of employees, the appointment of officers to the Council, the Board and the Executive Committee, and the ordination of certain ministers (e.g. of evangelist rank).

3) And we must decide whether to reinstate a minister as a Regional Pastor-as promised nearly two years ago. Dr.Meredith's "Dear Fellow Ministers" letter of December 13, 1996 mentioned "the fact that a large number of 'blow ups'-mostly NOT Dave's making-have occurred in their region during this past year. I spent many hours talking with Dave and Shirley about this and we mutually agreed that it would be best for their family and for the Church as a whole if he would step aside as Regional Pastor there for about 18-20 months-though retaining his job as local Pastor of the Akron church." It will soon be 21 months since that "mutually agreed" statement was made, so the Board should now consider reinstating Dave to his position of Regional Pastor.

In consideration of the foregoing points, the Board should ask Mrs. Meredith for her voluntary resignation as a Board member. In case of refusal, appropriate action of the Board needs to be taken, which might have to include a change in the Bylaws to allow for dismissal of a Board member under the circumstances.

Issue # 2 What should be the qualifications of those serving on the Board of Directors-once a vacancy is created? In order to bring our practice into harmony with the Scriptures, the Board of Directors needs to appoint a new member to serve as the seventh member on the Headquarters Board. The new Board member should be a minister who is above reproach, being of "good report" both within and without the Church (cf. 1 Tim. 3:7). He should be doctrinally sound, wise and understanding, of sober mind, and ought to have had considerable experience serving God's people as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ. Since the Board has to decide all important legal and business matters, it would be good if the new member also had some experience in these two important areas.

We should appoint a replacement Board member only after prayer and fasting, making sure that he is God's choice-not ours! It would be good to fill such a vacancy with a seventh member fairly soon-as this will give the Board a broader spectrum of counsel (Prov. 11:14; 20:18). And by having an odd number (seven or nine) of Board members, we can prevent having a "tie" vote (decision).

Did the "Board" or the P.E. Create the Council of Elders?

Was the "Council of Elders" the creation of one man? Or, was it created by the authority of the Board of Directors? Let us first compare the "Advisory Council of Elders" of the WCG, with the "Council of Elders" of the Global Church of God.

Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong did exercise autocratic power over the Advisory Council of Elders that he appointed to give him "counsel" in administering the affairs of the Church and all of its operations. But his position of absolute authority in the Advisory Council of the WCG was quite different from the positions of authority held by the "Presidents" of various corporate entities (i.e. "Churches of God") that now exist.

As a spiritual "father" figure to all of us (cf. Paul as such a "father," 1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 2:11; Ph'm. 10), and as the Church's only apostle, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong held a unique position in the Church. No one in the Churches of God today claims to be an apostle; nor does anyone claim that he is the spiritual "father" to the over 8,400 attendees of the Global Church of God. Over 8,300 of them are, directly or indirectly, attending the GCG after having first either attended the WCG and/or its offshoots, or after having come into contact with God's Church through their friends or relatives in one of the other corporate Churches of God.

Mr. Armstrong, though acknowledged as God's end-time apostle, never claimed that God gave him authority over all of God's people, including members of the Churches of God (7th day).

So, clearly, when Mr. Armstrong decided to form a "Council of Elders," he called it the "ADVISORY Council of Elders." He never at any time gave members of that Advisory Council authority to make the big decisions, but reserved those decisions for himself, after first getting their council and input.

However, when WE, members of Global's Board, decided to establish a "Council," we deliberately didn't call it an Advisory Council of Elders. Rather, as we discussed the subject of forming the new Council, we all concluded that it should not be a powerless "rubber- stamp" Council-not merely a figurehead. We all agreed that the Council should be empowered to make important decisions pertaining to the Church and the Work. Before the GCGCouncil of Elders was formed, we who then served as members of the Board of Directors were deeply involved in numerous discussions concerning who should be appointed as members of the Council of Elders. We also discussed at some length those powers that we thought the Council should have.

Therefore, it is totally incorrect to say that the Presiding Evangelist himself appointed all of the members to the Council. Furthermore, after the Council was formed, those who were subsequently appointed as members of the Council-Colin Adair, Dibar Apartian, Dick Ames, Charles Bryce and George Meeker-were all appointed to the Council of Elders by the decision of the Board. The Presiding Evangelist didn't make those decisions unilaterally, on his own authority, as he has sometimes incorrectly stated!

The truth is-the Council of Elders was the creation of the Board of Directors which, up to that time, had exercised full authority over all the affairs of the Church and the Work!

In the March-April, 1995 edition of the Global Church of God News, the Presiding Evangelist himself said, "WE [not I!] have established a Council of Elders in the Global Church of God…. We have already met twice during the recent Ministerial Conference…. In appointing the members of this council, the senior members of the Board of Directors and I have tried to create a right balance…." (GCN, p. 2). This clearly shows that the creation of the Council of Elders was not the creation of one man, but was the creation of the entire Board. These statements also reveal that when the Presiding Evangelist wrote that article in the Global Church News, he himself then understood that the Board appointed the members to the Council.

Issue # 3 The standard of conduct for GCG officers should be uniformly applied to all! In what way should the Bylaws be changed to make certain that they are fair, equitable, and in line with the clearly revealed biblical principle of not being a respecter of persons? Should all members of the Board or Council be held to the same standard of accountability?

A close scrutiny of the present Bylaws reveals that certain stipulations pertaining to the officers of the Church or the Corporation are not consistent with the clearly stated principles of the Bible. God is no respecter of persons. The Apostle Peter said, "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is acceptable to him" (Acts. 10:34-35).

The present Bylaws of the GCG do not apply the same principles uniformly to all of its Church officers. Rather, a different standard is applied to the Presiding Evangelist than is applied to the other officers of the Church/Corporation. The Presiding Evangelist should be held to at least as high a standard of conduct as the other members of the Board or Council. The same percentages of authoritative voices (i.e. votes) should be required to remove any member of the Board or Council. Furthermore, disciplining of officers, or their removal from office, should be applied equally to all members.

The Bylaws should ensure that any officer of the Church or the Corporation should be able to be removed for any of the following reasons: 1) teaching major doctrinal heresy or causing serious division within the Global Church of God; 2) succumbing to a serious spiritual (or moral) problem such a adultery, alcoholism, perversion, etc.; 3) commission of a felony, or serious or material misdemeanor as determined by the Board of Directors, or comparable offense in countries that do not use these terms in their criminal justice codes-if the Board is convinced that one of the afforementioned "crimes" has been committed; 4) inability to carry out his expected duties, due to diminished mental or physical capacity; or 5) continued non-performance of his duties as an officer of the Church or the Corporation.

This principle of "equality before the law" is clearly stated in Exodus 13:49: "There shall be ONE LAW for the native and for the stranger…." To paraphrase, "There shall be one law for the Presiding Evangelist and for the other members of the Board and the Council!" In ancient Israel, even the King was not to be "above the law" (Deut. 17:14-20). If God Himself had not commuted King David's sentence for murder and adultery, he should have been executed (Lev. 20:1)-as he himself judged before he realized who the guilty person was (2 Sam. 12:1-7).

The N.T. Scriptures clearly reveal that God's ministers- whether bishops or deacons-having oversight of the "HOUSE OF GOD" are to be held to an even higher standard of conduct than is expected of the laymen (1 Tim. 3:1-15)!

Issue # 4 What is the proper ROLE and FUNCTION of the Presiding Evangelist in the Global Church of God?

Roderick C. Meredith holds all of the following titles and positions: Chairman of the Council of Elders, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Chairman of the Doctrinal Committee, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Corporation, Editor in Chief of all publications, Chief Presenter of the World Ahead telecast, Pastor of the Headquarters Church, and "Presiding Evangelist" of the Global Church of God.

Both ministers and members have accepted him as "Presiding Evangelist" of the Church. But what does this title imply? Does he have unlimited power and authority to make autocratic decisions and impose them upon the Church?

Members of the Council and the Board have repeatedly agreed that we don't want to "tie the hands" of the PRESIDING EVANGELIST-or any OTHER OFFICERS of the Church or the Corporation! To do so would only frustrate and hinder the Work of the Church.

During the last few years it became increasingly apparent to many on the Council and the Board that the Presiding Evangelist appeared to have an inaccurate idea concerning the authority and power which he wielded over the Church and the Corporation. It became increasingly evident to members of the Council that the P.E. began to assume that God had given him virtually autocratic powers over God's Church and His Work. It also appeared to members of the Council that the P.E. began to assume that the rest of the officers were merely to give "advice and consent," and he also gave the impression that he wanted final authority to make major administrative decisions. All too often, it appeared to us that he would get our counsel, then wave it aside and decide, autocratically, any major decision he wanted to.

Our booklet (When Should You Follow Church Government) and our Bylaws both clearly revealed that no man was to exercise SOLE AUTHORITY over the Church and the Work. No one man was to wield AUTOCRATIC POWER. Instead, we were to work as a TEAM-all doctrinal and major administrative decisions being made by either the Council of Elders or the Board of Directors.

As a result of these divergent views of the Presiding Evangelist's responsibilities, numerous decisions were made, various statements and threats made, and several actions were taken which indicated to some Council members that the P.E. behaved as though he believed he should, in fact, have autocratic power over the Church and the Work of God. This was in spite of numerous earlier assurances the P.E. had given all of us-from the inception of the GCG-that Global would follow the N.T. "collegial" approach to Church Government. This collaborative approach would ensure that no man exalted himself above the others, and began looking on our collective effort as though this were the Work and Church of one man!

When Raymond McNair came with Global in April 1993, he plainly told Dr. Meredith that if Dr. Meredith ever departed from the true doctrines of the Bible, or if he became "dictatorial" (i.e. autocratic), Raymond McNair would not continue to work with him. Larry Salyer, Edwin Pope, Charles Bryce, Carl McNair and other ministers made similar statements to Dr. Meredith. But he repeatedly assured us all that the old harsh approach was a thing of the past. He was a changed, humble man, who had learned his lesson.

Subsequently, on numerous occasions, he made similar statements-at Ministerial Conferences, Sabbath services and at private gatherings, an example of which was a lunch in Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Popes' home in 1994-attended by Mr. and Mrs. Salyer, Mr. and Mrs. Carl McNair, Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Pope and Mr. and Mrs. Raymond McNair. At that time, Dr. Meredith made it clear that he believed members of the Board were not mere figureheads, but that they had the power to ensure that he didn't become autocratic in his supervisory role as Global's Presiding Evangelist.

Later, however, autocratic statements and actions by the P.E. began to alarm a number of the members of the Council and Board, and caused us to take action to head off any attempt by anyone in Global to become like a worldly lord/master by "lording it over" God's heritage (Matt. 20:25-28; 1 Peter 5:3).

As a result of these ominous developments, we heartily discussed this important issue at our February 1998 Council of Elders' meetings-and unanimously agreed that the Church was not to be run AUTOCRATICALLY, with one man unilaterally making the important decisions. Then in our May 1998 Council of Elders' meetings we confirmed, or reaffirmed, that God's Church was to be run by a hierarchy (i.e. a group) of God's faithful ministers rather than just one person!

So it was no surprise to members of the Board to see that Dr. Meredith's "Dear Brethren" letter of June 11th-in which he explained the proper form of N.T. Church Government-was received very positively by the brethren. Don Contardi recently told a Council member that, in his entire area, only one person left Global over this issue of Church Government and went with Gerald Flurry. He also stated that the main question the brethren had concerned why the letter had to be written- since it merely stated what the members had already understood concerning Global's teaching in regard to Church Government.

Meaning of "Presiding Evangelist"?

What does the title "Presiding Evangelist" imply? Does it in any way imply that Global's P.E. is to have power to make autocratic decisions? Or does it merely signify that He is to preside over important meetings of the Church and its corporation-and assist in the formulation of all important decisions?

Unfortunately, numerous recent statements made by the Presiding Evangelist (in his sermon delivered on the Sabbath of August 1, 1998, in Tulsa) clearly reveal that his view of the duties and functions of the P.E. is quite different from the understanding that most of the Council members hold concerning the PARAMETERS of his power and authority over Global in all its activities. Since members of the Board and the Council need to work closely together as a TEAM, we must agree on those parameters-the limits of the P.E.'s authority-if we are going to work together in mutual love, respect and harmony!

First, we need to understand that the Bible nowhere mentions such an office as that of "Presiding Evangelist." Nonetheless, we believe God permits us to use this title for the time being. We can't properly understand the function of the Presiding Evangelist (meaning the one who "presides") until we first define the word "preside." Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.) defines this word as follows: "PRESIDE… to exercise guidance, direction, or control… to occupy the place of authority… act as president,chairman, or moderator."

In our Council of Elders' meetings we have unanimously agreed that the Presiding Evangelist is not to "occupy the place of [autocratic] authority." We have also agreed that he is to exercise a certain degree of "guidance, direction or [limited] control," but his power and authority is clearly limited by the GCG Bylaws. The P.E. can rightly occupy the position of "president, chairman or moderator" in the Council, Board or Executive Committee meetings. In other words, the P.E. can lead, and can act as moderator, but not as an autocratic LEGISLATOR or ADMINISTRATOR!

In order to really understand the problems Global faces in defining the powers and the role of the Presiding Evangelist, we need to first examine some of the recent statements made by Dr. Meredith in his sermon in Tulsa. Those statements reveal that his understanding of the powers and function of the Presiding Evangelist does not completely coincide with that held by the officers of the Council and Board.

Tulsa Statements Reveal a Serious Problem

The following quotes from Dr. Meredith's sermon in Tulsa on August l clearly reveal that his perception of the authority and duties of Global's P.E. is quite different from the view held by the members of the Board and the Council!

Seven times during his sermon, Dr. Meredith erroneously stated that it was he who appointed all of the members of the Board and/or Council of Elders: "I appointed every single one on the Board. I appointed every single one on the Council of Elders…. I appointed them myself, UNILATERALLY…. So, please, those of you who love me and you want me to be in charge. I AM IN CHARGE….All the Council and Board members have guaranteed to me in our discussion and in the write-up of our minutes that I am to be the UNQUESTIONED LEADER….

"I appointed all of the Council and Board members. And… I lead the meetings. I AM IN CHARGE! [Right after an assassin attempted to kill President Reagan, Alexander Haig incorrectly stated, "I'm in control here!" Haig never recovered, politically, from his presumptuous remark!].

"I set the agenda in a sense…. I formulate the decisions more than anyone else…. I appointed them all-just like Moses did!… [But] we had to organize under California law where it says that the Board makes the decisions. The Board has voluntarily agreed, and the Council, to let me be the SOLE LEADER, and guide the discussions and have far more input than anyone else…. And yet in the Council there is ONE MAN who is the Presiding evangelist, who is Chairman of the Council and who is recognized as the CHIEF PILLAR….

"I'm not an apostle. I'm not old enough to be the father of the others. So I am not assuming that I'm an apostle TO THE SAME DEGREE of leadership. But I am THE PILLAR among the other ministers [and] the Council of Elders and so on, and they recognize that. And we do have the hierarchy. The hierarchy is the Council of Elders, but I'm THE PILLAR among them, and it's working…. I appointed all of them…. I appointed every one of them, and so it's working, and it's certainly biblical in every way."

On July 27, 1998, Mr. Norbert Link, Counsel for the GCG, sent a document to the Presiding Evangelist. In that document Mr. Link states that the "most recent amendments in Global's Bylaws only CLARIFIED what the Church had taught from its inception." He also pointed out that "The Board had authority, from its inception, to appoint and remove officers and directors, or employ or fire employees" of the Corporation. And in that revealing document, Mr. Link clearly pointed out that "The Council, at the time when it was established, was not only 'advisory,' but had broad and final powers on doctrinal and other issues." Further, his document stated that "The Board [was] understood to have final authority to appoint Council Members."

In his detailed document, Mr. Link gave many references to, and quotes from, our legal documents (the Bylaws, the Church's Government booklet, articles, letters, minutes of the Council and Board meetings, etc.) in which he clearly proved that it was the Board, or the Council-as the case may have been-which always made the important decisions. And this includes the fact that it was the Board (not the P.E.!) who created the Council of Elders, and appointed every single one of them to the Council.

Mr. Norbert Link also quoted a revealing portion of Dr. Meredith's Member letter, June 11, 1998: "From the outset, brethren, we informed God's people in Global that the form of government we use would not involve rule by ONE MAN…. [In the N.T.] it was a COLLECTIVE sort of leadership. The responsibility for directing the Church was NOT then invested in a SOLE INDIVIDUAL on earth. The decision was clearly through 'multitude of counsel'… Peter… NEVER unilaterally decided ANY of those basic matters in the New Testament Church….

"In our recent Council meetings, we have clarified and reaffirmed that the Global Church of God will continue to be led by a tried and tested GROUP of Spirit-led men-the Council of Elders. In that spirit, the members of the Council acknowledge me as the Presiding Evangelist of the Global Church of God and have voluntarily chosen to work together with me within the PARAMETERS established by the Council and the Board, as set forth in the Bylaws. I, in turn, have committed myself to abide by the Bylaws of the Church and the resolutions of the Council…. So you see, brethren, it is the Council of Elders and the Board of Directors that make ALL MAJOR DECISIONS for the Church, with the Presiding Evangelist playing a leading role."

Generally speaking, members of the Board believe that much of the recent problem in the Oklahoma Churches was precipitated by careless or un-thought- out statements made by the P.E. when he visited the area last spring. Reportedly, the P.E. had mentioned to some of the brethren something to the effect that some members of the Board or Council in San Diego wanted to bring in UCG-type of Church Government, and he is alleged to have asked their prayers in regard to this problem in San Diego.

The P.E.'s recent trip (in late July and early August) was intended to help quiet things down in the area. He was supposed to help assuage the concerns that some of the Oklahoma brethren were voicing in regard to Dr. Meredith's and their fears that there might be some kind of a "conspiracy in San Diego"! Though much of what Dr. Meredith said in his sermon was good, several of his statements simply were not true. Other statements made by him would surely have added fuel to the fire of speculations concerning a supposed "conspiracy" by the Board at Headquarters. Some of the P.E.'s statements may have been partly due to fatigue, forgetfulness, or other human frailties. We members of the Board do not in any way wish to impute motives, but we do feel very strongly that certain points mentioned by the P.E. in his Tulsa sermon need to be brought to his attention-with a view to encouraging him to be much more careful in commenting on these, and other, sensitive matters in the future. In fact all of us Board members must be very careful what we say.

Whatever the motive, the effect of some of his words must have been rather unsettling to some of the brethren. During his sermon in Tulsa, Dr. Meredith mentioned that Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong admitted that he had let men fool him, but he stated that that was not his problem: "Being from Missouri, I'm watching THEM [?] even if I have to stare… real carefully…. I don't intend to be fooled as easily…. So don't worry…. But at this point, no one's trying to shoot at me. And if they do, I want to say this. If they do, if there are men out there [at San Diego] that try to OUST ME, and GET RID OF ME, then I will try to be the first one to tell you…. And I'm not bashful! I speak very strongly and very plainly and I've been in trouble more than once for that reason, 'cause I come right out. And so, if THEY [?] are trying to PULL SOME DIRTY TRICK or GET RID OF ME, but don't think I'm hinting that they might be, because AS FAR AS I KNOW they're not…. I'm just saying that if that were to happen, I'm JUST SAYING FOR THE RECORD, that if someone tried to OUST ME, GET RID OF ME, and TAKE OVER THE WORK… I will try to be the first one to WARN THE BRETHREN… then you could have a way of putting pressure on them to BACK OFF!"

It is very clear to members of the Board and the Council that some of the foregoing statements by the P.E.-if taken at face value-could have aroused further doubts and fears among the brethren relative to Dr. Meredith's oft-repeated concerns that some kind of a conspiracy might be brewing among members of the Board or Council at San Diego.

Another point needs to be mentioned. In Dr. Meredith's Tulsa sermon, he mentioned several times that we must not "vote" or resort to "voting." Even though the ministry agree that we are not to have democracy, and that the people are not to vote their ministers into office, or vote in deciding doctrines, nonetheless, we have agreed that the N.T. Apostles did use the principle of voicing their opinion (voting), though we don't know the exact means each of them may have used to express his will (vote) on a particular point of discussion (cf. Acts 1:15-26, 6:1-6; 8:14; 15:6-31). We need to be more careful in this regard, and should not give the impression that the N.T. definitely forbids God's ministers from using the voting principle in various circumstances. The Board and the Council have used this principle many times, both during Mr. Armstrong's time, and during Global's existence as a legal entity!

P.E's Future Statements Must Be Positive!

It is vital that the Presiding Evangelist desist from making any more negative comments-concerning the Board or Council and what some members may be "plotting" to do! The P.E. says he "signed on" to our present form of hierarchical Church Government. He and all of us must get behind this form of government and support it wholeheartedly! None of us must express to the brethren our personal concerns, or worse still, give vent to our dark doubts, to the effect that other members of the Board or Council may be plotting some kind of a conspiracy.

Reliable reports have surfaced revealing that the P.E. has made numerous statements to various Church members in which he expressed negative comments concerning the fact that the Council of Elders and the Board of Directors of the GCG have the final say in all matters of Church doctrine, and concerning all major administrative matters. Even after the unfortunate statements were made by Dr. Meredith in Oklahoma, a faithful witness has revealed that a member of the P.E.'s family called that person saying that Dr. Meredith expressed grave concern regarding what is supposedly going on at Headquarters in San Diego. Negative statements made by any of members of the Board or the Council will only create uncertainties, doubts and confusion in the minds of God's sheep! We must not unnecessarily offend anyone (1 Cor. 10:32).

All members of the Council and the Board must realize that we do not have a "SOLE LEADER" who has autocratic authority to decide the important issues. It is not apparent that God Almighty considers any member of the Council or the Board (the P.E. included) to be "the UNQUESTIONED LEADER" of Global. God has never said that any one of the present leaders is "THE PILLAR" who was "more important" than other pillars of Global. It is unwise for any of us to say, "I am THE PILLAR among the other ministers… and they recognize that." Should any of us say that "in the Council there is ONE MAN…who is recognized as THE CHIEF PILLAR…"?

If anyone is "the CHIEF PILLAR," God has not yet revealed it. Is it biblical for us to speak of who is greatest or "most important" among us? This is the same kind of reasoning which some of the disciples were guilty of, and for which Christ rebuked them for that (Mt. 18:1-4; Mark 9:33-37). Though the Apostle Paul recognized that he was a leading apostle, and a pillar among the apostles, neither he nor Peter ever referred to themselves as "the chief pillar," or "the sole leader" among them. The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians, "I have become a fool in boasting…; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing" (2 Cor. 12:11).

Paul did say that "James, Cephas [Peter], and John… seemed to be pillars" in the N.T. Church (Gal. 2:9). He undoubtedly realized that he, too, was a pillar-the supervisor of the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles (vv. 8 21).

The members of the Board and the Council all want to respect and support the Presiding Evangelist as long as he stays "within the parameters established by the Council and the Board" (as stated in his June 11th letter)-within the teachings of the Bible, our Church Government booklet, and supports the plain statements in our Bylaws-and ceases from sowing discord, even if done unintentionally, amongst the membership by hinting at the possibility of a conspiracy at H.Q. We want to see him also show the proper respect and support to the other "pillars" who serve the Living Jesus Christ as co-workers together!

In light of the unwise and damaging statements made by the P.E., both in Tulsa and on other occasions, the Board should receive an unequivocal agreement to the foregoing, to the effect that in case of future violations, further actions by the appropriate Church Authority will be taken!

In conclusion, we need to be reminded of what did happen in the WCG when Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong turned the government of the Church over to Mr. Tkach, who was given autocratic power to make decisions regarding Church doctrine, as well as all major administrative decisions. Having virtually all power in his hands, the new Pastor General was able to destroy the true doctrines of the Church, and to seize control of all its assets. The true people of God were denied any control in those lamentable affairs.

When Global began, Dr. Meredith made it very clear that he believed in a "collegial" approach to the Church's hierarchical form of government. That collaborative approach was also written into the GCG "Church Government" booklet- in which Dr. Meredith himself plainly stated that no SOLE individual was to make "unilateral" decisions. The Bylaws also reflected the fact that there was to be a GROUP of God-fearing men who would govern God's Church, under the leadership of Dr. Roderick C. Meredith.

Unfortunately, after about two or three years, ministers and brethren began to perceive a change in Dr. Meredith's idea of "hierarchical" government. It appeared that Dr. Meredith took the approach of wielding virtually autocratic control over the Church. This alarmed some of us, and led to a fervent "disputation" (Acts. 15:7) in our Council of Elders meetings in February, 1998.

Initially in those discussions, Dr. Meredith and certain others seemed to favor autocratic government as opposed to rulership by a GROUP of Spirit-filled and Spirit-led men of God. After much fervent discussion by the Council, we all came to the same unanimous conclusion-that the GCG would not follow an autocratic form of government, but would use a hierarchical structure of government, led by a GROUP of God's leading ministers-those who had proven to be pillars, both while in the WCG, and also since they agreed to join Dr. Meredith to gather together as many of God's sheep as possible into a secure fold to be taught and fed by faithful shepherds, who adhered to the Word of God.

Since the Council of Elder's decision in February, 1998-when Mr. Meredith by his own admission "signed on" to the idea of Church Government by a group of God-fearing men-various statements have been made, and numerous reports received by other members of the Board and the Council, which created doubt whether the Presiding Evangelist really had his heart in this form of Church Government. Unfortunately, some of those statements were not made to just members of his family, or to his close friends, but were made publicly before some of the brethren. This has caused a certain amount of doubt, fear and confusion in the minds of many of the ministers and brethren. Yet, Dr. Meredith's June 11th letter to the brethren was very supportive of that form of government.

We must not go back. We must not let anyone try to take us into an autocratic form of Church Government, as did happen in the WCG. We must not repudiate all that we have said and written in our official statements during the past five years.

God's true Church must never again be decimated through the efforts of anyone who would wish to "lord it over" God's people (Mt. 20: 1 Pet. 5). Irish-born British statesman Edmund Burke (1729-97) is regarded as "the greatest of [Britain's] political theorists." Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to DO NOTHING!"

When the leader of the WCG held total, autocratic power in his hands, the older PILLARS of God's Church were powerless to really do anything (from within the Church) to stop the slide into apostasy and the resultant destruction of many of God's flock! Those PILLARS who are now serving God's sheep in Global are not powerless to prevent anyone from seizing control of the Church and claiming it as his own flock. If we stood by and did nothing, this would surely set the stage for a possible repeat of history-and could result in the detriment of thousands of God's precious sheep. We must not-and will not-let that happen again!