United Church of God, an International Association
Council of Elders Meeting Report
Sunday , December 7, 2003 – Cincinnati, Ohio

This was a very full day in which the morning meeting was dedicated to a wide-ranging discussion on the subject of the Church's work of preaching the gospel. During the afternoon the Council considered a plan proposed by the General Conference 2004 Advisory Task Force. The day concluded with Council consideration of proposed amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws.

Preaching the Gospel

Clyde Kilough moderated the morning discussion which was designed to continue a theme in previous meetings in which the Council analyzed the Church's efforts to preach the gospel and more effective ways of doing so. He opened the discussion by commenting on how preaching the gospel is central to our lives and the purpose of the Church. The twin concepts of preaching the gospel and preparing a people are linked and flow from each other. Nothing is more important to our organization and these themes deserve considerable and continual thought.

Mr. Kilough read from an article titled "The End of Strategic Planning" from the July/August 2003 journal BoardSource. The article aptly emphasizes that strategic planning must be based on strong commitment to core beliefs. It pointed out that strategically thinking [leaders] take into account that circumstances will change and they allocate time to discuss key questions and considerations.

The purpose of this session was to have a "free form" brainstorming discussion to ask of ourselves questions such as, "What are the challenges of reaching today's world? What is its mindset? What are we doing well? Why? What is not working so well? Why? What are the barriers?" Mr. Kilough commented that a discussion such as today's is a valuable part of the long-term planning process. He wasn't necessarily expecting or desiring specific conclusions and action items from this session, but that it would be part of a mix of ongoing discussions that will help form our decisions in more comprehensive areas such as the strategic plan.

Several Council members commented that we can learn principles from the article that will help in our strategic planning process.

After reading excerpts from the article, Mr. Kilough made reference to a sermon given by Robert Dick in Cincinnati on the Sabbath of December 6, 2004. In it, Mr. Dick analyzed the ministry of Jesus Christ and identified "the world" to which Jesus brought the gospel message as five distinct audiences or groups of people.

Playing off that concept, Mr. Kilough identified seven different audiences or "worlds" to which we carry the gospel message. They are the worlds of:

1. Israel
2. gentiles
3. the sick
4. the religious
5. the intelligentsia
6. the "unchurched"
7. the youth

We recognize that it takes a different approach to reach each of these audiences. Where are these "worlds?" Where are they geographically, culturally, spiritually? Where are these worlds headed? And how does that affect our message?

Mr. Dick mentioned that articles and radio programs on the subjects of the world's holidays always bring a strong response. Some may think it's redundant to publish the same kind of article year after year, but we need to consider that "that's what we do well." A non-religious person wouldn't care, but the articles challenge the beliefs and convict "the religious" audience.

Richard Thompson pointed out that every human being is empty without the Holy Spirit. They have filled their lives with things that are vain and temporary. Our message challenges what they thought was solid and exposes the emptiness of their lives. The good news of the Kingdom of God challenges the core beliefs of heaven and hell. We challenge a different set of core beliefs and reach a different audience segment when we speak of prophecies of the future of Europe. He also commented that there are many more religious voices in the world now than in the 1950s and '60s. It's difficult for our message to stand out in the midst of such confusion.

Leon Walker emphasized that our message should be more challenging. We don't need to be insulting or derogatory – but we need to challenge people's assumptions and beliefs. Our publications do a good job of teaching and educating, but we don't challenge enough. Herbert Armstrong challenged people's long-held and cherished beliefs.

To illustrate how much society (our audience) is changing, Victor Kubik related a recent experience. He was receiving certification in the Prepare/Enrich premarital counseling program. A great deal of emphasis was placed on working with engaged couples who were already living together. Mr. Kubik was puzzled at why so much emphasis was placed on cohabiting, engaged couples. Until he learned from others in the program (all of whom were Protestant ministers) that 90% of the engaged couples they work with are already living together. One minister was already in favor of giving serious thought to the kinds of premarital counseling that might be helpful to a gay couple.

Mr. Kubik also cited Mr. Armstrong's example of audience research, which was the foundation of his success in the advertising business. He emphasized that it would be helpful for us to learn more about our Good News readership through a survey.

Mr. Kilough reflected on how it can be difficult for those who have spent their entire ministerial career and virtually all of their lives in God's Church to understand and relate to those who have spent their entire lifetime in "the world." Some of us in the ministry are comfortable talking to the Church, but find it difficult to connect to an audience outside the Church.

Aaron Dean observed that God seems to call into the Church those who listen honestly, have an open mind and are willing to change, rather than those who defend their beliefs.

Joel Meeker and Tony Wasilkoff both described disturbing trends in Europe and Canada, where governments are considering clamping down on anyone who speaks out against homosexuality, labeling such language as "hate speech." There could come a time when there are legal repercussions for teaching that homosexuality is immoral. For example, there is a law pending in Canada which could make it a "hate crime" to speak critically of any "identifiable group."

Doug Horchak added that our message needs to stay focused on the Kingdom of God and not be drawn off by cultural shifts, as horrific as they may be. There is value to understanding our audience and "meeting them where they are." But the gospel of the Kingdom is a timeless message of hope.

Jim Franks concurred, pointing out that the message of the Kingdom of God challenges people and brings them to repentance. The young people who have grown up in the Church need to be taught what is wrong about living together. He hearkened back to how the Plain Truth was used to proclaim the message of hope and the Kingdom of God and the Good News was for Church members, showing them how to come out of the world's ways and live as a Christian in this culture. But now the Good News carries both messages. We should ask ourselves what should our message be to the world as opposed to our message to the Church?

Mr. Wasilkoff pointed out that the Church now has Vertical Thought, which is aimed at the youth. He asked which categories of audience the Good News most clearly addresses?

Mr. Thompson reminded that part of Jesus' message was the need to repent. There are things that are inherently wrong. In bringing a message of hope we can't overlook the need for repentance. Mr. Kilough agreed, citing the apostle Paul's comment that we must "obey" the gospel.

Speaking from his perspective as a writer for the Good News, Mario Seiglie commented that there is no feedback from the audience. Writers don't know how readers are responding or whether their articles are effective.

Mr. Kilough asked a key question, which started to turn the "brainstorming" session to a more specific topic. He asked if we are diluting our own efforts because we're reaching out to Church membership and the world in general in the same magazine. Would we be more effective in targeting both audiences if we were to distinguish between the Good News and United News?

Mr. Horchak pointed out that the Good News magazine started as an apologetic, or defense, of doctrine. It was encouraging to our members to see that we still believe and teach the truth God revealed to us. As the Church has become more established, our members need to understand that the Good News is becoming more of a public proclamation tool.

Mr. Eddington said that the Good News has served a dual purpose. It would be possible to shift the doctrinal subjects into United News. In fact, there has been a gradual shift in the Good News, making it more of a gospel proclamation tool.

Mr. Meeker stated that the French version of the Good News is strictly a proclamation tool. The French Church newsletter contains doctrinal material aimed at the membership.

Mr. Franks suggested that if such a distinction were made, it would be necessary to explain the specific purpose of the Good News and United News to the ministry and membership. They would need to know what to expect from each, otherwise there will be a sense of dissatisfaction.

Mr. Kilough stated that this is the kind of decision the Council should make. He said that our general audience needs to be challenged by our message and the Church membership also needs to be challenged to grow spiritually. But it's difficult to challenge both audiences in the same publication.

Mr. Eddington said that this is the direction the editorial team would like to have. Understanding the readership is important for the writers, who can learn to engage and specifically challenge a particular audience.

Mr. Franks pointed out that the Good News needs to continue to be a religious magazine, challenging its readers with doctrinal material. Mr. Eddington agreed, citing for example, that an article about Christmas can introduce readers to the Holy Days and offer our booklet on that subject.

Mr. Dick suggested that just as newspapers have different sections, the United News could be structured so that it has a section containing articles on doctrinal subjects. He also commented that there are positive precedents in our history that support this approach, such as the Tomorrow's World magazine and the aforementioned distinction in past years of the Good News as a members-only publication.

Mr. Dean asked if using the Good News more as vehicle for the proclamation of the gospel would change our printing quantity strategy. For example, would there be more emphasis on a newsstand program?

Mr. Kilough responded that focusing the Good News as a vehicle to proclaim the gospel would affect other aspects of the work, too – such as the Good News radio program and even our approach to public Bible lectures. He asked if the Council should reach some specific conclusions regarding the content of the Good News and United News or discuss it further?

Mr. Dick cautioned that this free-form discussion has been valuable. But going forward with anything at this point would require just picking a point or two from the discussion without regard to our overall strategic planning process. He urged the Council to take time to determine a broad direction, rather than take a piecemeal approach.

Les McCullough pointed out that the article that started this discussion challenged an organization to ask, "What do we do well?" He stated that we shouldn't be satisfied with doing "well," but as Mr. Armstrong always did, we should strive for excellence. We need to set the goal of having the best magazine possible.

Mr. Kilough agreed that this has been a valuable discussion, but he didn't feel comfortable making a major decision at this point. He posed the question whether the Council should take a policy-change suggestion to the editorial administration or give the administration the Council's observations and have them develop a modified policy.

Mr. Dick expressed that policy springs from corporate philosophy. He stated that our administration will do a good job of developing policy if the Council gives them a clear statement of philosophy. For example, the Council's philosophical position might be that the United News be primarily a doctrinal tool for our membership and the Good News a proclamation tool to reach people outside the Church. Working from that philosophical position, administration has a clear base from which to develop policy.

Mr. Dick further suggested that a tangible starting place would be to put together key points from this brainstorming session. Remand the administration to bring the Council a report that answers the question, "What are we doing well and why?" This would also answer the question of what didn't work so well and why not.

Mr. Seiglie asked Mr. Eddington for a synopsis of how well he felt our publications are doing. Mr. Eddington replied that feedback from the membership indicates that our publications are as good or better than the Church has ever had – especially our booklets and the Good News. The quality of our publications is not a problem. He said he senses that people aren't worried about their safety; our challenge is to try to reach people outside the Church who really aren't interested in religion.

Mr. Thompson cited a book titled Generations, which explains the cycle of qualities and characteristics of generations through the ages. He also cited the book of Judges and Israel's cycle of sin – servitude – supplication – salvation. He stated that people have to be desperate to receive a religious message. Something has to happen to stir them out of their dullness of hearing. Even if we aren't getting a great deal of response, some of what we do may be working even if it isn't measurable. We're planting seed that will bear results later. If we continue doing our part, including making the effort to improve, God will ultimately provide the results. Perhaps we ought to be praying more that God will bear the fruit of what has already been planted.

Mr. Meeker added that the Church needs to continue to do this work right to the end of the age, whether we see results or not. Prophecies of the latter days predict that people (both in the Church and in society) will simply not be willing to be taught. We need to continue not only doing the work, but continually trying to do it better.

Mr. McCullough offered that if the Council determines the purpose of the Good News, much of the rest of what we're talking about will fall in place. Mr. Meeker agreed, stating that we should come out of this meeting with a definition of editorial direction for the Good News and United News, with further discussion and development to follow.

Mr. Kilough asked whether any Council members had any reservations about coming to that conclusion.

Mr. McCullough suggested that if the Council establishes that the Good News is primarily for the proclamation of the gospel to the world, then there should be an article explaining the original purpose of the Good News and how it can best be used now.

Mr. Franks said that it would be useful to distinguish the difference between and purposes of the Good News and United News. The editorial administration can report to the Council with a plan for implementing it, in conjunction with other media support efforts.

In concluding the discussion, Mr. Kilough directed Mr. Kubik, as chairman of the Media and Communications committee, to write a resolution distinguishing the purposes of the Good News from United News for the Council's consideration and discussion later in the week.

Plans for GCE – 2004

The Ethics, Roles and Rules Committee, chaired by Mr. Dick, is responsible for planning the annual General Conference of Elders. The Council had approved a task force, which was assigned to submit a plan for the 2004 General Conference of Elders. During today's afternoon session the advisory task force submitted its plan for Council approval.

The task force was represented at the meeting by several of its members: Peter Eddington, Charles Melear, Joe Horchak and Diane Bailey. David Register (chairman of the task force) and Larry Greider were connected via telephone. Other members of the task force are Robin Webber, Randy Schreiber, Greg Thomas and Bill Bradford.

Mr. Register provided the Council with a document titled "Recommendations for the 2004 GCE." The advisory task force's plan was developed through two teleconferences and drew many recommendations from exit surveys from last year's conference. The report included:

• Proposed themes for sermons and the keynote speakers
• Suggestion of split sermons for the Sabbath service, one given by a career-elder and one by a non-career elder.
• A list of potential speakers for the split sermons.
• A description of the chairman's reception on Saturday night, a light-hearted social event which would include a talent program featuring elders and wives.
• A suggestion for reports from six or seven international representatives, each of which would be a 10 minute PowerPoint presentation.
• A tribute to deceased elders and wives.
• A "welcome" to newly ordained or credentialed elders.
• Recommendations for two keynote speakers, one to address the conference Sunday afternoon and the other on Monday.
• Proposed question and answer sessions.
• A selection of workshops to enhance the elders' procedural, administrative, ministerial, counseling and training and theological teaching skills as well as personal growth and development.
• A list of proposed promotional activities, to encourage attendance and participation.
• A list of additional suggestions which included the rental of two large screens and mixer with video feed to provide better visibility and the rental of a spotlight for the chairman's reception on Saturday night.
• A proposed meeting planning timeline.
• A list of additional budget items including hors d'oerves and soft drinks for the chairman's reception, the promotion brochure and additional audio/visual equipment rental and a promotional item to be given as a gift to attending elders and wives.

Mr. Register read through the report and Council members commented on or asked about some of the details. After reviewing the advisory committee's recommendations, the Council voted its acceptance of the plans in a series of motions put forward by Mr. Dick.

The Council selected and unanimously approved the conference theme, "Rising to the Challenges of the 21st Century Church," or "Twenty-First Century Church – Rising to the Challenge." Through a series of resolutions, the Council also approved the:

• Meeting planning timeline.
• Budget.
• Promotional activities, additional suggestions, additional budget.
• Sabbath service structure (the speakers to be chosen in an executive session).
• Chairman's reception.
• Format for reports given by international representatives.
• Tribute to deceased elders and wives.
• Welcome to newly ordained or credentialed elders.
• Topics for keynote speakers (the speakers to be chosen in executive session).

The selection of workshop topics and presenters was remanded back to the task force for final decisions. The task force will work with Richard Pinelli and the Regional Pastors in making the final decisions.

Most of the discussion was generated by the task force's recommendation of three distinct interactive Q & A sessions:

1. Candidates for Council (prior to ballot).
2. Ballot issues (prior to ballot).
3. General Q & A of Council of Elders (Sunday evening).

Mr. Register said that the task force unanimously suggested that all three areas of Q & A be included, though he acknowledged that a Q & A involving Council candidates would be sensitive.

Mr. Greider commented that the ballot process was established in 1995. Now, however, individuals' involvement in the Church is different. If we empower every elder to be responsible for decisions, they need more input, discussion and consensus building. He acknowledged that there are concerns because not everyone is at the conference, putting those who can't come at an unfair disadvantage. But all are invited. It would be an incentive to come to the conference to participate if the meeting were more open.

Joe Horchak stated that general conference members want to make the best and most informed decisions. Their number one request is for the opportunity to ask questions and become more involved before making decisions. This opportunity would improve attendance at the conference. A tangible dialogue would encourage more to come. It wouldn't be unfair to those who aren't at the conference because they wouldn't have any less information, but those who do attend would have more information. The suggested format would control potential politicizing.

Mr. Walker stated that he was opposed to a Q & A involving Council candidates and ballot issues on the basis of equality and fairness. As it stands now, everyone receives the same information in the form of a packet sent by the secretary. In 1996 there was an open session to ask questions about certain balloting aspects, but that year all the elders were present at the meeting. Now, about 50% of the elders are not at the conference. Many are unable to come for financial reasons. The point that more would come if there were open discussion is not valid for the international ministry. Mr. Dick stated that Mr. Walker's comments represented the majority of the Ethics, Roles and Rules committee.

Mr. Dean said that he is of the opposite opinion. He is concerned that those who are present at the conference don't receive more information.

Mr. Greider commented that involvement in the general conference is part of the responsibility of an elder. He also suggested that there might be more discussion of issues that would be relevant to the next year's conference.

Mr. Franks expressed concern about the Q & A process. He asked who would field the ballot issue questions. He noted that in a previous general conference, the Q & A discussion of the ballot issues was opinion-driven rather than informational.

Mr. Register responded that the individual speaking on behalf of a ballot issue would probably be the author of the proposed amendment. The task force would determine an individual to represent the concerns about the amendment.

Mr. Walker noted that the Elder's Forum already provides an avenue for asking questions and making input regarding these issues. Elders are encouraged to directly contact those who are nominated to the Council. Mr. Register questioned whether that method of communication was effective. Mr. Walker responded that if it isn't being used, we can't know if it would be effective.

Mr. Eddington pointed out that the balloting process limits elders to discussing the issues in the last month before the general conference.

Doug Horchak asked if it would be possible to have some kind of on-line Q & A in the weeks before the general conference.

Mr. Kilough questioned whether a Q & A would be fair to potential Council members. Some might be able to be spontaneously glib and persuasive, but that wouldn't necessarily indicate a person who would serve effectively on the Council. Impressions made in a live Q & A wouldn't necessarily reveal a good Council member. Also, if there were six candidates on a stage fielding questions, some could well be asked more questions than others. You would get a better feel for a person by direct contact or e-mail.

Mr. Franks stated that there has always been a Q & A for the Council. We've never had a Q & A for candidates to the Council. The one time there was a ballot issue Q & A it was not productive. He said he would want to know more about the format and structure before he could support either.

Mr. Dean pointed out that an informative Q & A would be helpful since many elders don't fully understand the ballot issues.

Mr. Dick agreed that while a Q & A for the Council is traditional, he didn't feel he had enough information to support Q & A sessions for candidates.

Mr. Franks said he was not opposed to the general conference having more complete information, but asked if the task force could offer more specifics on how these Q & A sessions would be conducted. To whom would questions be addressed? The author? One who is opposed to the issue? A neutral party who could provide just factual information? What guarantee is there that it would be a productive discussion?

Mr. Register felt that the task force would be able to answer the Council's questions and return with a revised proposal. He also requested that individual Council members with questions or objections to any of the Q & A sessions send them to him so he can address their concerns.

Mr. Kilough put forward a resolution to accept the Council Q & A and remand the candidate Q & A and ballot issue Q & A back to the task force if they would choose to come forward with another proposal. The resolution was approved unanimously.

Proposed Constitution and By-law Amendments

The final business of the day was the discussion of proposed amendments to the constitution and by-laws submitted for consideration at the 2004 general conference.

The Council has the responsibility of evaluating each suggested amendment. If four or more Council members support the proposed amendment, the secretary forwards a copy to the conference of elders and includes it on the ballot. If an amendment does not gain the support of four or more Council members, the amendment is returned to the Amendment Committee and submitted to the general conference. If 25% or more of the elders support the proposed amendment, it will be included on the ballot at the general conference. If a majority of the Council feels it would be helpful, the Council also has the option of writing a statement of concern for any of the proposed amendments, whether or not they approve it themselves.

The Amendment Committee sent seven proposed amendments for the Council's consideration. The Council requested additional edits on two amendments, supported two amendments and returned three to the Amendment Committee. The Council decided to write a statement of concern relating to one of the proposed amendments.

The day's meeting adjourned at 6 p.m.

-Don Henson

-end-

© 2003 United Church of God, an International Association