There are other powers, of course, but these are the most significant in this case.

The simple fact is that you cannot represent yourself one way (these provisions have been in our bylaws all along), and then function in a completely different way. Board members found guilty of fraudulently operating their corporations or knowingly engaging in criminal activity or misconduct could be criminally charged and end up in prison.

Having the corporate structure we had, and living by it, provided protection for Dr. Meredith, and for all other Board members as well. The Church could safely conduct business. Our faithful tithepayers could legally deduct their donations from income taxes. But if, at any time the Board becomes aware of activity, by one or more Board members, that violates these bylaws, criminal laws, or certain civil laws, it must take action to correct such violations. Otherwise, Board members could be found guilty of complicity in a crime—either by participating in it or by covering it up.

The twin actions taken by Dr. Meredith on Monday, November 21, seriously compromised the integrity of the Board and therefore the Church. So far as the law is concerned, the Board IS the Church. Private use of the mailing list was a direct contradiction of a long-held policy and of a recent, clearly stated resolution of the Board. In fact, this is standard policy for most any organization.

The writing of checks of any amount, much less six-figure amounts, by using an unauthorized person, operating outside the accounting control systems carefully put in place to protect the Church, might very well, in our opinion, constitute criminal conduct and had to be dealt with.

When Dr. Meredith acknowledged both of these actions in the Tuesday Board meeting, it was clear that he did not have the best interests of the Church corporation at heart, and had also endangered the other Board members by his actions. Moreover, the cover-up Dr. Meredith suggested we engage in was out of the question! He had already taken himself out of the Church by the very nature of his actions, but declined to formally resign, instead asking us to resign. The Board had no choice but to accept his decision to leave and formally terminate his employment. We paid his salary and vacation pay through December 3.

To deal with the spiritual questions surrounding Dr. Meredith's action and attitude, an emergency Council of Elders meeting was called for Thursday, December 4. All active Council members, including Dick Ames, Dibar Apartian, Charles Bryce and John Ogwyn, were notified of the meeting well in advance as required. None of these four attended. They were then removed from Council membership and new members were added. The current Council of Elders consists of ten ministers: Raymond McNair (Chairman), Larry Salyer, Edwin Pope, Warren Zehrung, Rex Sexton, Harold Smith, Norbert Link, Jean Carion, George Meeker and Dave Pack. All but the last three of these men are also currently serving as Board members.

After a thorough discussion of Dr. Meredith's actions, the current Council of Elders found that Dr. Meredith was guilty of sowing discord and causing division in the Church. He was disfellowshipped from membership in the Global Church of God, as any member or minister would be under the same circumstances. Please refer to Paul's instruction in Romans 16:17-18, and 1 Timothy 5:19-21.

Some have asked, "Why was this matter not taken to the Council of Elders before Dr. Meredith was terminated?" Brethren, it was too late for that step. His actions required an immediate response. If we were to be faithful to God's Word as well as to our bylaws, the Board had no alternative but to dismiss him. Further, the bylaws, from their inception, gave this power to terminate employees exclusively to the Board and not to the Council.

Nevertheless, as we already mentioned, an unscheduled, emergency Council meeting was held December 4. And again, in order to be faithful to God's Word, the Council had no choice but to disfellowship Dr. Meredith from Global. The Church is not one man—it never has been. And no man, especially a minister, is above the law of God (cf. James 3:1).

Ministers cannot make decisions for you. That is not our responsibility. It is our duty instead to give you counsel and the tools to help you make wise, spiritually sound decisions. Perhaps you can do this without further facts and details. But if you believe you require them in order to make an informed decision, then you should request the information by asking for Setting the Record Straight, and we will get it to you as soon as we can. Your Global minister already has a copy to help him answer your questions. You may also write in to Headquarters for it.

It is our prayer that you will draw close to our Heavenly Father during this time and seek His will in your life. It is all too easy during such times of trial to yield to our own emotions. The best way to discover the truth, in any matter, is to "trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding" (Prov. 3:5).

If for any reason you want your name removed from our mailing list, simply let us know and we will take it off as soon as we possibly can. We do not want to give offense.

Brethren, let us always remember that the Almighty God we serve is unstoppable. He will succeed. His Work will be done. And we are committed to being a part of that Work. In this vein, we are going to stay on WGN as long as God provides the income and shows us that we should. Longtime field pastor Harold Smith has already completed two World Ahead programs, and other speakers are being auditioned as presenters. Please pray that God will bless the Work of His Church—especially that it conforms to His will. For above all, it is God's will we must be seeking.

Brethren, let's keep our eyes focused on the Good News of the World Ahead. If we remain humble and continue to yield to Christ living in us, we will have the opportunity to lead and serve humanity as glorified kings and priests in God's Kingdom—helping to usher in global peace and happiness at last. May God speed that glorious day. And may He bless and keep you as you yield to Him.

In Christian love,

Larry R. Salyer
For the Board of Directors

From the Global Church of God—

"He that is first to plead his cause seems right.... Until his brother comes and examines him." —Proverbs 18:17

December 8, 1998

Dear Concerned Brethren,

God's Word tells us very clearly that we should take diligent care to not offend in word or in deed. Please believe that we have no desire to taint anyone's reputation. Nevertheless, we do have a direct responsibility before God Almighty to fulfill His command: "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality" (1 Tim. 5:19-21).

It is in obedience to this command from God that we must lay before you the following charges of wrongdoing and sin. To refuse to do so would be disobedience. Please understand that if it weren't for this explicit biblical instruction, we would much prefer to keep these matters private.

But again, God tells us as the third and final step of the instructions in Matthew 18 about confronting a brother with his sins, "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church" (v. 17). This is what we are now doing.

We are still shaking our heads in disbelief at what has happened. Yet we are confident in God to sort things out and set things right. And He will undoubtedly have to do so—because many people have been so quick to judge and have already become extremely polarized. Over the course of the past few days, we have received some messages of encouragement. Yet we have also seen a flurry of vitriolic letters and e-mail messages. In fact, some have made the accusation that our previous letter to the brethren was just such an attack letter.

Let us, then, be the first to apologize if it has affected you that way. In our zeal to protect God's people, we may have said too much in certain regards. But please remember that our letter would never have been written if Dr. Roderick Meredith had not suddenly abandoned the Church and written to all of you. Moreover, it has become apparent that we have frankly not said enough in other respects, such as addressing the specific charges Dr. Meredith has leveled against his fellow ministers as well as better explaining the issues in general. We will try to stick to the facts as we do not want to revile in return (cf. 1 Peter 2:23).

Amazingly, we have already been painted as "accusers of the brethren." Yet it was Dr. Meredith who referred to us in his letter of November 21 as pushing for "cutting back on doing the Work of God," as "presumptuous," as making "threats and insinuations," as "very political individuals" and as guilty of "profound disrespect, envy, jealousy and open HOSTILITY." Dr. Meredith is telling people that we are making "threatening political moves and comments," that we have "NO FAITH in the Living Christ," that we use "human, carnal political means to get [our] way" and that we want "to 'politicize' this Church and make it like the human governments of this world." He refers to us as men who "frighten and/or intimidate" employees, as initiating a "reign of terror," as "a small band of rebels" seething with "blatant rebellion and DISLOYALTY" and as a "puny band of politicians." Further, it is Dr. Meredith who points the finger at us in his letter of November 27, saying that we're "maneuvering and politicking to usurp the authority which Christ has always given…," that we've created a "carnal and hostile climate" and that we're "out of step with God." Who, then, is accusing and attacking? Again, we want to stick to the facts and not resort to name-calling.

Let it also be stated that we do not want to harp on this matter indefinitely. Rather, it is our fervent desire to get on with the Work of preaching the Gospel and feeding the flock with the full Truth. For the moment, however, this is "meat in due season" and simply must be dealt with. As we saw above, God through Paul commanded that we do so (1 Tim. 5:19-21). And this is the example of Christ and the apostles in addressing the wrongs of specific groups or individuals to preserve God's sheep (cf. Matt. 23:1-7; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3 John 9).

We still love Dr. Meredith and pray that he will repent before God of what he has done. But until he does, we cannot just overlook it. The president of the United States, who lied under oath, is telling the American people, "Let's get on with the business of America." But the real business of America is that no one is above the law—not even the president. And the real business of the Church of God is that no one is above God's law—not even the Presiding Evangelist. God's Church cannot have peace and unity apart from operating within the law of God—which includes living within man's law (Rom. 13) unless doing so compromises God's law (Acts 5:29). As important as preaching the Gospel is, it is not the first thing that God's Church is to do. Rather, we are to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" (Matt. 6:33)—that is, to "LIVE by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4), taking on the very mind of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:5). The simple point is this: You cannot break God's law to obey Him. That just doesn't make any sense.

It is now time to set the record straight. We will here address some specific accusations from Dr. Meredith's two recent letters to the members and ministry (Nov. 21 and Nov. 27).

RCM: "As time went along, some of the Board and Council members began to talk of cutting back on doing the Work of God. As I resisted this, they became more and more presumptuous over the last year. Threats and insinuations made it obvious that if I did not 'go along' with them that they would try to remove me from the Board or Council.... For over the last year or two, some of these men have tried to 'push' me into going completely off WGN—our ONLY major television outlet in the United States! They have directly pushed for a completely different approach to doing the Work—planning to concentrate our efforts on turning inward—NOT striving first of all to go through the 'open doors' that Christ shows Philadelphians will do" (Nov. 21).

FACT: This is not accurate on a number of levels. None of us wanted to cut back on doing God's Work. None of us were ever convinced that we needed to cancel WGN. In fact, Global's bylaws require that we witness to the world and feed the flock. And when the matter of renewing WGN came up for consideration in the last Council meeting, we agreed to stay on that station. In fact, even now that Dr. Meredith has left, we continue to step out in faith by remaining on WGN. This, however, does not mean that we will always remain on WGN. After all, WGN is not synonymous with the Work of God, as some have tried to make it out to be. Nor is WGN the only television option available. And, of course, God will have to provide the necessary financial resources to continue on this station long-term. But we intend to use this superstation as a vehicle for the Gospel as long as God shows us that this is the best use of available resources.

We have never wavered in our commitment to continue the Work. Besides television, we have every intention of continuing to publish the World Ahead magazine and the Global Church News. In fact, we have every intention of using whatever means God gives us to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God—including teaching the amazing truth about our ultimate destiny of ruling as kings and priests, glorified forever in the universe-ruling Family of God. And, as God allows, we will proclaim it to the whole world until the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Incidentally, the whole WGN issue came up because of the Strategic Plan called for by Dr. Meredith in order to determine the priorities of how to best preach the Gospel and feed the flock. Since even some of Dr. Meredith's current supporters had suggested going off WGN (not off television) and using the third of a million dollars it cost to pursue TV in major metropolitan areas or for building the infrastructure of the Work, it was only prudent that we, as stewards of God's finances, evaluate the matter. And again, we decided to stay on. So the issue Dr. Meredith is making of WGN is clearly a "straw-man" argument.

Moreover, at no time did any Council or Board member ever make any "threats and insinuations" about firing Dr. Meredith—for any reason, much less for refusing to cancel WGN. All of us wanted him to remain as the Presiding Evangelist, the President and CEO of the Church, the Chairman of the Board, the Chairman of the Council, the Chairman of the Doctrinal Team, the pastor of the Headquarters congregation, and the "face" of the Church (in being our primary television presenter, the one with the most articles and booklets, the one who writes the editorials and coworker letters, and the one who sends out the most videotaped sermons from Headquarters). Some might argue: "Yeah, as long as he went along with you." We answer: "No. Rather, as long as he went along with God's law and with what he himself stood for from the beginning." (More on this later.)

RCM: "In fact, in our September Board meeting, they even—over my objections—removed my wife, Sheryl, from the Board and changed the By-Laws so that they can remove me not only from the Board or Council, but actually disfellowship me from the Church!" (Nov. 21). "I finally had to draw the line when they removed my wife from the Board, changed the by-laws so they could fire me with a 75% majority, or more recently when they put Mr. Carl McNair off the Board, since he was my ONLY ally on the Board!" (Nov. 27).

FACT: The truth is that Dr. Meredith himself voted to remove his wife from the Board. Carl McNair also voted to remove Mrs. Meredith from the Board. And Mrs. Meredith voted to remove herself from the Board. This is a matter of record. Despite any reservations they may have had, they all chose to raise their hands and vote "yes" to a motion that only ministers could serve on the Board. They could have voted "no" or even abstained. But they did not. Even more telling is that Dr. Meredith had stated in February 1998 that he would agree to remove his wife from the board in six months time. The action was taken in September 1998, fully seven months later. How, then, could this be the point at which Dr. Meredith had to "draw the line"?

Furthermore, this action had been discussed in the Council of Elders meeting a few days before as something that needed to be done. Part of the basis for it was that the Bible plainly says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (1 Tim. 2:12). As the Board is responsible for the hiring, firing and disciplining of all employees, including ministers, it was felt that only ordained ministers should serve on the Board.

Regarding the 75% issue, Dr. Meredith and Carl McNair both voted "yes" to being able to remove Dr. Meredith or any other member from the Board with this 3/4 majority! But there is much more to the story. Discussion had been going on for some time about the concept of equality and fairness with respect to removing members of the Board and the Council. There was always equality on the Board. As it had been from Global's inception, the Board could have at any time terminated Dr. Meredith's employment—just like that of any other employee—by a mere simple majority vote! But on the Council, it took a 90% majority vote to remove Dr. Meredith and a 75% majority to remove anyone else. The discussion, then, was really about bringing the Council into a posture of equality in this matter.

When Dr. Meredith brought up this matter in the September Council meeting, the majority of those on the Council agreed with the principle that the reasons and percentages for dismissing all Council members—including Dr. Meredith—should be uniform. But implementing this principle as a rule would require action from the Board to change the bylaws of the Church. So the next Board meeting took up the issue and acted in accordance with the agreed-upon principle. It was decided that the Board and Council should be consistent in their required percentages. A two-thirds majority was initially proposed as the minimum percentage needed to remove a Council or Board member. Dr. Meredith himself, however, proposed a 75% majority—and this was supported by all the members of the Board in deference to him.

And remember that from the beginning, it only required a simple majority to remove Dr. Meredith from the Board and from employment. Thus, by this decision, Larry Salyer, Raymond McNair and Edwin Pope all agreed to make it more difficult than ever before for anyone to remove Dr. Meredith from the Board or to fire him!

The removal of Carl McNair from the Board will be addressed shortly.

But now, knowing the real facts, please again read Dr. Meredith's comments above and draw your own conclusions.

RCM: "It all goes back to a serious, though innocent, mistake I made at the founding of Global. We had to have an outside attorney draw up the By-Laws governing the Church so that we could operate legally.... Those By-Laws contained the expression that 'the Board' was to make all decisions regarding hiring, firing and the other administrative and business affairs of the corporation.... I was so busy that I didn't realize the danger of the way those By-Laws were worded. And, besides, the original Board consisted of the most trusted individuals I knew at that time—my wife and me and Mr. Davis" (Nov. 21).

FACT: Dr. Meredith knew he could have set Global up as a corporation sole—wherein everything would be decided by him personally—just as our former association in Pasadena was under Mr. Armstrong at times. But instead, Dr. Meredith chose to incorporate under the governance of a board of directors.

Concerning Don Davis, Dr. Meredith and the other members of the Board later unanimously agreed to request his resignation from the Board for cause. (The facts surrounding Mr. Davis' departure from the Board are known to us, but it would be inappropriate to make them known to everyone since they have no direct bearing on the current problem.) And as for being too busy to see the danger in the bylaws at the beginning, that is completely irrelevant. For the bylaws of the Church were completely REWRITTEN in 1995 to enable the formation of the Council of Elders—a rewriting that Dr. Meredith himself directed and that he and Carl McNair were both fully involved in!

RCM: "Now, these misguided, but very political individuals.... are using the new By-Laws which they have devised to try to pressure me to do their will or to 'oust' me if I don't! You would have to experience the atmosphere of profound disrespect, envy, jealousy and open HOSTILITY displayed in some of our Council and Board meetings to really grasp the impact of what I am talking about" (Nov. 21). "Now these men wanted to take the Work of God in a different direction. They were putting the one Christ chose to start and lead the Church in a 'box.' Whenever I resisted, they would 'tighten the screws' on the box" (Nov. 27).

FACT: These are the same "very political individuals" about whom Dr. Meredith stated the following in a 1995 interview at the Feast of Tabernacles, which appeared in In Transition: "[Raymond McNair is] very dedicated. Raymond McNair was the very first evangelist to come with me. Of course he is on the Board. But others on the Board are not my relatives, so I am not trying to 'pack' it with anyone but put on it the distinctly older, dedicated men who have wisdom, such as Mr. Pope and such as Mr. Salyer."

Yet now Dr. Meredith asserts that we have been "out to get him." He claims that WE "devised" the bylaws. But, in fact, he directed the process—fully participating in and even championing the rewriting of the bylaws in 1995. He has also voted for every single change that has been made to the bylaws since that time!

Furthermore, you cannot "pressure" Dr. Meredith into doing something against his will! He does not cite any example. And he CANNOT—because none exists. He insists that he was "in a box"—that his hands were tied. Yet he cannot produce one single example of anything substantive that he was made to do—or was even forbidden from doing. He was sometimes advised to stop making disparaging comments about certain individuals out of legal concerns. He was occasionally advised to stop using lewd and offensive terms after we received complaints from some of our members. But he was never forced to vote a particular way, since he was always free to abstain or to vote "no." And the one example of not being allowed to do something that his first letter does mention—regarding the speaking schedule—will be addressed momentarily.

There were no threats or insinuations about ousting Dr. Meredith. The truth, brethren, is that it never, ever, EVER happened! We can produce a host of witnesses who have spent many hours discussing this whole situation with us over the course of the past year. They can all attest to the fact that we have never so much as hinted about such a thing even among ourselves.

Dr. Meredith can produce no witnesses to the contrary. There are others, even a few among the minority of Council members who ended up leaving with Dr. Meredith, who perhaps viewed some of our actions with suspicion. But if so, they never voiced their concerns to us. And we categorically state that any such concerns would have been groundless! There can be NO witnesses to any intent on our part to get rid of Dr. Meredith—simply because it was NOT our intent!

Yet Dr. Meredith insists that it was. Despite numerous assurances to the contrary, he had developed a paranoia about others wanting to "take his job" or "take over the Work." He even canceled a planned trip to Europe earlier this year out of fear that someone would mount a "coup" to overthrow him while he was away. Three different Headquarters employees (all members of Dr. Meredith's famous class of 89) informed us that Dr. Meredith had directly told them that Raymond McNair—his friend of 50 years—was out to get his job!

His friend Tom Robinson, who has worked very closely with him as well as with Raymond McNair over the past four years—and with Larry Salyer over the past two—wrote the following to Dr. Meredith on November 4: "There's a point I meant to relay to you in our discussion over lunch about what you perceive to be a coup in the making. With the [Council] meetings coming up next week, I think it important that I state this now. Please consider it prayerfully.... When the international conspiracy [black helicopter] ideas were rife in certain areas of the Church, you were very level-headed in pointing out the dangers in getting caught up in them. One of the biggest dangers you mentioned was that of creating a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'—that irrational fear of the government and acting on that fear may eventually bring the government to really act against you. Well, in the 'present distress,' I believe that the same danger should be pointed out. For if you are dead-set on the idea that a number of other Board/Council members are out to get you—and proceed according to that supposition (acting in opposition to them and turning others against them)—you will no doubt create a self-fulfilling prophecy yourself, in which others are forced to act against you.

"I sincerely hope and pray that you will take these matters before God in prayer. Perhaps you still believe the other 89ers and I are naive—and perhaps we are in certain ways—but we just don't believe that things are as you see them. If we had any such inkling of a coup attempt, we would certainly have stepped up to your defense. But if you act contrary to decisions that you yourself have made along with the rest of the Council or if you actually separate from Global for the reasons you've stated and these reasons are still not apparent to us, we would not be able to support you—because we would see your actions as causing division in the Church."

And, brethren, that is exactly what has happened.

Indeed, it seems that this paranoia had existed for some time—and could be exacerbated by seemingly petty things. For instance, Tom Robinson has related the following to us: "In the spring of 1996, soon after the publication of America and Britain in Prophecy, Dr. Meredith and I were sitting in his office discussing booklet ideas, when he made some statements that were very disturbing. He said, 'Raymond McNair is having you guys in Editorial make these big, color booklets for him [referring to the two color brochures written by Mr. McNair, The God You Can Know! and America and Britain in Prophecy]. And I don't want him to have any more of these big, color booklets, because people will start thinking that he's the head of the Church. I mean, I don't have any big, color booklets and I probably should. But he's having you do these only for him.' I responded, 'Dr. Meredith, no one is going to think that Mr. McNair is in charge of the Church just because he has big, color booklets. You have a lot more booklets than him anyway. And besides, this wasn't even Mr. McNair's idea, it was Jeff's [i.e. Jeff Patton, the managing editor at the time].' Dr. Meredith dismissed this but I assured him that I was there when Jeff presented the idea. Still he seemed unconvinced." This was a completely baseless, irrational fear over something that was utterly meaningless.

Concerning the atmosphere of disrespect and open hostility that Dr. Meredith mentions, we wish you could have heard it for yourselves. You would perhaps then come to understand who was really responsible for this atmosphere. We have NOTHING to hide.

RCM: "As Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong explained again and again, God has ALWAYS worked primarily through one man—Moses, David, Peter, Paul, etc. There was NEVER any 'Board' or 'Committee' watching over them or threatening to dismiss them if they didn't go along" (Nov. 27).

FACT: Peter and Paul, of course, lived at the same time—and sometimes worked in the same areas, since Paul was also sent to the Israelites (Acts 9:15), apparently wrote the book of Hebrews to the Jews in Judea, and seems to have evangelized in Britain, just as we believe Peter did.

And as a separate concern, for those who don't believe that Dr. Meredith has changed his whole approach to Church government, please read the above quote again and then compare it to the following quote from his Church government booklet: "Was there in the New Testament Church any example of a human leader acting as a 'Moses figure' or a 'Pope Peter,' who towered over the other apostles and elders, giving them orders, threatening to 'fire' them? I cannot refer you to any Scripture illustrating this style of 'church government' because it IS NOT THERE! You do find that Peter took the lead among the original twelve apostles.... But you do not find him giving orders to the other apostles [or] sending them out on missions.... It was a collective sort of leadership. The responsibility for directing the Church was not invested in a sole individual on earth.... Peter was not the Pope! He NEVER unilaterally decided ANY of those basic matters in the New Testament Church! Think about it!" (When Should You Follow Church Government?, p. 12).

Indeed, DO think about it, brethren. In fact, we encourage you to study this entire booklet along with certain supplementary material available from Global ministers or from the Internet at the following web site—www.gcg.org. And realize that Dr. Meredith himself agreed to acknowledge this booklet as part of the basis of our government doctrine for the FOURTH TIME in a single year just days before splitting off from Global!

There will be more forthcoming in this letter and in future articles on the subject of Church government. Let it be understood for now that we have always believed in—and STILL believe in—hierarchical, top-down government. But we understand that the real "Moses figure" of the New Testament Church—the "Prophet" who would arise in Moses' place as the Mediator of the New Covenant just as Moses was of the Old—is Jesus Christ. We do not see Him as far off and uninvolved. Rather, He is the living, active Head of His Church.

RCM: "Frankly, brethren, throughout the Bible, whenever you see a man being used of God—whether by appointment or through circumstances—to raise up or lead a phase of God's Work, that man is 'God's anointed' in that particular function and must be respected as such. Even King Saul of ancient Israel—unrighteous though he was, even to the point of attempting to murder David (I Sam. 19:10)—was respected as God's 'anointed.' So even when David had already been anointed by Samuel as the next King of Israel, he DARED NOT try to harm or overthrow Saul! When David had a perfect opportunity to destroy Saul he told his warriors, 'The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD" (I Sam. 24:6)."

FACT: There are a number of revelations in this paragraph. First of all, as far as we know, in the nearly six years that Global has existed, Dr. Meredith had never before referred to himself as "God's anointed." To the best of our knowledge, before he removed himself from the Global Church of God, neither had anyone else. Certainly not in our presence. So it was with some surprise that we saw him so readily embracing this title.

But who is really "the anointed" today? The Greek term for "the anointed" is o Christos—that is, "the Christ"! In Hebrew, it is ha-Mashiach—that is, the Messiah! Peter told Jesus, "You are the Anointed, the Son of the Living God." Of course, physical anointing in the Old Testament was symbolic of being set apart by God's Spirit for a holy purpose. Both the kings and high priests were anointed as a means of being consecrated to their high offices. And who is the King and High Priest today? Again, it is Jesus Christ. Indeed, these Old Testament offices were types of Christ's office—not of any man's office.

No minister of God today is physically anointed in his ordination. Indeed, none of the original apostles claimed such a distinction for himself. In fact, Paul—rather than calling himself the anointed—mentions the spiritual anointing that all Christians have. Describing this special consecration, he writes, "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee" (2 Cor. 1:21-22). The Apostle John mentions the very same thing: "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but... the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie" (1 John 2:27). Now as for an anointing for special office, the two witnesses of the end time are referred to as the "TWO anointed ones" (Zech. 4:14). Yet this clearly shows that there can be at least two individuals involved in the same Work who are nonetheless "anointed" at the same time.

So does this mean that no one can be disfellowshipped from the Church? Of course not! Dr. Meredith correctly stated in the government booklet, "If either ministers or members bring in different ideas in a way that causes DIVISION, then they must be disfellowshipped (Rom. 16:17). To privately and humbly present new concepts to the ministry is one thing, but to allow self-appointed teachers to flagrantly propagandize the brethren about all kinds of new and often 'quirky' ideas is WRONG. Such individuals will cause division and must be removed from the Church's fellowship if they will not desist from this practice" (p. 42). In full agreement with what Dr. Meredith himself wrote, we consider the persistent preaching of ideas that are in direct conflict with this booklet—Global's official publication on Church government—to itself be grounds for disfellowshipping the offending party.

Now it's true that David didn't lift his hand against Saul in that he didn't try to kill him. He did, however, amass an army that roamed the borderlands of Saul's kingdom—and many would argue that he lived in rebellion against Saul. Why, then, did David not kill Saul? Because David—though himself already anointed as Saul's successor—had not been directly authorized by God to do so. Our situation today is very different from David's. First and foremost, we know that CHRIST is our King—not the Presiding Evangelist. Moreover, the members of the Board and Council had been duly constituted with the authority and RESPONSIBILITY to deal with all Church officers—including the Presiding Evangelist. Dr. Meredith himself had VOTED for this very thing. Also consider that it was Dr. Meredith himself who proposed that he could be removed from office for specific offenses, such as immoral or criminal behavior. (More on this later.) Yet if he really were the "anointed" in the way Saul was (as he indicates above) then he could not be removed from office for any reason—not even for repeated attempted murder! Is that, then, what Dr. Meredith is now saying? Is this how the early New Testament Church would have acted? Would the other eleven apostles, for example, have allowed Peter to continue "running the Church" if he were continually trying to kill someone as Saul was? Not a chance. They would, no doubt, have disfellowshipped him for his own good and for that of the entire Church.

RCM: "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!... Some of these men on the Board want to 'politicize' this Church and make it like the human governments of this world" (Nov. 21).

FACT: How could we be a hopelessly divided "debating society" when we continued to have unanimous or near-unanimous decisions until the very end—even about government, as Dr. Meredith so often confirmed in his public statements? This complete agreement had previously been a sign to Dr. Meredith that God was leading our meetings. But there was not such agreement when Dr. Meredith tried to remove Dave Pack from the Council on the spot—a motion that was defeated by the Council.

As to dividing up constituents, Dr. Meredith is the only one who ever left a Council meeting saying, "I have to go and counsel with my men"—before making a decision!

And decision-making by voting is a requirement stipulated in the bylaws Dr. Meredith himself helped to revise. Global's leaders have been voting from the beginning, and our bylaws are very specific in giving the exact percentages of votes required to approve any proposal that might come before us. Our bylaws incorporate the principle of voting as a practical method of determining the "will" of the members of the Council of Elders and the Board. Close votes are allowed to be tabled by the Chairman to give more time for praying about and studying the matter in order to better understand God's will. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that even Mr. Armstrong conducted many meetings wherein he himself called for a vote by the members of the Council or the Board.

RCM: "Frankly, brethren, since I was outvoted 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" (Nov. 21). "I sometimes voted with them in the interest of UNITY—knowing full well that I was going to be outvoted anyway! As I said in my previous letter, I was wrong! And I have repented of this before God and do sincerely apologize to all of you" (Nov. 27).

FACT: Genuine repentance is wonderful. But Dr. Meredith is still not being forthright here in explaining just what was going on. He didn't just vote with us sometimes to, as he says, appease us—which in itself violates the scriptural command to let our "yes" be "yes" and our "no" be "no." Rather, he voted for the current governmental approach and structure FOUR TIMES over the course of the last year—that is, he voted with us each and every time it came before the Council. In fact, he influenced others who were standing with him into voting for it too. Again, he could have abstained or voted "no." He said he agreed. But he later told others, Tom Robinson among them, that he was voting for something that even at the time he did not believe in—indeed, that he believed was against God's will!

This might be easy to excuse, except for the fact that he did this time after time after time after TIME—and, in the process, was able to so freely say things he didn't believe. Indeed, after the decision to mail the June 11 letter by Dr. Meredith and Raymond McNair—even as it was in the mailroom being printed—Dr. Meredith was telling some of the Board members, "I wouldn't want to have to pull a David Hulme." He told Tom right after the Feast that he had never agreed with the June 11 letter—even though he signed his name to it. Yet in a personal letter from Dr. Meredith dated August 13, he writes in response to a member's question, "Let me also assure you that I do agree '100% with the contents of the letter.' Mr. [Raymond] McNair, a longtime Evangelist in God's Work, as well as Director of Editorial Operations and Vice-Chairman of our Doctrinal Study Team, assisted me in drafting the letter, as I do believe that in multitude of counsel there is safety. But this does not mean that I did not agree with the contents of the letter; otherwise, I would not have signed the same." One of his statements, then, is a lie.

Consider too that Dr. Meredith says he went along with these Council votes because he would have been "outvoted anyway." Yet he later says that the majority of the Council was behind him. Which is it?

Also, our approach has never been "democratic"—and for the six years before writing these latest letters, Dr. Meredith would surely have agreed. In a democracy, the people vote and simple majority rules. It is a government from the bottom up. Ours is a hierarchical government from the top down—though we have to admit to being confused when Dr. Meredith told us, "I will take this over your heads to the members!" Such a position is clearly unbiblical.

Furthermore, even if Dr. Meredith has repented of "going along for the sake of unity," he has yet to apologize to us for his constant misrepresentation of us—which goes on to this day!

RCM: "Although it had been intimated that these men might be willing to put at least one friendly face on the Board, instead they chose to REMOVE Mr. Carl McNair and put in his place a lawyer! I was ASTOUNDED at the effrontery of this most obvious political move! For Carl McNair is one of the most dedicated, balanced and experienced ministers I have ever known" (Nov. 21).

FACT: It is absurd to actually believe that the mere fact of being an attorney equates to being underhanded and conspiratorial. Moreover, Norbert Link is a true minister of Jesus Christ who has served God's Church faithfully and responsibly. It is outrageous that he be maligned in this fashion. Mr. Link accepted this responsibility even though he did not really want to be put on the Board. He was concerned this would lend credence to the widespread rumors that were already disparaging him. He also knew that Board members may be held personally liable for the Church's financial commitments if the Church fails to pay back the money it has borrowed. Mr. Apartian had been asked if he would be willing to take on this responsibility but declined. Norbert Link, then—right here at Headquarters, having already been involved in all Board meetings and business, and having proven himself competent in protecting our legal interests—was a natural choice.

We did not accommodate any of the choices Dr. Meredith had been lobbying us for because, quite frankly, there were some issues about Dr. Meredith's own personal misconduct that we were still trying to address—even though he said that was "outrageous." And until we were able to do so, we were not going to accommodate his request for Board members whose votes he could apparently control. That would have been compromising our official responsibilities under the law. And that would have been disobeying God.

As for Mr. Carl McNair, we carefully considered a number of valid reasons for removing him from the Board, most of which would not be appropriate to mention here—except for him voting against the vital interests of the Church—thus compromising his legal and fiduciary responsibilities. If we hadn't removed him, we would have, in our opinion, been violating our own fiduciary responsibility to the Church.

It seems strange that Dr. Meredith here portrays Carl McNair as one of the most balanced ministers he has ever known. Strange because Dr. Meredith himself told Tom Robinson that he thought Carl McNair had some "funny ideas" when it came to doctrine—and that it was a good thing Raymond McNair was able to keep an eye on his brother Carl in that regard. In fact, Dr. Meredith asked Tom to write an article to refute what he considered to be a heresy that Carl McNair was spreading throughout the Church—that the prophets of the Old Testament did not have the Holy Spirit. And Tom did write this very article for the Global Church News (Jan.-March 1997, p. 10).

RCM: "Next, this small cadre of men on the Board voted to remove me from having any authority over the preaching schedule and who is to speak on our headquarters sermon tapes to the Churches and video groups all around the world. Obviously, if they had their way, you would be hearing less and less from the one Christ has used to raise up and lead the Global Church of God. Next, I was told by Larry Salyer that I would not be speaking the next Sabbath, November 21, even though I was already scheduled to speak" (Nov. 21).

FACT: The speaking schedule was always the responsibility of Church Administration. Larry Salyer, Director of Church Administration, deferred to Dr. Meredith out of respect. And Dr. Meredith had always spoken far more than anyone else.

On this occasion, however, Dr. Meredith was told he wouldn't be speaking—but only for this one weekend. But he had spoken the weekend before, when he wasn't scheduled to speak! Furthermore, Dr. Meredith was assuming a lot here. It was still Larry Salyer's full intention that Dr. Meredith would have more sermons going out from Headquarters than anyone else. Moreover, Dr. Meredith was not being "shut out" regarding the speaking schedule. After all, it had always been up for discussion and still would have been. This was a one-time-only change—and, as we will see, was necessitated by Dr. Meredith himself.

What actually happened was that George Meeker had been scheduled to speak at Headquarters on the Sabbath immediately following the Council of Elders meetings, but was unable to be in San Diego on that date. Dr. Meredith mentioned to some of us that he thought he should speak in this now-vacant slot. We agreed. Yet when Dr. Meredith spoke, his message was again contrary to the decisions reached in the Council meetings that had concluded just two days earlier. (For instance, he said that "technically" the Board and Council made the decisions of the Church, but only because of man's law—and that we were nevertheless going to try to follow the "biblical" model of Peter being basically in charge.) So Larry Salyer asked Raymond McNair to speak the next weekend on the proper and agreed-upon understanding of Church government.

RCM: "Then, they began to call in, one by one, a number of leading employees here—known to be loyal to me—and proceeded to lecture, frighten and/or intimidate them. Has another 'reign of terror' begun?" (Nov. 21).

FACT: We're somewhat puzzled by Dr. Meredith's remarks here. We have never done such a thing. Based on the context of events surrounding it, we assume he must be referring to an incident wherein just two employees were spoken to by members of the Board of Directors—and this in a very calm and professional manner. There was no intimidation whatsoever. The first individual was the assistant controller of the Accounting Department. He was only called in to clarify to him that a particular accusation he had heard was not true. It is interesting that Dr. Meredith himself is one of the Board members this individual was brought before.

The other individual spoken to was Don Davis, whose supervisor was Larry Salyer, Director of Church Administration. Behind Mr. Salyer's back, Mr. Davis had been involved in an investigation of Council member Dave Pack. It was to determine if Mr. Pack had acted improperly when he preached as a guest speaker in another Global minister's congregation on the Sabbath before the November Council meetings. Church Administration looked into these charges after the Council meeting, even listening to Mr. Pack's entire sermon on tape, and could not substantiate the accusations of wrongdoing. This is why Mr. Pack's suspension from the Council was unanimously overturned on December 3, the first possible opportunity to do so. Nevertheless, during the November Council meetings, Dr. Meredith was trying to remove Mr. Pack from the Council. He proposed a motion to that effect before the Council, which was defeated. During this unprecedented haste to determine if Mr. Pack committed extraordinary offenses just several days earlier, we suspected that Don Davis was instrumental in stirring up a number of brethren in the local area to write, fax and telephone Headquarters.

There is obviously nothing wrong with people presenting their testimony. Nonetheless, Don Davis had no legitimate authority to do what he did. Moreover, the testimony elicited by Mr. Davis' efforts was almost completely one-sided in its criticism of Mr. Pack. And yet, when we later heard from a number of people who had not been "courted" to write in, we got a different story. It is apparent to us that an unsavory and dishonest effort to discredit Dave Pack had occurred.

Nevertheless, the Council of Elders commissioned Council members George Meeker and Larry Salyer to investigate the matter. Mr. Salyer was chosen in part because he is the Director of Church Administration, and as such should naturally deal with allegations against Mr. Pack while he was acting as a field pastor. Yet, neither the Council of Elders nor Church Administration asked Don Davis to become involved. So whether his unauthorized actions arose from his own initiative, or whether he was acting on someone else's unauthorized orders, his behavior clearly needed to be explained, and he clearly needed to be reprimanded.

To our surprise, however, when confronted with the situation by the Board—including Dr. Meredith—Don Davis chose to not respond to the charges of misconduct. Instead, he began lecturing Mr. Salyer on what a poor leader he thought he was. Don Davis certainly didn't seem to be frightened or intimidated. And in fact, he was the one doing the lecturing. Reign of terror?? Once again, we're puzzled.

RCM: "In the final Board meeting they began to accuse me of doing horrible things because—as President of the Church and as an authorized signer of our corporate checks—I signed three checks to repay three individuals the LOANS they made to Global Church of God. One of the loans to be repaid was to a 74 year old widow who will really need this money to ensure her future. NONE of the money was for me personally, or for relatives of mine" (Nov. 27).

FACT: This is a complete distortion of the hard facts of the outrageous financial irregularities that occurred at the Global Church of God on Monday, November 23. It gives us no pleasure to do so, but we feel it is incumbent upon us to relate the facts that pertain to these irregularities to expose the confusion Dr. Meredith is sowing.

On Friday, November 20, believing that Dr. Meredith and certain other staff members were prepared to leave the Global Church of God, the Board of Directors moved to protect God's tithes and offerings. It passed a resolution that removed Don Davis as a signatory, or authorized signer, of checks drawn on the Church's account. Dr. Meredith, though he had voted for the motion, afterward said something to the effect of, "I can't believe you removed Don Davis from being able to sign the checks." Dr. Meredith then signed the new signature cards for the bank. This was for the purpose of excluding Mr. Davis as a signatory, as well as Mr. Colin Adair, who had recently died.

On Monday, near the close of the business day, one of the office employees, Gary Foster, approached Mr. Salyer with a concern. For no apparent reason, a thought had just occurred to Gary about what might happen if someone wanted to misappropriate funds. There was no suspicion at that time that such a thing had actually occurred—just the thought that maybe someone could if he wanted to. So we called our bank to reassure ourselves and were ASTOUNDED to learn that a very large check—in the amount of $170,000—had been drawn on our account and had been brought to the bank earlier that day to be deposited in a different account. The check was made out to Don Davis, and was signed by Don Davis AND Dr. Meredith. The bank was instructed to not cash the check even though it had already been credited to Mr. Davis' account and the transaction was about to be completed.

An immediate investigation was launched to determine if any other financial irregularities had occurred. We then discovered that two more unauthorized checks had been written, totaling more than $100,000—again signed by Dr. Meredith and Don Davis. We have determined that these acts were done with the cooperation of our former controller, and the apparent cooperation of one or two other office employees.

Dr. Meredith had asked the controller to issue these three checks. This request is extraordinary in many respects.

1. If these checks were considered by Dr. Meredith to be legitimate, why did he bypass the Chief Financial Officer and the Board's Executive Committee, going directly to the controller instead?
2. The checks were to be prepared in secrecy. The controller was asked to effect the transactions by bypassing the person responsible for writing checks.
3. This is a serious breach of the Church's own accounting regulations as insisted upon by our auditors. Since the controller is responsible for overseeing the internal financial controls of the corporation, access to blank check stock could be a serious conflict of interest. The policy of not allowing the controller access to blank check stock is designed to prevent him from embezzling God's tithes and offerings. Dr. Meredith's request was so extraordinary, in fact, that the controller felt it necessary to contact a Certified Public Accountant and an attorney (not Mr. Link) to determine if such actions were illegal on his part. We assume he was assured in his own mind of his own legal standing.
4. Dr. Meredith , as already mentioned, was aware that Don Davis had been removed as a signatory to the account. In fact, he was present at the very Board meeting in which it had occurred—having voted for it, though afterward protesting against it. And he had signed the new signature cards taking away Don Davis' authorization to sign Global's checks.
5. Dr. Meredith apparently withheld this information from the controller. The controller later said that he would never have agreed to facilitate these checks had he known that Don Davis was no longer authorized to sign.
6. Don Davis himself has denied to us that he knew the Board had removed him as a signatory. But, as we've seen, Dr. Meredith certainly knew. If Don Davis and the controller are telling the truth, then Dr. Meredith was perfectly willing to involve these men in what appears to us to be a criminal act, without their knowing what they were getting into.
7. Those who sign our checks all know that it is unwise to sign checks made out to themselves. Don Davis was well aware of this policy and, in the past, had been quite cooperative. He would regularly return checks to the Accounting Department that would appear in a stack of checks he was asked to sign even when they were a legitimate reimbursement to himself. These checks would then go to another authorized check signer. Although this was a long-standing practice of Mr. Davis, he somehow did not see fit to abstain from signing his own $170,000 check.
8. The CFO and the rest of the Board's Executive Committee were totally unaware of these attempted transactions. It had been previously pointed out in a memo from the in-house legal counsel to the controller that any early repayment of a loan that was NOT due and payable should be approved by the Executive Committee.

Dr. Meredith has, in his above quote, given some accurate facts regarding those to whom the checks were written. Nevertheless, he omitted some crucially important material. The checks were indeed for the amounts of loans that the individuals involved had lent to the Church. But others too had lent money to the Church. Most important is that the Church's loans have been and are being paid back according to schedules, or timetables, that have been agreed upon by both the Church and the lenders—as had properly been insisted upon by the controller himself. The loans, therefore, are similar to a car loan or a home mortgage. You borrow a sum of money from the bank and pay it back according to a schedule you have agreed to with the bank. If, for example, the bank loaned you $170,000 to buy a new home, and you were to repay it over 30 years, the bank couldn't come back to you a few years later and transfer the entire balance yet owed from your checking account without your authorization. This would, of course, be THEFT. This would, of course, be breaking the eighth commandment.

Quite surprising is Dr. Meredith's remark that one of the unauthorized checks was for a 74-year-old widow who would really need the money. He failed to mention that this woman is a close relative of Don Davis and that she received third-tithe assistance from the Global Church of God monthly. He also failed to mention that she received monthly interest from her loan over and above third-tithe assistance. In fact, she will still receive it—as will the others who have loaned money to the Church. He further failed to mention that the unscheduled early repayment of these loans and the immediate financial crisis it would have brought upon the Global Church of God might have cheated other lenders out of receiving their money back according to their loan schedules. And he most certainly did not mention what the controller and Don Davis later admitted to: The purpose for these unauthorized repayments was so that Dr. Meredith would have been able to come to the Board meeting scheduled for the following day and demand the resignations of the other Board members since he and those supporting him had most of the money and the support of the people. Had he succeeded in taking over the Global Church of God in this way, Dr. Meredith would—according to the controller—have redeposited the three checks, including that of the 74-year-old widow, right back into Global's bank account! This action, then, was not taken to secure her future, as Dr. Meredith claims. One must also remember that Dr. Meredith was setting up a new corporation. Can anyone doubt where this money would have gone in the event the other directors would not have resigned?

There is something else that needs to be said here. Many are claiming that Dr. Meredith was within his full rights to do this because he is supposed to be the leader of Global. They maintain that even if the actions he has taken—such as trying to seize God's tithes and illegally using Global's membership database (as detailed in our previous letter)—would constitute crimes under man's laws, he is still within the law of God. That, brethren, is simply false. Regarding the civil authorities, Paul says, "Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow" (Rom. 13:1-2 Living Bible). This, of course, is unless doing so makes it impossible to follow God's direct commands (Acts 5:29). Yet in these instances, it was clearly not necessary for Dr. Meredith to go against man's law in order to obey God. If he were truly following God, then wouldn't God have provided him with whatever funds he needed? Wouldn't God have given him the means to get his messages out to God's people rather than having to illegally take the membership database?

Dr. Meredith says we were accusing him of "doing horrible things." Well frankly, brethren, these ARE horrible things—and, according to the bylaws that Dr. Meredith himself was always in favor of, constitute grounds for him to be removed from office. And, brethren, let's not forget that even though Dr. Meredith did not succeed in taking money that was not his to take, he nevertheless attempted it! And we thank God that he didn't succeed. Indeed, we believe it was God who must have sparked the thought in Gary Foster's mind, enabling this whole thing to be revealed at almost the very moment the transaction was going through.

RCM: "I have learned—on very good authority—that several 'secret' contacts have been made behind my back with another church fellowship. I find that—though I am still Presiding Evangelist of the Church—I have been intentionally left out and even misled about some of these contacts! This is blatant rebellion and DISLOYALTY against the Founder and President of the Global Church of God!" (Nov. 21).

FACT: One of the major "conspirators" in this matter was Carl McNair—one of Dr. Meredith's main supporters! What happened was that two members of the United Church of God's Council of Elders privately asked if some of our leading men could talk to some of their leading men about where our two organizations stand and to answer constant questions about exactly what the differences between us are—not to move toward a merger. Carl McNair and Larry Salyer were contacted and the result was that in late October these two men and Colin Adair, while in Texas for Global's regional pastors' conference in John Ogwyn's home, met with three UCG ministers—two of whom were Council members. The informal meeting took place in a hotel lobby and at the Olive Garden restaurant in Longview, Texas. They considered it an unofficial talk between old friends—a "preliminary-to-a-preliminary" discussion.

Our men had been asked to keep this private—since some people would misconstrue the whole thing as a prelude to merging the two Churches. And our men, including Carl McNair, all agreed that Dr. Meredith would fully support such a meeting. But they also agreed that he could not be relied upon to keep the matter confidential and that word would probably get out. Moreover, it was thought that bringing him and United's president into the discussion would give the talk a ring of "officiality" that it was never intended to have. So it was felt that the best way to handle it would be to report back to Dr. Meredith and the GCG Council after the meeting took place. This report was presented by Larry Salyer during the November Council meeting. There have not been "several" such contacts—only one. And Dr. Meredith was never "misled" about it—at least not by any of us. And if this were indeed such "blatant rebellion" and "DISLOYALTY," why did Carl McNair, whom Dr. Meredith describes as "dedicated, balanced and experienced," participate in it at every turn?

One other relevant point: This discussion among longtime friends stems from a general practice that has been going on since United began. Dr. Meredith has not shied away from such opportunities for open discussion. He had a breakfast meeting this summer with Clyde Kilough, United's regional pastor in the San Francisco Bay area, and told us about it later. Dick Ames has on more than one occasion gotten together with United pastor Jim Franks in the Houston area. And Carl McNair has had several such meetings with United ministers.

RCM: "The majority of the Council of Elders backs my leadership" (Nov. 21). "I should point out here that at that point the MAJORITY of the Council of Elders supported me—not these men on the Board" (Nov. 27).

FACT: The fact of the matter is that we ALL backed Dr. Meredith's leadership. And we ALL supported him. But we did not support all the things he was doing and vying for. What is interesting is that, on the last day of the November Council meetings, Dr. Meredith divided the Council into three camps. First were those he referred to as "my men"—Carl McNair, Dick Ames, John Ogwyn and Charles Bryce. Second were the "rebels"—Raymond McNair, Larry Salyer, Edwin Pope and Dave Pack (though he was not in the room). And third were the "neutral" members: Dibar Apartian, George Meeker and Colin Adair—although Dr. Meredith told the Council that he classed Mr. Adair mainly with us. And he didn't even mention Jean Carion in this context, who was listening in by phone. So the split here, according to him, was five on one side (if including himself), five on the other side (should be six), and essentially two neutral. It should be clear, then, that he did not have a majority of the Council behind what he was doing. Moreover, remember that Dave Pack had been suspended because of charges that have never been substantiated. His suspension was overturned on December 3. Had it not been for these unusual circumstances, Dave Pack would have been yet another Council member not supporting Dr. Meredith in this same meeting.

And now, of the Council members attending the November meetings, five left with him while six have stayed with Global. And it would have been seven with Global if Colin Adair were still alive. At the last Council meeting, Mr. Adair stated that Dr. Meredith had failed as a leader in the one sense that he didn't bring people together, heal the hurts, and resolve the problems between himself and other ministers and staff. And he told Dr. Meredith, "If you try to change the bylaws, I am out of here…. We did not come here to be ruled by ONE MAN." Now there are some who say it is wrong to quote a man who has died to support our cause. Well if that's true, then why is everyone always quoting Mr. Armstrong to determine what he would do? Why quote Peter, Paul, David or Moses? After all, they're all dead. The answer is—they were righteous men of God whose opinions mattered. Evangelist Colin Adair was also a righteous man of God—and his opinions matter. Frankly, Mrs. Adair has encouraged us to quote him—and has been doing so herself in defense of the truth.

As for one of the five Council members who has left with Dr. Meredith—Dibar Apartian—we are simply baffled. He continually urged us to "keep on" Dr. Meredith and not let him squirm out of his commitment to the form of Church government he'd been advocating—as Mr. Apartian believed he would try to do. In fact, Mr. Apartian said that Dr. Meredith could not always be believed because he would say one thing and then do another. Even after Dr. Meredith left, Mr. Apartian told us that he could not work for Dr. Meredith. So again, we are baffled—dumbfounded!—at the fact that he has now chosen to leave with Dr. Meredith. And since we cannot count the position Mr. Apartian held during the November Council meeting as truly supportive of what Dr. Meredith wanted, that leaves Dr. Meredith with only four genuine supporters from the former Council of Elders—just 25% of the full Council!

Remember, Dr. Meredith said he went along with the Council votes on government because he was "outvoted anyway." How, then, can he say that a majority of the Council was behind him? He can't have it both ways. The truth is that in this matter he would have been outvoted anyway—because the majority of the Council did NOT support the position he is now advocating.

RCM: "At the beginning of Global, as you know, I was the founder and Presiding Evangelist. The Living Christ used me to get the whole thing started and as these men came to Global, I assigned them to their positions and, over time, nominated them to the Board and the Council of Elders" (Nov. 27). "As our strong differences of opinion came to a head in recent days, I asked these opposing Board members to RESIGN several times and leave the majority in peace and UNITY. This they steadfastly refused to do even though they ADMITTED that the majority of the ministry and brethren were loyal to me!" (Nov. 27).

FACT: Dr. Meredith was indeed instrumental in founding the Global Church of God. We thank God that he was used in helping to shepherd the sheep who had been scattered, to once again preach the Gospel of the soon-coming Kingdom of God and to again preach so many of God's truths that had been systematically destroyed by the Worldwide Church of God. Dr. Meredith is a powerful, motivating speaker, and has written many fine articles to bolster the faithful and to reach out to the unconverted so that God might open their eyes.

But brethren, let's not lose sight of the fact that many others were also used by God to get the Global Church of God "up and running." Raymond McNair, who has been used in the Work of God longer than Dr. Meredith himself—having conducted a baptismal tour the summer before Dr. Meredith came to Ambassador College—had told Dr. Meredith at Global's inception that he was committed to coming with Global unless he could persuade the leadership of the WCG to recant the heresy they were preaching. And Mr. McNair also told Dr. Meredith that he did not think there was one chance in a million that Worldwide's leaders actually would recant. Mr. McNair then wrote a lengthy critique of the God Is… booklet, proving from the Bible that it was totally inaccurate, even blasphemous—spawning a writing campaign between himself and Pasadena. He also was granted two interviews with Joseph Tkach Sr., which lasted around five hours. As we know, the WCG leadership did not repent, but Mr. McNair felt it was his duty to try to help Mr. Tkach see the light. Having failed, he immediately committed to the Global Church of God in April 1993. Larry Salyer likewise resigned from his position at WCG Headquarters so that he would not have to participate in the blasphemous decisions and policies that were occurring at that time. Dr. Meredith, Mr. McNair and Mr. Salyer were all in opposition to the doctrinal heresy and refused to preach it in their local Church areas. All three of these evangelists came to Global to preach the Gospel and to restore God's Truth.

From the beginning of Global, Dr. Meredith continually told the brethren that he knew about "big names" that would be with us soon—showing that he didn't think of himself as a lone minister even then. And it was the addition of a number of these men that motivated many people to come with Global—many people who would not have come with Global had Dr. Meredith remained the only leading minister.

Although the Board of Directors appointed these and other ministers to their positions on the Council of Elders, it is true that Dr. Meredith also wanted them in these positions. No wonderhe would, as they were men of faith—men who stepped out in faith to protect the people of God and His Truth. But apparently, Dr. Meredith believes that since he wanted many of us to be in these positions and nominated us to the Board of Directors, that somehow meant we were to agree to everything he ever said—effectively being a "rubber-stamp" committee. But surely, any of you with any experience in the business world at all know that directors of a corporation have responsibilities to that corporation. They are stewards, or custodians, of the corporation's assets and business. Now we all realize that the Church of God is no ordinary worldly corporation. Nevertheless, the Church engages in many normal business activities. We rent halls, insure ourselves against risk, qualify to allow our tithepayers to receive tax deductions, pay taxes related to payroll, etc.

And please understand that it was in the capacity of being wise stewards of the corporate assets—which are more importantly God's tithes and offerings!—that we acted as we did. After breaking his promise to us that he wouldn't do anything over the weekend, Dr. Meredith came to the Tuesday Board meeting saying he was already incorporating a new, "competing" Church and that he had "instructed" all the tithepayers to divert God's tithes and offerings from Global, sending them instead to him personally. Brethren, did we really have any possible alternative than to terminate the employment of Dr. Meredith at once? And yet, the remaining Board members even then tried to avoid this action—which NO ONE wanted—by asking Dr. Meredith to retract most of what he had written. Dr. Meredith did not choose to do so. Moreover, even though he was at the same time an officer of the Global Church of God while engaging in activity that we presume was meant to actually bankrupt us, he refused to resign. So we then had to terminate Dr. Meredith's employment. There was no other conceivable course of action if we were to faithfully execute the duties that had been entrusted to us.

Dr. Meredith says that he urged us to resign and leave the brethren in peace and unity. And so he did. But unity of the brethren is not a goal in and of itself. We instead strive for unity of the brethren under God's law and according to His will and purpose. In the member letter we sent out previously, it was explained that we dutifully brought before him what we considered to be his problems and sins according to the instructions in Matthew 18. But Dr. Meredith was unwilling to listen and be corrected. There can be no real unity in such an environment.

Lastly, it may be that the majority of the brethren and ministry currently support Dr. Meredith as he claims. Although the current situation is changing day by day, it seems that roughly 70% of the paid ministry are following Dr. Meredith and that 30% are standing with the Global Church of God. We do not yet know where all the members of the Church stand on this issue. But frankly, what does this have to do with anything? The vast majority of our members do not know the day-to-day activities at Headquarters and have had little chance to experience what the problems really are. They did not see Dr. Meredith refusing to receive correction or threatening the Board members while seeking their resignations. We have a responsibility to the brethren of the Church to tell the truth of this matter. Even most in the paid ministry—including several Council members—were not involved in daily Headquarters operations. They, too, need to be apprised of what went on. Moreover, it should be clear to everyone that the issue has nothing to do with numbers. We certainly hope that the majority of the Church comes to see the truth of the misconduct we have witnessed. But we are not a democratic body. We do not have a "one-man, one-vote" government of the people. We surely all agree on this point. Therefore, we must do what is right in the sight of God, whether or not it is what the "majority" desires.

RCM: "It is interesting that Mr. Salyer kept referring to the 'Board,' NEVER to the Council. When I established the Council of Elders, it was supposed to be the HIGHEST body to deal with both the spiritual and administrative direction of the Church. In a number of their recent decisions, the Council was completely bypassed by the Board, which in fact, USURPED the authority of the Council in setting the spiritual direction of the Church!" (Nov. 27). "After I rejected a few very unsatisfactory offers they made to get me to stay, they FIRED me as the President and Chairman of the Board! These men who I had brought in to help were finally able to oust me" (Nov. 27).

FACT: This is an utter misrepresentation. Indeed, the Council of Elders IS to guide the doctrine and the overall spiritual mission and direction of the Church. But the actual implementation of that mission has always been mainly the responsibility of the Board of Directors. And this the Board has faithfully done! The authority to hire and fire any employee of the Church—including Dr. Meredith—has never rested with the Council of Elders, but rather with the Board. It was the Board that drew up and approved the bylaws that formed the Council and appointed its initial members. And it is this same Board that has always been able to change the bylaws. The Board could, for example, remove all power from the Council if it chose to do so. (But we have certainly NOT done this and have NO PLANS to do so. It is the determination of those on the Board of Directors that the Council of Elders will continue to oversee the spiritual matters of the Church. In fact, the Church now again has a seven-member Board and a ten-member Council.)

The Board at no point usurped the authority of the Council, as Dr. Meredith maintains. Notice this from the minutes of the February Council of Elders meeting concerning adherence to the bylaws of the Church: "The Council unanimously adopted the following resolution... [that] the Church's Board of Directors, which has SOLE AUTHORITY to amend the Bylaws, change the wording of certain provisions within the Bylaws to state and confirm the Church's doctrinal position on Church government, as held and taught by the Church from its inception.... [to more clearly state]... that the Council has final authority in establishing the mission, goals and overall direction of the Church, including administrative matters, EXCEPT for the powers specifically given in the Bylaws to the Board and the Presiding Evangelist."

As for the matter of terminating Dr. Meredith's employment, let us put it this way: We did not get rid of Dr. Meredith. Dr. Meredith ABANDONED the Global Church of God. He started another Church! He apparently tried to bankrupt this one! He was thus clearly acting directly against his responsibilities as the President, Presiding Evangelist and Chairman of the Board of the Global Church of God. We told him that by his action of starting another organization and pleading with tithepayers to divert God's tithes and offerings to him personally, it was clear that he had essentially resigned from Global. Yet he refused to acknowledge that he had resigned and made it very plain that we would have to fire him. At this point, as directors of the organization, we would have been acting against our God-given duties if we had NOT then terminated him. There was simply no other choice.

And with possible criminal activity, to have simply walked away from the situation, knowing what we knew, would have been wrong! Dr. Meredith tried to provide us with a way to do just that by suggesting we tell the bank that he was "just a 68-year-old man who didn't know what he was doing." In other words, he was telling us to lie. Because he knew that we knew better. Dr. Meredith DID know what he was doing because we had made it very clear to him. Please understand this, brethren. Dr. Meredith is the one who has caused this whole painful situation. We were still fully prepared to work with him and support him—even in our last meeting with him. But he abandoned his responsibilities to the Church. We, on the other hand, did not—and will not.

Some say we should have brought this matter of such far-reaching implications before the Council of Elders. The truth of the matter is: It was TOO LATE! The situation had gone TOO FAR! Dr. Meredith had pushed the situation beyond the point of no return! As stated, he had already started another Church—thus removing himself from this one. To have NOT terminated him would have violated our conscience, the law of God and our fiduciary responsibilities to the Global Church of God under the law of the land. As much as it grieved us, it was clear what our decision had to be.

RCM: "Mr. Salyer also accused me in his letter of telling people to send money to my home address. This is totally untrue. My letter states clearly that brethren who wish to could send their tithes and offerings to a Post Office Box. I have NEVER used a Post Office Box as my personal mailing address!" (Nov. 27).

FACT: This is a rather frivolous point. We only address it here because, since we have addressed everything else, some might think we are avoiding this one. Mr. Salyer did not say that Dr. Meredith was telling people to send money to his "home" address, but rather to his "personal" address. And a post office box rented in an individual's name is indeed a personal address. Quite frankly, however, Mr. Salyer was not even making an issue of this—the post office box is not what was wrong. He was merely pointing out that Dr. Meredith was telling Global members to send God's tithes and offerings elsewhere, while still acting as Chairman of the Board of the Global Church of God. That, brethren, is what was so very wrong.

RCM: "On page five of Mr. Salyer's letter, he states that the primary issue is our disagreement about Church Government. Then he comments on my original booklet 'When Should You Follow Church Government?' and then states that reading this booklet was why many came to Global. I think most of you know that the VAST MAJORITY of those coming to Global have done so because we were teaching the FULL TRUTH and were at that time determined to do a powerful work. Mr. Salyer then indicated that I virtually repudiated my statements in this booklet. That is not true. What I kept reminding them of, and what they seemingly did not want to hear, was that in the introductory paragraphs of the booklet, I clearly pointed out that this was written to help people understand when NOT to follow the misuse of Church Government. It was not intended to spell out the positive application of Church Government in a truly Bible believing Church" (Nov. 27).

FACT: Dr. Meredith correctly points out that the Church government booklet was never intended to be a complete and thorough explanation of every facet of this subject. The booklet even explains this very point. Nevertheless, we would certainly expect that everything written in the booklet was true, would we not?

The only possible expectation we could have had from Dr. Meredith is that he would indeed practice what he wrote and published in the Church government booklet, even if he expanded upon it later to teach the subject more thoroughly. It goes without saying that any such expansion could not contradict or repudiate what the booklet taught, but could merely add to it. Dr. Meredith states above that it is "not true" that he repudiated what was in the booklet. We submit the following quotes from this booklet so you can reach your own conclusion:

• "But you do not find him (the Apostle Peter) giving orders to the other apostles, sending them out on missions, or in any way 'lording it over' them.... It was a collective sort of leadership. The responsibility for directing the Church was not invested in a sole individual on earth.... [Peter] NEVER unilaterally decided ANY of those basic matters in the New Testament Church!" (p. 12).

• "Now notice Acts 8:12-25. Here we find the inspired record of how the apostles 'sent' Peter and John to Samaria. No 'Pope Peter, pontifex maximus,' here, either!" (p. 13).

• "The entire approach of the original apostles AND ELDERS was NOT: 'Who's in charge here? I'd better go along or they may fire me!' Rather, the administrative style was—as Peter himself later wrote, 'All of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility' (1. Pet. 5:5)" (pp. 12-13).

• "But notice that Peter did not issue some decree (about whether Gentile converts had to be physically circumcised), or make the final decision. He merely expounded what God had done and appealed to them (the apostles and elders) to consider this" (p. 15).

• "There is no hint of any authoritarianism, highhandedness or threatening behavior on the part of ANY of the apostles" (p. 16).

• "Notice the dramatic incident recorded in Galatians 2:11-21. Here the Apostle Peter perhaps feared some 'political' repercussions from eating with the Gentiles, and Paul, a relatively new minister in comparison, openly REBUKED him to his face! Did Peter pull rank, threaten to fire Paul or any such thing? Never! The obvious conclusion is that Peter humbly took the rebuke, learned from it and forgave Paul if there was any unnecessary harshness" (p. 17).

• "The right church government should be truly 'brotherly.' That is, it should include a broad representation of all the elders and ministers of the Church as the account we read from Acts 15 makes clear. And correct church government should always be based on multitude of counsel (Prov. 15:22)" (pp. 39-40).

We also must take exception to Dr. Meredith's apparent conclusion that the Church government booklet was not instrumental in bringing people to Global in the first place. Several of us—longtime ministers in God's Work—each spent many hours with Dr. Meredith before joining Global. We individually told Dr. Meredith that we would be happy and willing to help him in any way we could as long as there was indeed a brotherly, cooperative approach to the Work, and that it did not become a "one-man show." We told him that we did not understand him to be an apostle, and he assured us that he did not believe he was. Moreover, many of the brethren came to Global specifically because their fears of another Pasadena-like dictatorship were apparently put to rest by Dr. Meredith in private conversations, sermons and, most importantly, in his booklet.

We do not deny that many other people might have come to Global giving little thought to its government structure, focusing instead on Global teaching the full Truth and wanting to do a powerful Work. But brethren, how could Dr. Meredith have ever been preaching the full Truth if he had a completely wrong understanding of and approach to Church government? And this is the only conclusion we can draw if Dr. Meredith truthfully tells us that his current understanding of Church government is that his decisions are final and irrevocable, even if he has reached them contrary to the advice of a multitude of counselors (cf. Prov. 11:14; 22:26).

RCM: "Please find and read my article on Church Government in the Sept.-Oct. 1995 Global Church News. This article went to the entire membership of Global and it updated and superseded the earlier booklet. When I pointed this out to these men on the Board who finally got control, their eyes glazed over and they seemed unable or unwilling even to acknowledge that this updated article had been published and sent to the entire membership" (Nov. 27).

FACT: We're sure that even Dr. Meredith will admit to some literary license in claiming that our eyes "glazed over" when he mentioned his GCN article. On the contrary, we're well aware of the GCN article and will freely admit there are some statements in it that contradict material in the Church government booklet. But this is the fault of our editing process not catching these contradictions when the article was written. That's unfortunate, but there is no reason whatsoever for Dr. Meredith to think that he was setting some new doctrine for the Church that "superseded" what was already published in the booklet.

This should be clear from the very GCN article Dr. Meredith refers to. This article states, "For this reason, the Global Church of God has established a Council of Elders 'to assess and guide the overall direction of the Work and all major projects of the Church' and 'to have final authority over all major doctrinal issues'" (p. 7). Dr. Meredith claims that this 7-page article somehow overturned the Church's 45-page booklet. The fact is that only the Council of Elders could have changed doctrine, including the doctrine of Church government, which it did not.

Further, at the same time the article was published, a slightly revised version of the government booklet was published as well.

Even so, let's follow the reasoning proposed by Dr. Meredith. Even if the GCN article were to be considered the "last word" on this topic and were to have superseded the booklet, then what about the first four Council of Elders meetings in 1998? In them, as we've already stated, there was unanimous agreement (including four separate VOTES of agreement by Dr. Meredith) that the Church government booklet would be the basis for the Church's doctrine on this subject. Therefore, even if the GCN article had superseded the booklet in 1995, then clearly the Council of Elders and Dr. Meredith's June 11 letter superseded that decision in 1998!

The 1995 GCN article has another very interesting section: Dr. Meredith writes, "To use a modern example, suppose a president or prime minister abuses his office (commits perjury or larceny). Do you immediately do away with the presidency, or the office of prime minister? No. It NEVER pays to throw the baby out with the bath water!" (p. 20). We could not agree more. Dr. Meredith has correctly implied that in the event of a serious crime—he mentions perjury and larceny—the individual leader should be removed from office while the office itself is to remain. And sadly brethren, that is exactly what we believe has occurred.

The simplest definition of "larceny" is "theft." And in our opinion, as we have explained above, theft it was. Theft of the Church's confidential membership list, and attempted theft of more than a quarter of a million dollars of God's tithes and offerings. Yes, Dr. Meredith was terminated as an employee of the Global Church of God by the Board of Directors on Tuesday, November 24. He was disfellowshipped from the Global Church of God by the ten-member Council of Elders on December 3, its first meeting since his employment termination. Just as Dr. Meredith's own article advises, we have removed the offending individual. Likewise according to his article, we have maintained the offices he held. The Global Church of God continues to function as a Church committed to preaching the Gospel, feeding the flock and preaching the warning of end-time calamities found in Bible prophecy. The Global Church of God continues to be led by longtime faithful ministers of Jesus Christ. And the Global Church of God continues to follow the Almighty's proper form of Church government and His laws.

CONCLUSION

What should be clear from all of the above facts is that Dr. Meredith has deceived the entire Church about what actually happened. In fact, a pattern of lying is evident.

Do you remember, brethren, when Dr. Meredith got up and told the Church that the reason Dave Pack was demoted from being a regional pastor to being only a field pastor was not disciplinary and had nothing to do with Mr. Pack's job performance as a minister? He said so three times—to Dave Pack's congregation, in a letter to the entire ministry and in a videotaped sermon to the entire Church. Dr. Meredith told everyone how Dave Pack was relieved to be removed from his heavy responsibility since he had inherited a business from his father and needed to devote time to it. And Dr. Meredith told everyone, "He and his wife were both 'giddy.' That's the word they used, because they were so relieved." Yet Dr. Meredith later told people, including Tom Robinson, that the reason he believed Dave Pack was now "out to get him" was because he had disciplined Mr. Pack by demoting him. In fact, Dr. Meredith explained on this later occasion, "The reason they were 'giddy' was because they thought I was going to disfellowship him and instead I only demoted him." So you see, brethren, Dr. Meredith lied to the entire Church. Even if he did so to protect Dave Pack's reputation, it was still a lie.

And this is not the only lie we are aware of. Indeed, on more than one occasion, Dr. Meredith was confronted before the Council of Elders about things he denied saying—until other Council members said basically, "But you said it to me too"—whereupon he would grudgingly admit that he may have said something. We might be able to attribute it to mere forgetfulness, if not for the fact that he said these things to more than one person on more than one occasion.

And shockingly, this level of misrepresentation goes way back—to the very beginning of the Global Church of God. Dr. Meredith has repeatedly claimed that until right before his termination from Worldwide, he had been formulating no plans about starting another Church. He makes much of having been pushed to start Global in the time frame he did. "Brethren," he writes, "the timing of all this was very significant. Yet it was out of my control" (Nov. 21). But, brethren, a number of the things he has said in this regard are simply not true.

The truth is that a year and a half before Global started, Dr. Meredith had been meeting in Glendora, Anaheim and Laguna Niguel, California, concerning this very matter with Mr. and Mrs. Pope, Mr. and Mrs. John Ritenbaugh, and a number of other elders and brethren. Finally, John Ritenbaugh left Worldwide to form another organization, and the Popes decided it was time to leave Worldwide's heresy as well. And so they did—a year before Dr. Meredith. And if there is any doubt about what Dr. Meredith's intentions were, consider this. Shortly before the Popes left to go with Mr. Ritenbaugh, Dr. Meredith asked Mr. Pope to reserve with the state the name "Church of the Living God." Yet he then apparently changed his mind about this name. For when the Popes actually did leave, Dr. Meredith asked them to relay to John Ritenbaugh the request that he please not use the name "Global," as Dr. Meredith himself planned to use that name! This is astounding, as it was fully a year before Dr. Meredith even left Worldwide. The Ritenbaughs will confirm this. It should be very clear, then, that Dr. Meredith has continually misrepresented the very founding of Global—something the Popes have confronted him about before. Why is this important? Because Dr. Meredith goes to such lengths to claim that the supposed circumstances of Global's inception that were "beyond his control" clearly point to him as the "anointed one." But now we see that the "significant timing" of these events was, in fact, very much under his control.

Again, we are still shaking our heads in disbelief. What, then, are we to make of all this? God says that we are to look at a minister's fruits—including his personal conduct in the light of God's Word. In Proverbs 6, God shows us how He Himself looks at the fruits: "Let me describe for you a worthless and wicked man; first, he is a constant liar.... Next, his heart is full of rebellion. And he spends his time... stirring up discontent. But he will be destroyed suddenly, broken beyond hope of healing. For there are six things the Lord hates—no seven: haughtiness; lying; murdering; plotting evil; eagerness to do wrong; a false witness; sowing discord among brothers" (vv. 13-19 Living Bible).

It may have been a different matter if we had only been talking about past events. But the lying and distortion continue unabated to this day—as witnessed in Dr. Meredith's member letters of November 21 and November 27.

Your reaction to the host of serious charges in this document may be that you do not wish to believe them. Brethren, neither did we. We would never even have imagined these things. But we have seen with our own eyes. We have heard with our own ears. Serious sins have been committed. And we believe that illegalities have occurred.

Despite his current claims of being the unremovable "anointed," let's remember what Dr. Meredith pledged when the Council of Elders was set up: "In order to safeguard the purity of God's Church, I am now committing myself before all of you and the Council of Elders to the fact that if I should repeatedly engage in gross immorality or serious illegal behavior, I now publicly promise to resign as Presiding Evangelist. I am willing to publicly accept the 'accountability' that any and all ministers should have. I am formalizing my relationship with God and with all of you in relationship to this Church office and—in the event that I refused to resign under such circumstances—I am stating in advance that it would be expected and required of the Council of Elders to confront me or any successor and demand that he or I resign from this office!" (Global Church News, Mar.-April 1995, p. 3).

And now we have actually come to this level—a serious pattern and web of deceit, and potentially criminal actions. This matter never could have made it to the Council of Elders before action was taken. It certainly would have at the first opportunity, but Dr. Meredith left the Church that very afternoon. We are now having to rebuke him openly, after the fact.

The details of this letter should amplify this fact loud and clear. Dr. Meredith has misrepresented the truth. And this from the very one who is always saying, "Before, God, brethren, I am not lying because liars don't enter the Kingdom." Well, as one very astute member recently answered him, "they do if they repent." And we hope with all our hearts that Dr. Meredith will repent. Even though he has lied, sown discord, reviled others and possibly committed criminal acts, we would happily receive him back into our fellowship if he would only repent.

Brethren, these are the facts. May God judge between us as to who is telling the truth. May God help you to see through the fog of confusion surrounding these events. For we know that true understanding comes only from Him. As His Word tells us, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths" (Prov. 3:5-6). We know that these things are hard to bear. But God tells us what to do. He says that in times of difficulty, we must turn to Him, "casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you" (1 Peter 5:7). Brethren,God will lead us through this trial—if we keep our eyes focused on Him, and on the awesome destiny He has given us.

In the name of Jesus Christ our Savior,

Raymond F. McNair
Larry Salyer
J. Edwin Pope
Norbert Link
  December 8, 1998
 

Dear Fellow Ministers,

The accompanying document, answering in detail the charges raised in Dr. Meredith's letters of November 21 and November 27, is provided to the ministry of the Global Church of God as a tool to serve the needs of our brethren. The material contained here is in no way intended to replace the diligent Bible study of the members through which they can come to understand the spiritual truth of how and why we have the current trials. It is our fervent hope that ministers are guiding their flocks through this "valley of the shadow of death," by helping them see the consequences of sin and the scriptural instruction for dealing with trials, as well as how to "judge by the fruits."

We understand that many brethren may not want to spend the time necessary to check out all the facts and comprehend the history of events that have led to the present crisis in the Church. Some might even find the material too disturbing. Therefore, rather than send this detailed account to all of them in the mail, we are sending it to the ministry, so that you may be properly equipped with the true and correct answers to the questions that are naturally arising as a result of the fear and distrust that have been thrust onto the Church.

We will offer this information to the brethren in a member letter and send it to all who request it. In this way we hope to avoid causing offense to those who would rather not see this document.

This copy is for your personal and professional use only.

Regards,

THE GLOBAL CHURCH OF GOD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 

Enclosure