AS PER THE LIST GIVEN BY DAVID PACK

by Roger Waite

Recently Mr David Pack gave a Bible Study that is widely available in the church in which he claims there have been around 26 doctrinal changes made by Dr Meredith in his time in Global.

I have wanted to do an analysis on these doctrines myself so that I could better personally understand the doctrines in question. I have sought out references as best as I could for these changes and, to a fair degree, we are relying on Mr Pack’s word for a number of them in determining whether they have occurred.

I am merely critiquing these doctrines. It is not my purpose to prove to the reader that they have happened. Seeking out that proof is up to you, the reader, with whatever resources you have available. All that I know personally is contained in this critique.

The views presented here are my own personal views, in my humble opinion, which is subject to change. These are not necessarily the views of Global, Mr Pack or anyone else, just my own. Feedback is more than welcome if the reader feels my views need to be amended.

Everyone has their own idea of how to rate the importance of the various doctrines critiqued below. Personally the changes that I feel are the biggest include one-man rule(considering the potential damage that can be done by one man’s erratic ways), interracial marriage, marriage between believers and non- believers(IF the Ministerial Journal documentation prohibits marriage and not just dating) as well as his own misconduct(not teaching by example what one teaches verbally).

There are many others that fall just a little short of them in importance but are important nevertheless and then there are others which are, in my opinion, not changes in his beliefs but semantic slip-ups.

Mr Pack mentioned in his tape on these changes that some were attempted to be changed but weren’t and that should be kept in mind as we go through this list of changes.

I have critiqued them in the same order in which Mr Pack has presented them in his bible study which was in random order. Let’s look at them now.

1) MR AMSTRONG WAS NOT THE ELIJAH TO COME.

I remember hearing from a friend in England that HQ’s was reconsidering whether Mr Armstrong was the Elijah to come when I was in England in 1994. A couple of months after I had come back from that trip I went down to Canberra for a weekend and the local pastor gave a lengthy sermonette on the same subject espousing that Mr Armstrong probably was not the Elijah to come and that one of the two witnesses probably will be the Elijah to come. I assume the teaching that he espoused that day came from HQ’s considering I heard the same thing shortly before while I was in England.

I personally have a strong leaning towards Mr Armstrong being the Elijah to come but, even though Global is prepared to be dogmatic on it, I don’t personally feel that I can be dogmatic on it just yet.

Let’s quickly walk through what the Bible tells us about this person. We are told that he will come before the great and terrible Day of the Lord in Malachi 4:5. Though John the Baptist is referred to as the Elijah in Matthew 17:10-13, the time setting that Malachi describes to this Elijah shows that John the Baptist was only a type of this Elijah to come shortly before the Day of the Lord.

There are two main things that the Bible tells us this Elijah to come will do –

1] He would restore ALL things(Matthew 17:11) and

2] He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers(Mal.4:5-6).

Mr Armstrong certainly did the first thing with all the doctrinal truths that God restored to the church through him. Mr Armstrong truly was our father in the gospel(Phil.2:22) for so many of us in the church.

The second part of the Elijah commission isn’t quite as conclusive in relation to Mr Armstrong. Malachi is not referring to our fathers in the faith like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob since he says the fathers’ hearts will be turned to the children and our spiritual fathers have not lived for millennia. It can’t be referring to God the Father as fathers is in the plural.

Malachi is referring to a very noticeable strengthening of family relationships in the church. Mr Armstrong did teach us a great deal on the subjects of family, marriage and childrearing in the church. He did initiate the Y.O.U. and Y.E.S. programs as well as Ambassador College and Imperial School. They are strong positives that he did fulfill this part of the commission.

On the other side of the coin, with the exception of Ambassador College and Y.O.U., we didn’t focus anywhere near as much as we could have on evangelizing our children as we did on evagelizing the world. Even though only a small percentage of first generation christians held fast to the core doctrines, a much smaller percentage of second generation christians have held fast since the apostasy began a few years back. We could also add that Mr Armstrong’s family life wasn’t ideal with two of his children(a daughter and GTA) being estranged to him. Even though there was room for improvement on those two counts I personally feel Mr Armstrong did enough to have fulfilled this part of the Elijah commission even though it’s not as conclusive as I would like it to be.

Now let’s look at the possibility that one of the two witnesses will be the Elijah to come. Mr Armstrong certainly did restore all things in the doctrinal sense but since the apostasy those doctrines have had to be restored again amongst the people of God. There have been a few men who have been instrumental in Global in this cause.

In Revelation 11:6 we are told that the two witnesses have the "power to shut heaven so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy and they have power over waters to turn them to blood". We see here they do miracles like those done by Elijah and those done by Moses.

The very fact there has been another restoration of doctrinal truth and that one of the two witnesses does miracles like Elijah I feel should be enough to make us cautious about being dogmatic about who the Elijah to come really is.

As far as the other part of the Elijah commission I do sense a greater emphasis in marriage, childrearing and family relationships in Global which men like Mr Salyer and Mr Adair have, so far, been most instrumental in doing. On the other side of the coin we have far fewer second generation christians for it to be as noticeable a job done as what Mr Armstrong did while he was alive.

Though Dr Meredith was one of the men instrumental in helping restore the true doctrines among the people of God after the apostasy began he has done very little to help strengthen family relationships in the church and his lack of emphasis on practical christian living and lack of emphasis on marriage, childrearing and family relationships was one of a few things that I personally wrote to him about encouraging him to do much more in Global. Personally he still has done little along these lines and this makes him a most unlikely candidate to be the Elijah to come, among other things we’ve seen of late.

I used to think that he was the Zerubbabel mentioned in Zechariah 4 as he was the main one who laid the foundation of the rebuilt Temple(Zech.4:9) in the sense of the rebuilt church and the Work after the church had been taken into spiritual Babylon(Zech.1 and 2). Zerubbabel and Joshua, the High Priest, were two of the leading men at the time the Jews came back from Babylon which has a great parallel with the end time church.

In light of recent events, Dr Meredith looks more like the Joshua figure with his filthy rags(Zech.3:3) than the Zerubbabel figure. Whether he repents of his actions and is used again like Joshua will be, we don’t know at this stage. There are other leaders who have somewhat stained reputations who could also be used by God. Joshua is described as a brand plucked from the fire(Zech.3:2) which seems to indicate that he is plucked out of the great tribulation which is described in similar terms in Revelation 3:18.

At the end of the chapters describing Joshua and Zerubbabel we read a description of the two olive trees and two candlesticks which are the same terms used for the two witnesses(Rev.11:4). The strong implication is that whoever Joshua and Zerubbabel are they are also the two witnesses. If this is so, then one of them may well be plucked out of the great tribulation and begin his commission after the other witness has begun his commission.

It’s interesting to note that they are described as the two candlesticks. A candlestick is a symbol for a church(Rev.1:20). In essence they are called the two churches. Which are the two churches that these men are representative of – Global and Living, Global and United, Global/United and Laodicea or Philadelphia and Laodicea? We won’t know who God has in mind until it happens.

If Dr Meredith isn’t the Zerubbabel figure mentioned in Zechariah 4 then I would deduce that Zerubbabel is one of the leading men who was prominent early in laying the foundation of the rebuilt Work of God and probably played a strong hand in restoring the doctrinal truths that had been lost by many in the church of God at the time.

Many major prophecies are meant to be understood clearly before they are to occur(the Great Tribulation, who the beast power is, etc) while there are other minor prophecies like Joshua and Zerubbabel which aren’t meant to be fully understood until after they have occurred with the benefit of hindsight. I believe that the prophecy regarding who Elijah is also fits into this category.

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD.

Mr Pack mentioned on his tape about the doctrinal changes that, even though Dr Meredith has stated this several times in meetings, that he had not explained what he meant by this. In sermons and articles Dr Meredith has clearly shown that he doesn’t believe in the trinity doctrine and that the God Family presently only composes two members – God the Father and Jesus Christ and that the Holy Spirit is the power and mind of God.

Through his many contradictory statements that he has made of late, he has shown a lack of care in how he phrases things which this can probably be put down to. It is extremely unlikely that he believes the Holy Spirit is a personal being.

THE KEY OF DAVID IS THE RIGHT FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

In Dr Meredith’s Last Great Day sermon of 1996 one thing that did disturb me was when Dr Meredith said that the Key of David was having the right form of church government. If we read the verse in Revelation 3:7 one obvious fact should be clear - it is CHRIST who has the key of David and not something which we have and other groups don’t. We read, "These things says He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the Key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens"

So what is the key? We have traditionally held the view that the key of David was the knowledge of where the throne of David is. I believe that the key of David is probably much broader than that.

Now the key of David is described as something which can be laid on one’s shoulder in Isaiah 22:20-22. The knowledge of where the throne of David is can’t exactly be laid on someone’s shoulder.

Christ is described as having the government of God laid on his shoulder in Isaiah 9:6. Can you lay a form of government on someone’s shoulders? I don't think so. What this is referring to, I believe, is the responsibility, not the form, of government which is laid on His shoulder.

The second aspect of the key of David relates to the bit about opening and shutting. This is referring to access to something but what? In Luke 11:52 Christ chastised the Pharisees for taking away the key of knowledge from the people. The key, probably, is also referring to access to all the knowledge required to fulfill the job as a godly ruler. The knowledge of who Israel is, is also the key to understanding so many prophecies, so this knowledge could also be a part of the key of David.

One could ask the question whether the motive for suggesting it refers to a form of government was to score points against United and turn people off United publicly. That’s what I strongly felt at the time. The two main problems that I had with Dr Meredith from his sermons and writings were this points-scoring approach toward other groups like United and his overemphasis on the subject of church government, even though I basically agreed with his teaching on it until he changed his views toward the end. We need to have a kind, christian attitude towards other groups and avoid the subtle put-downs that Dr Meredith made many of about other groups.

FIVE RESURRECTIONS.

In his Last Great Day sermon of 1997 he stated that there were, sort of, five resurrections. Those resurrections are:

1] Christ, the first of the firstfruits, in the first century when he was born of God at His resurrection.

2] We, who are alive at His second coming, along with the dead in Christ.

3] The changing of people from flesh to spirit during the millennium of those who overcome during the millennium.

4] The resurrection to physical life of those who have died without being converted up until Christ’s second coming to receive their first full chance at salvation.

5] A physical resurrection of those who still haven’t repented after the Great White Throne Judgment period to be cast into the lake of fire.

We are dealing in pure semantics here as all of us, including Dr Meredith, are in agreement as to what those resurrection stages are. The disagreement lies in which we call first, second, third, etc.

Biblically speaking, only one resurrection stage is numbered. Number 2, above, is called the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6. Christ’s resurrection could be called the first stage of a two or even three stage resurrection, known as the first resurrection, if you call the rising of the dead in Christ as stage 2 and those who are alive in Christ as stage 3. Stage number 3, above, could be referred to as stage 3 or 4 of the first resurrection depending on how you look at things.

After the first resurrection you can have your pick at which stages you want to refer to as the second or third resurrection and so on since the Bible doesn’t name them. A case could be put forth for stage number 5 above not even being required. The Book of Revelation does not say whether the incorrigibly wicked will be resurrected again before they are cast into the lake of fire or whether they are cast in at the end of their 100 or so years.

GOD’S CHURCH IS NOT OUR MOTHER.

Dr Meredith shared his belief on this point with us on page 17 of the original Church Government and Church Unity booklet. He plainly says that the church is not our mother. He stated that we had based this idea on Galatians 4:26 which says "Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all". He further stated that the church here below couldn’t be Jerusalem since it is called Jerusalem above and that the church hasn’t yet married Christ for it to have children.

Mr Armstrong on pages 215 and 216 of Mystery of the Ages stated that God’s church is called Jerusalem above "which is the mother of us all" and that the church nourishes the begotten but as yet unborn children (by teaching from the Bible by the ministry) in its spiritual womb and protecting it from being "tossed and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine".

We must be careful not to confuse analogies. Because some analogies are very similar we can confuse two similar analogies and think that they are one and the same analogy. For example, we are begotten children of God awaiting our birth into the family of God(Romans 8:19-23) while in another place christians are referred to as already born "babes in Christ" feeding on milk by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:1. Do we have one analogy which is being contradicted or two similar but different analogies? Obviously the latter applies.

The same story applies to analogies made about the church. She is a betrothed virgin to Christ in 2 Corinthians 11:2 while in Ephesians 4:11-14 the church is a mother protecting its children from being tossed around by false doctrines of men.

Jerusalem above in Galatians 4:26 does refer to the church. It is definitely referring to the heavenly Jerusalem as it is contrasted with physical Jerusalem mentioned in verse 25. Hebrews 12:22-23 equates the heavenly Jerusalem with the church of the firstborn. The term firstborn should be understood in the context of the principle that God "calls those things which do not exist as though they [already] did"(Romans 4:17).

CHRIST IS THE TERMINATION OF THE LAW.

The same applies here as it does for his statement that the Holy Spirit is God. He has clearly taught that we are required to still keep the law and so this is statement from his Romans 10 sermon is probably a semantic slip-up.

YOU CAN PRAY TO JESUS CHRIST.

In a 1995 sermon entitled "What is Jesus Christ Doing Now?" Dr Meredith stated that though our main prayers should be directed to the Father there are times when we can pray directly to Jesus Christ citing Stephen’s prayer before he was stoned as proof when Steven said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit…Lord, do not charge them with this sin"(Acts 7:59-60).

Jesus’ example to us through the model prayer and the lead-up verses to it was for us to direct our prayers to the Father and that we should pray to the Father and ask for those things in His name(John 16:23-24).

Christ is our mediator(1 Tim. 2:5) between us and God as well as being our High Priest who mediates to God as we pray to Him on our behalf. If we can pray directly to Jesus Christ any time that we want we could ask why do we need a mediator or merciful High Priest on our behalf?

OPEN DOOR POLICY.

I used to have a photocopy from a Ministerial Journal that stated that Global’s official policy here was that anyone was allowed to come to services as long as they came to worship peacefully. Only if they began to cause mischief would a minister become involved to sort out any problems or ask them not to attend, if need be.

Mr Pack makes a good case based on the parable of the wheat and tares where the tares were allowed to be planted by the enemy while the men who sowed the field went to sleep. These unconverted and potential troublemakers(the tares) looked little different to the wheat(the good members) and were allowed to come into their midst.

Was this because of such a policy where no basic screening was done by a minister who would then invite them along if they didn’t appear to be a troublemaker? On the other hand, if such a screening process was in place would it have made much of a difference? I’m sure it would have made some difference but even with such a process as we had in the WCG many tares did enter our fellowship. It is no guarantee of a trouble-free fellowship but it can make a positive difference along these lines.

1 Corinthians 14:23-24 says, "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all." I would gather from those two verses that the early church there at Corinth did have an open-door policy and dealt with problems as they occurred.

CHURCH GROUPS ARE BRANCHES OF THE CHURCH.

I know in a couple of early sermons that Dr Meredith refered to the different church groups as branches and that we should seek out the living, active branch of God’s church to fellowship with. One of those sermons may have been "Where is the Living Church Today?"

A possible implication from using the term branches is that they are all a part of the church since they are connected as branches and that God has no problem with you fellowshipping where you want. That is only an implication of the term, not necessarily the intent of it.

Biblically speaking, Christ is "the vine" and we are "the branches"(John 15:5) – individual members not church organizations.

MEN CAN WEAR EARRINGS.

This one has, according to Mr Pack, been said privately and allowed by omission starting with his son.

As with makeup, there is no specific statute forbidding men from wearing earrings but in Genesis 35:1- 5 we read that when Jacob and his whole household and servants cleaned up their act and purified themselves at Bethel that the men took off the earrings that they had.

Under Mr Armstrong we forbade men wearing earrings under the principle of men not wearing anything that pertains to a woman(Deut.22:5) and because it was a cultural sign of rebellion. It has now become culturally acceptable for men to wear earrings but that, I believe, doesn’t change the first part of the equation.

The custom of men wearing earrings began with the homosexual community and now that homosexuality has become culturally acceptable, so have men’s earrings. Where it came from is indicative of the spirit of the fashion. Even though I am of the generation that has now embraced this custom, I have been around long enough to also be of the time when it was considered "poofy" or "gay" to do so and I still have a disdain for the custom because of my childhood conditioning. Though there is not a specific statute against it, I believe the statute in Deuteronomy 22:5 was what probably prohibited this practice in Israel’s time.

YOU CAN TAKE A SABBATH OFF NOW AND THEN.

According to Mr Pack, Dr Meredith has said this periodically in sermons and is done in practice by him. I haven’t located a specific reference as yet but if this be true then it contradicts what Leviticus 23:3 says which says that the Sabbath is a holy convocation. To be convoked means to be summoned – you are required to be there with only the exception of extreme circumstances such as sickness or distance.

HAIR LENGTH.

This has been neglected and I’m not sure if anything has been said privately or publicly about it. Mr Pack said he saw men at Feast sites wearing ponytails and women with excessively short hair. Paul plainly says that it is a shame for a man to have long hair(1 Cor.11:14) and that a woman’s head should be covered and not shorn(1 Cor.11:6). "A woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels"(1 Cor.11:10).

It would appear from the same phrase used for both men’s and women’s hair length – covering the head – that the same dividing line men are not to grow their hair passed is the same dividing line that women are not to cut their hair back passed.

OUR CHILDREN IN THE CHURCH ARE NOT ALL CALLED.

Dr Meredith apparently at the beginning of the May Council of Elders meeting discussed whether all our children are called and he stated that he didn’t think all of them are called when you look at the lives of many of the ministry’s children.

What we have to first understand on this subject is that there is a difference between being called and being chosen by God. Revelation says that those who are with Christ at His coming are "called, chosen and faithful"(Rev.17:14). Furthermore, we are told in Matthew 20:16 that "many are called but few chosen".

Many in the church think that God calls us and when we accept the truth and seek to be baptized then we are chosen as if our response is the choosing. If that was so then we wouldn’t be chosen, we would have only just responded. Choosing implies that it is God who does the choosing which, as we’ve seen, is different from God calling us.

If that is so, then what is the difference between God calling us and God choosing us? God sends out the seed of his Word far and wide. God gives a partial understanding to many people in the world and frankly, I believe, ALL of our children! This is the calling – this partial understanding and invitation to partake of more of God’s truth and way of life.

God leaves it up to us then to respond to that partial understanding. When we respond to that partial understanding and seek more of that truth God can decide to choose us when He opens up a deeper understanding to us and actively draws us to be a part of God’s church in the baptized, committed sense.

1 Corinthians 7:14 says that all of our children, even those with one converted parent, are holy – they are set apart for God. If they are set apart for God then surely they are at least called to that partial understanding. It is up to them to respond and if they do then God can choose them and work with them towards baptism and being a part of His family.

On the subject of minister’s kids my own personal observation is that they rarely seem to fall in the middle of the spectrum. Most of them seem to be either very good or quite rotten. There doesn’t seem to be many of them that fall in between. I suspect this is because of the extra weight of expectations placed on them. Either they reach them or they rebel against them. Many also, I believe, think that they can get away with a lot more because they are children of the minister.

INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE NOT A SIN.

In the October 28, 1996 "In Transition" Dr Meredith was quoted as saying, "we discourage interracial dating and marriage NOT as a capital sin, but as something that brings a great deal of trouble, frustration, unhappiness and sorrow". He says interracial marriage is not a sin. Mr Tkach changed that in 1991 stating virtually the same thing as Dr Meredith when he did.

There is no specific command that says "thou shalt not marry someone of a different race" in the Bible. You can look from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find one. There are many scriptures where God forbade Israel from marrying Gentiles but those commands are primarily religious in nature to prevent them from straying from God’s ways.

In the WCG under Mr Armstrong the teaching against interracial marriage was built upon principle much in the same way that smoking was declared a sin. You will find no specific command against smoking but it does violate the principle of glorifying God in your body. I will enumerate the principles involved in why interracial marriage was declared a sin in Mr Armstrong’s day and why I still hold to that point of view. I wish this doctrine was much more easily proven one way or the other in the Bible as this doctrine affects people’s lives much more than others in the Bible.

In Leviticus 19:19 God says;"You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you." Notice God purposely and strictly wants each variety KEPT PURE. Dr Hoeh asks the question, "Why does God even wearing a garment of mixed fabric which is not going to harm or poison the wearer?...God wants His people to learn the lesson - don't mix varieties - keep each variety PURE - DON'T MIX THE RACES!...IT IS A SIN, VIOLATING GOD'S LAW, TO INTERBREED EVEN DIFFERENT BREEDS OF ANIMALS! GOD MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO INTERBREED VARIETIES HE HAS CREATED THROUGH DIFFERENT MUTATIONS.

"When God, for a wise purpose beneficial to mankind, blesses us with different varieties HE WANTS THOSE KEPT PURE! He does not want man to UNDO what He has wisely DONE!...Every breeder of fine livestock knows that champion prize- winning animals must be PURE-BRED! Stock-raisers recognise this law, as applied to animals. We should be able to recognise it applied to ourselves"(PT,October 1963,p.29- 30).

God wants us to keep the racial strains pure in order to bring out the best qualities in each. Occasionally genetic qualities are enhanced with racial interbreeding but this is much more the exception than the rule. I am personally not one for children being racially interbred as a result of mixed marriages. I personally see this as eroding a child’s sense of racial identity. We do have people who are children of mixed marriages and, of course, the question would be asked, "How would a interracial marriage prohibition affect their options for marriage?" We don't live in an ideal world and the church’s policy under Mr Armstrong was that such a person was free to marry of the race they were most physically like.

Just as God has created many different plants and animals and many varieties within each kind for greater beauty, so God has created the various races of mankind. God QUITE PURPOSELY pre-determined the boundary lines for the nations(Acts 17:26) and separated the nations (Gen.11:7-8) to keep the races separate and prevent them from intermixing and the tensions that naturally result.

God originally set the bounds of national borders, intending nations to be SEPARATED to prevent intermixing on a large scale. Notice it in Deuteronomy 32:8,"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He SEPARATED the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people". This is a major reason why God confused the languages and forced the nations to spread out from each other at the Tower of Babel. God desires to have pure races and not mixed ones and interracial marriage directly goes against that desire of God's.

Abraham prevented his son Isaac from intermarrying among the dark Canaanites then in the land. To his chief servant he said,"you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell but you shall go to my country and to my kindred(his own racial people) and take a wife for Isaac"(Gen.24:3-4). This was not a religious matter because the white kindred back in his former land were pagans. This was a racial matter. In Israel's time the command not to intermarry with the foreign peoples was a blended one - primarily religious in order to keep them in the worship of God and secondarily a racial one to keep their seed pure.

Today, in the church, we have to marry amongst spiritual Israelites only. Marrying outside the church is a specific case of interracial marriage in the spiritual sense. In Jeremiah 2:21 God said to Israel,"I planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed. How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine?"(KJV). As Nehemiah pointed out, they married amongst the other races around them. God had strong criticism for the priests in Ezekiel's day for not making "known the difference between the clean and unclean" (Ezek.22:26).

IF BAPTIZED MEMBERS AND UNBAPTIZED PEOPLE DATE(OR MARRY?) IT’S NOT A SIN.

According to Mr Pack, this was approved in the November 1995 Ministerial Journal. Whether it included marriage also I am not sure at this stage.

We read in 2 Corinthians 6:14,"Do not be unequally yoked together with UNBELIEVERS". The Life Application Bible makes the following comment on this verse, "Paul urges believers not to form binding relationships with non-believers, because this might weaken their Christian commitment, integrity or standards"(p.2100).

In my short time in the church I've seen quite a number of young people leave the church to marry someone outside or married someone outside the church and left the church soon after. That doesn't happen all the time and some mixed marriages like that can work out but your odds are greatly reduced, which is why God, out of love, commands us to marry in the church. Some argue that they might lead that person to God and cite rare cases where that has happened. My answer to that is just because God may turn lemons into lemonade and make a bad situation work out for good does not mean that He condones the initial decision at all and in reality its God's opinion that really counts.

Paul makes it absolutely clear marriage is one binding relationship we should not form with someone outside the church in 1 Corinthians 7:39 where he says,"A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives, but if her husband dies she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, ONLY IN THE LORD". The word only means wholly something WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.

We used to have a policy in the WCG that people attending church who were not baptized could not date those who were baptized. In essence, young people, who’s hearts were totally in God’s way of life and His truth, could date people outside the church(though terribly unwise to do so) but were forbidden to date a baptized member who’s beliefs were identical. If I have that wrong, then the only other possibility was that there were not just two but three classes of people – people outside the church, unbaptized believers and baptized believers and neither could date one outside their class.

2 Corinthians 6:14 uses the term believer. I have checked the Bible with a concordance to see if there is any scripture that equates a believer with someone who has been baptized and have failed to find one so far. Mark 16:16 says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" implying that a believer and a baptizee are not one and the same.

The word believer has to do with one’s beliefs – their values, convictions and whether they are striving to living by God’s ways. Someone who is unbaptized but lives by God’s way of life, having been raised up in the church, to me at least, fits the definition of believer in this verse, not someone who is also baptized, though that should be the goal of every unbaptized believer.

HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.

I Timothy 1:9-10 says, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person but for the lawless…for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

Persistent unrepented of sins are equated to heresy in this verse. Someone who teaches high morals but blatantly does not practice what he preaches by living like a hypocrite is essentially a heretic even if he is doing the Work and his verbal teaching is spot on. We teach by our example and if our example is hypocrisy then we are teaching heresy. The reader can seek the facts and make his or her own judgment on whether Dr Meredith is guilty of this type of heresy.

WOMEN WRITERS.

There have been general articles written by women in the church magazines. This would go against the principle in 1 Timothy 2:12 which says that a woman is not allowed to teach in the church. Whether it is O.K. for a woman to write articles that are specifically to women only and about womens’ matters is an issue for the church to further discuss and clarify.

A WOMAN BEING ON THE BOARD.

Dr Meredith kept his wife on the Board up until September 1998 and she only came off the Board after much persuasion by the other board members. As a board member she shared the power to hire and fire ministers and other employees of the church and this authority is forbidden by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12.

UNBAPTIZED MEMBERS CAN WASH FEET AT THE PASSOVER SERVICE.

This was given the O.K. in 1996 via a church newsletter pertaining to the Passover service. No uncircumcised foreigner was allowed to eat the Passover in ancient Israel(Exodus 12:43-48). He couldn’t come near it(verse 48), let alone eat it unless he was circumcised. The same must apply in the church. Unbaptized members shouldn’t be at the Passover service.

EATING IN RESTAURANTS ON THE SABBATH.

In a headquarters sermon by Dr Meredith in 1997, which was prevented from going out to other churches on tape by members of the council of elders, he stated that it was wrong for members to eat out in restaurants on the sabbath.

The following is a quotation from a May 1962 Good News magazine from an article entitled, "What Can I Do on the Sabbath?" which answers this question on eating in restaurants on the sabbath which I would concur with.

"Is it all right to eat in a restaurant on the Sabbath when you are away from home on a trip?"Again, this question may be correctly answered by more than one scripture, but one of the best is found in Matthew 12. In verse one, Matthew describes how Jesus and His disciples were passing through a field of grain on the Sabbath Day and began to pluck the ears of grain and eat them. The Pharisees who saw them rebuked Him, saying that they were breaking the law of the Sabbath Day."Beginning in verse 3, we have Christ s answer: "But He said unto them, have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God and did eat the shewbread, which was nor lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

"Verse 5 is of particular importance to God's ministers. With very few exceptions, they have to work on the Sabbath. Many of them preach two sermons on the Sabbath and spend from two to four hours driving from one church to another. Believe me, that is work! Have the ministers then broken the Sabbath?"No, like the priests in the temple, they are doing the work of God and are blameless. Often, in the work of a minister, it is necessary for a minister to eat in a restaurant on the Sabbath. Have they sinned? Again, the answer is no for the same reason."

"But what about you? Should you eat in a restaurant on the Sabbath Day? The classic example of this takes place every year at the Feast of Tabernacles. We must travel from our homes to observe the feast in the place where God has placed His name."During that time, we are living in motels, hotels, and even camping out. For many of us, if we are going to eat at all, we must eat in a restaurant. Since the Sabbath is listed in Leviticus 23 as one of God's feasts, we would certainly expect to eat on that day. It actually should not normally be a fast day. Furthermore, the people who prepare food in restaurants are going to be working whether or not you eat there."As a general rule, it would be better for us to prepare a lunch ahead of time or to order those items on the menu that are prepared ahead of time. This is the case with most of their ‘specials.’ They prepare it all ahead of time and it is no extra work for them if we eat in their restaurant. The people in the restaurant are working there whether you eat there or not. And, of course, it involves no work for you. Remember in Mark 2:27 that Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."

NEW MOONS.

According to Mr Pack, at the beginning of one council of elders meeting Dr Meredith tried to introduce the observance of new moons into the church and did not succeed as all other council members disagreed with him on the issue.

If observance of all new moons were a command of God there would have at least been a clear statute to that effect in one of the first five books where the laws are given. The only command given to Israel regarding new moons was to blow the silver trumpets at the beginning of each month(Num.10:10) – absolutely nothing about a commanded assembly or not working on that day. Those things were done after the Jews returned from Babylon but it was not at God’s command else it would have been recorded for us in the books that contain the law. It was a tradition of the Jews, nothing more.

DOCTRINE DOESN’T ALWAYS COME THROUGH AN APOSTLE.

Mr Pack tells us that ALL doctrine must come through an apostle. I would ask the question, "Where did Global get its current teaching about church government where the church is ruled by the council of elders and not one man?" This important teaching did not come through Mr Armstrong, even though he used and listened to the advisory council of elders that he set up.

This teaching came through Dr Meredith in his church government booklet and Dr Meredith is certainly not an apostle.

BIRTHDAYS CELEBRATIONS ARE ALLOWABLE.

Dr Meredith has stated this privately and Carl McNair apparently confirmed this recently on the LCG chat line.

In the article on Christmas in the World Book Encyclopedia we read,"The exact date of Christ's birth is not known. The early christians did not celebrate His birth because they considered the celebration of anyone's birth to be a PAGAN CUSTOM"(Vol.3, p.416).

The World Book - Childcraft International also has this to say,"For thousands of years people all over the world have thought of a birthday as a very special day. Long ago, people thought that on a birthday a person could be helped by good spirits or hurt by evil spirits. So, when a person had a birthday, friends and relatives gathered to protect him or her. And that's how birthday parties began...The idea of putting candles on birthday cakes goes back to ancient Greece. The Greeks worshipped many gods and goddesses. Among them was one called Artemis...the goddess of the moon...The cakes were round like a full moon. And because the moon glows with light, the candles were decorated with lighted candles...In other words we follow many of the old birthday beliefs. We pay attention to the old-time birth symbols. And we carry on the old celebrations."

All these customs and traditions connected with the observance of birthdays are forms of well-wishing which have to do with warding off evil spirits and protecting the birthday child. Nothing but useless, pagan superstition! The only scripture, apart from the principle of not mixing paganism with God's ways, in the Bible that might prohibit it in some form is found in Job 1:4-5. The children of Job may have been holding birthday celebrations when they partied together,"And his sons went and feasted in their houses, EVERY ONE ON HIS DAY, and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them." Notice how Job viewed these "harmless" celebrations and reacted to them, "And it was so when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them and rose up early in the morning and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all, for Job said, It may be my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts."

Simple recognition of an achievement is not wrong. Birthday celebrations are pagan in origin though, I believe, that the church has always allowed the acknowledgment of birthdays.

THIRD TITHE.

According to Mr Pack, Dr Meredith made the comment in one council of elders that maybe Global should do away with third tithe like United after United made an administrative decision that U.S. members were no longer required to pay third tithe.

In 1982 Mr Armstrong made a decision affecting members outside the United States that in many countries they were not required to pay third tithe. He stated that they already were involuntarily paying that third tithe through their taxes to support those people who the third tithe is meant to help(i.e. the financially less fortunate through a welfare system). This judgment wasn’t made for the United States as their taxes were somewhat lower at the time. Since then the taxes have increased to where the percentage taken out per capita for welfare is equal to or exceeds the amount of a tithe. As a result of this United have declared that third tithe was no longer obligatory on members living in the United States.

Below are quotes, first of all, from a letter written in 1982 by the then British Regional Director, Frank Brown, informing the brethren of the decision made by Mr Armstrong followed by the official policy statement of the United Church of God.

Frank Brown wrote:

"Because of the fact that the governments of this world have interfered so much with orderly economic principles, many difficulties with regard to tithing had become apparent. In this regard, Mr. Armstrong stated that where the Social Welfare State has assumed, to a large extent, what is the Church's responsibility in saving Third Tithe, Church members in Britain and Scandinavia need not be required to keep it. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that the State takes care of the widow, the elderly, the unemployed, the orphan and the destitute, to a large extent, and we pay for this through National Insurance contributions deducted by the Government at source. He also reminded us, however, that there still are needs for Third Tithe not covered by the Government, and that we should, from time to time, make offerings to the Third Tithe fund when we are financially able. Of course, some of you will wish to continue paying Third Tithe."

The official policy statement of the United Church of God states:

"The Bible teaches that Christianity involves the care and concern of those less fortunate (James 1:27). The Old Testament gives instructions regarding contributions, commonly called third tithe, for those in the community who are typically in need of financial assistance (Deuteronomy 14:28-29)."Many nations in our modern world have various social programs, the effect and intent of which is to fulfill the purpose of the biblical third tithe. These programs are financed by an involuntary system of taxation. In most cases the annual rate at which social taxes are extracted is substantially greater than the biblical third tithe."

"In 1982, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was presented with the facts regarding this form of taxation in Britain and Scandinavia, and the impact it had on the individual's wages in those nations. Mr. Armstrong recognised that these modern states in Europe had, to a large extent, assumed the Church's responsibility in caring for the needy. Therefore, Mr. Armstrong made an administrative decision that members in Britain and Scandinavia did not need to pay what, in effect, would have been an additional third tithe to the Church. As Mr. Armstrong put it, the state, to a large extent, takes care of the widow, the elderly, the unemployed, the orphan and the destitute. We, however, pay for this through contributions deducted by the government at source. He also reminded the Church that despite what national governments may do to help the disadvantaged, there will still be needs within the Church that national social programs do not address. Therefore we should, from time to time, make offerings to the Church Assistance Fund."

"Later, because the same principles applied, the same administrative decision was made for other countries in Europe and eventually for all nations in which the Church had congregations, except the United States. Mr. Armstrong did not address the issue of third tithe for members in the United States. Nevertheless, if we carefully examine the U.S. social security system and other welfare programs funded by taxation in the United States, we can readily see that the principles regarding the administration of third tithe that apply in other countries apply to the United States as well."At no time did Mr. Armstrong deny the biblical teaching of third tithe nor the Church's responsibility to take care of its needy. On the contrary, he stressed the need for members to continue to support the Church Assistance Fund. However, he did recognize that the amount members would have paid in third tithe—and more—was in fact taken from them to fund these national social programs. Therefore, he ruled that members did not need to pay what in effect was an additional third tithe to the Church when governments were taxing them and using that tax for the same intent and purpose as the biblical third tithe."

"Therefore, the Council of Elders has resolved that where governments provide programs, the intent and purpose of which is to provide for the needs of those that the biblical third tithe was designed to assist, and that where such programs are funded by an annual rate of taxation greater than the biblical third tithe, members are not obligated to pay what amounts to an additional third tithe to the Church."The Council of Elders further resolves that since there will always be members of the Church whose needs will not be adequately provided for by national government social programs, and since the clear example in Scripture is that the Church care for its members in need (Leviticus 19:9-10; Isaiah 58:7; Matthew 25:35-40; Galatians 2:9-10), that those members of the Church who are able, are encouraged to contribute to the Church Assistance Fund so that the biblical injunction to care for the needy within the Church can be fulfilled."

ONE MAN RULE.

Dr Meredith stated in his initial crisis letter:

"Increasingly, our meetings have become more like a ‘debating society.’ Each ‘side’ has to divide up their constituents and propagandize them before a ‘vote’ is taken on key issues. That is worldly. That is damnable! We will NEVER learn to faithfully practice God's form of Government if this continues! Frankly, brethren, since I was ‘out voted’ anyway, I tried for a while to cooperate and go along with this system for the sake of UNITY in God's Church. Now I see that I was WRONG. I should NOT have gone along with this ‘democratic’ approach even for the sake of unity.

"This ‘political’ approach to government is NEVER advocated in the Bible. It is NOT working because it is not God's way, and it breeds chaos and confusion. I have not wanted to fight. But now, I am being forced to fight for the Truth-for God's form of Church Government and for us to have the zeal to finish the Work! Some of these men on the Board want to ‘politicize’ this Church and make it like the human governments of this world. Brethren, these carnal practices must cease within the body of Christ!"

What is plain from this quote is that if Dr Meredith sets up a council of elders in the new organization he sets up, they will ONLY advise him but have no power to decide the matters brought before the council. They will advise Dr Meredith but will not vote on matters. The church is reliant on him ALONE to make the decisions for the church in a sound and fair way! This plain quote reveals Dr Meredith’s view on church government.

Even if MOST OR ALL of them disagree with him on matters brought before the council(which will probably still happen from time to time) they are only able to advise - it is ONLY Dr Meredith who can make the decision. The council only ADVISES, NOT RULES under what Dr Meredith wants to set up. This is NOT rule by a council - this is rule by one man - the leader ALONE!

Dr Meredith’s reason why consensus of the council is wrong and has to be CHANGED is that the council becomes an argumentative debating society when there are differences of opinion.

In the June 1998 co-worker letter he wrote:

"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. As I explained in our ‘Church government’ booklet, there was no ‘Moses figure’ or some kind of ‘Pope Peter’ who ‘towered over the other apostles and elders, giving them orders, threatening to 'fire' them....You do not find [Peter] giving orders to the other apostles, sending them out on missions, or in any way 'lording it over' them....’ (When Should You Follow Church Government, 1993 and 1995, p. 12).

"In that booklet, I made it very clear what kind of servant leadership Jesus Christ established in His Church: ‘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’ (pp. 12-13). Our booklet also explains Acts 8:12-15, revealing that it was ‘the apostles [who] 'sent' Peter and John to Samaria’-not a unilateral decision by either Peter or John (p. 13).

"Brethren, if you will carefully read our booklet on Church government, you will see that it clearly states, ‘Evidently the local Church's consensus-building leadership’ at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in order to participate in the Church's decision concerning whether the Church ought to enforce ‘circumcision’ and the ‘law of Moses’ on Gentile converts (Acts 15:5, 24). It further says, ‘Paul did not unilaterally make this decision! It was obviously made-in a brotherly manner-in concert with the other ministers and leaders of the local church’ (p. 18).

"Our Church government booklet also points out that ‘God guided many apostles and elders to work in a brotherly, non-threatening atmosphere, and no single ONE of the apostles towered over the others at that conference’ (p. 14). ‘There is no hint of any authoritarianism, highhandedness or threatening behaviour on the part of ANY of the apostles...’ (pp. 16-17).

"When you closely examine the New Testament ‘pattern’ of Church Government, you see the apostles acting as brothers and colleagues. When the need arose to ordain some deacons to serve the widows, here's what happened in the Apostolic Church. ‘Then the TWELVE summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, 'It is not desirable that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business’' (Acts 6:2-3). Note that it was not just Peter, but ALL THE APOSTLES who directed that this selection process take place. This was according to Christ's promise that ‘where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them’ (Matt. 18:18- 19). He would guide His ministers in whatever decisions they had to make.

"Again, when Philip was used by God to lead quite a number of Samaritans to repentance and baptism, here is what happened: ‘Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, THEY sent PETER and John to them, who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 8:14-15).

"Obviously, the apostles acted as a whole on many occasions in the early years of the New Testament Church. They were deeply converted, had been trained directly by Jesus Christ, and, ‘submitting to one another,’ acted as a Spirit-led ‘team’ in many situations. On the other hand, Peter, John and James, the ‘Lord's brother,’ were obviously ‘pillars’ among the apostles (Gal. 2:9).

"Again, there was NO ‘Pope Peter’ or ‘Pope Paul.’ But they were clearly recognized as the primary leaders-the ‘pillars’-in their respecting spheres of operation. And James articulated the consensus decision of the apostles AND ELDERS at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:19-20).

"The New Testament does give us an overall pattern of leadership from the top down in God's Church. So, in the New Testament, we find the general pattern of hierarchical government. The brethren did not vote to decide who their ministers would be. Rather, Christ showed by the circumstances and the ‘fruits’ whom He was using to do His Work (Matt. 7:19-20).

"But the hierarchy was NOT led by one towering leader such as Moses in the Old Testament. Under the Living Christ's leadership, the Church was directed by the apostles AS A WHOLE - among whom were certain ‘pillars’ such as Peter, overseeing the Work to the Israelites, and Paul overseeing the Gospel to the Gentiles. So in the New Testament, there was NOT ‘one-man rule’ by anyone!

"REMEMBER THAT PAUL REBUKED PETER TO HIS FACE OVER HIS REFUSAL TO EAT WITH THE GENTILES (GAL. 2:11-14), YET PAUL DIDN'T IMPOSE HIS WILL ON THE APOSTLE BARNABAS WHEN THEY HAD A DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING JOHN MARK (Acts 15:36:41).

"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 in working together in a brotherly way with these men, really listening to their counsel, heeding their advice and HELPING US ALL TO REACH A ‘CONSENSUS DECISION’ CONCERNING ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CHURCH AND THE WORK.

"The Presiding Evangelist is expected to lead the discussions, help formulate decisions and is responsible for their implementation. BUT I DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO UNILATERALLY DECIDE ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE THE COUNCIL OR THE BOARD. RATHER, AFTER OPEN AND HEARTY DISCUSSION IN THESE MEETINGS, THE ISSUES MUST BE DECIDED BY A CONSENSUS! [Note: the word consensus means agreed upon decision and is not synonymous with unanimous agreement]"

Please note again some important points that he makes in the co-worker letter :-

He states that he has informed Global members from the beginning that Global would not be rule by ONE MAN.

He says that the government in the New Testament "was a collective sort of leadership. The responsibility for directing the Church was NOT then invested in a SOLE individual on earth."

It should be noted that Christ ordained 12 apostles NOT one apostle and 11 evangelists! IF IT WASN’T A COLLECTIVE SORT OF LEADERSHIP THEN WHY DID CHRIST DO THAT AND HOW COME THE APOSTLES SENT PETER THE "CHIEF APOSTLE" TO SAMARIA?

In Dr Meredith’s own words "the Council of Elders - INCLUDING MYSELF - has UNANIMOUSLY chosen to avoid authoritarian ‘ONE-MAN RULE’...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." ALL of the council members, including those loyal to Dr Meredith, agreed to this collective leadership by the council.

Dr Meredith also promised, "I, in turn, have committed myself to abide by the bylaws of the church and the resolutions of the council." So what they collectively decide Dr Meredith stated he was prepared to abide by and this would include if he disagreed with the decision.

He informs us now that "since I was ‘out-voted’ anyway, I tried for a while to cooperate and go along with this system for the sake of UNITY in God's Church. Now I see that I was WRONG. I should NOT have gone along with this ‘democratic’ approach even for the sake of unity." IT’S OBVIOUS HE WANTS A CHANGE OF FORMAT TO WHAT HE AND THE COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY AGREED UPON.

My own belief regarding the issue of one man rule in the format Dr Meredith now wants where the council can only advise him on matters and not decide them compared to what Dr Meredith set up and wholeheartedly supported in the June 1998 co-worker letter, is that I would prefer any day to be in a church where the council collectively decides major issues in the church than one-man rule. Why?

BECAUSE SATAN ONLY HAS TO CORRUPT ONE MAN TO TAKE THE CHURCH IN THE WAY THAT HE WANTS TO, LIKE HE DID WITH MR TKACH, INSTEAD OF SEVEN WHICH CONSTITUTES A MAJORITY ON THE COUNCIL.

YOU DON’T HAVE TO EAT UNLEAVENED BREAD FOR ALL SEVEN DAYS OF THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD.

In a council meeting, according to Mr Pack, Dr Meredith made the statement that one didn’t have to eat unleavened bread on every one of seven days of The Feast of Unleavened bread. After Mr Pack quoted the verses below he backed down on this belief.

"SEVEN DAYS(not days one, three and seven) thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to the Lord. Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.

"And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt. And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt"(Exod. 13:7-9).

Eating unleavened bread pictures taking in God’s character and taking in God’s law. Are we to take in God’s law and build God’s character every day or can we skip a day or two here and there?