United Church of God, an International Association
Council of Elders Meeting Report

Monday, August 30, 1999 — Seattle, Washington

Following a weekend in which Council members scattered from northern California to Alaska to speak to church congregations on the Sabbath, meetings resumed Monday morning. The Council surveyed agenda items on church identity and a church outreach program, and deliberated policies on member suspension and disfellowshipping, and member appeals of church disciplinary measures. An executive session on internal Council evaluation concluded Day Four.

Church Identity

Ministerial Services manager Richard Pinelli led an examination of some of the issues facing the church and the ministry in the field regarding perceptions of church identity. In simplest terms, two opposite views illustrate the range of ãwhatâs out there.ä

One view sees the United Church of God as the unique recipient of the baton of the work of God, the ãnewä Church of God in a way distinct from other fellowships. The other view sees this as dangerous and smacking of superiority and self-righteousness; it sees the United Church of God as only one of many fellowships actually carrying out the work of God.

Naturally, these two very different outlooks result in very different views on a number of topics and even some scriptures, such as Matthew:18:18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (binding and loosing) and Colossians:1:18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (just how is Christ leading the Church, which is a spiritual Body)? These issues face the ministry and membership daily, and answers are needed. Mr. Pinelliâs point in raising the issue was to highlight the need for the Council to speak with one voice on its view of this fellowship.

Animated discussion followed the presentation. Ministerial Services team member Richard Thompson noted the fact that the regional pastors have brought this material forward because they and many pastors in the field face these issues constantly. He asked if our identity is as clear as we can make it, or is there more that needs to be said? He continued, ãMy own personal belief is, if you teach and represent God properly, then God is going to bless you. We donât have to worry about other groups. We have to be concerned about what it is we stand for, what we believe, what we embrace, what we love, Who we represent, and do it· and hopefully, not offend Christ!· Itâs not a matter that you want to offend others, but itâs a matter that we have · to strongly stand for what we believe, what our convictions are· you have to be strong in your beliefs or youâll never be anything.ä

Dennis Luker strongly concurred, pointing out that there is no need to speak out on other groups, but on this group ö who and what we are, and what our job is. Les McCullough stressed the concept of judging by the fruit, as Christ Himself taught us. What is our fruit?

LeeAnn Luker asked the Council to remember how hurtful pronouncements we make about others can be. She recalled hearing an address by a minister from the Church of God Seventh Day, stirringly upholding the validity of the Sabbath. Yet, she remembered, he was still stung by the appellation ãdeadä hung on that fellowship years ago (as she pointed out, this groupâs work outside the United States had been considerable).

Aaron Dean reminded the Council that we will be identified by what we do. He specifically referred to the new Ambassador Bible Center as an example. Victor Kubik agreed, stating that he felt the best course of action is to win over others by our genuine concern and conduct in obeying Godâs directives for His Church.

Policy Discussion

Gary Antion brought two policies to the Councilâs attention. Both were in draft form, and needed to be edited for final acceptance or returned to the Ethical Review Committee for more work.

The first one considered was a policy on member appeal of church disciplinary action (suspension or disfellowshipping). The path of appeal, up to and including appeal to the Council of Elders, is clearly outlined in the policy as it is stated. Council members agreed that as in any appellate procedure, they have the right to determine whether to hear a full appeal (only one has come to the Council since 1996 when the original policy was adopted) or uphold the decision made by the administration without a further hearing and review.

In recognition of the fact that some individuals fellowship regularly with the United Church of God but do not consider themselves members of the church per se, or are not yet baptized, discussion next centered on whether the policy should be a ãMember Appeal Policyä or ãMember/Affiliate Appeal Policy.ä  Every Council member clearly wants to make sure all such affiliated attendees are treated with the same respect, concern, and love as anyone who considers himself or herself fully a part of the United Church of God. But since the policy is based on Section 8.9 of the churchâs bylaws, which only identifies appeal avenues for members in its wording, there was some difference of opinion on whether or not to specifically include affiliates. In the end, John Jewell proposed wording the policy to show that while as based on the Bylaws it applies to members, the Council wished to extend its application by policy to affiliates as well. Concern about how this related to the bylaws was still evident, so Mr. Antion asked for Councilâs formal opinion before proceeding. Messrs. Antion, Dean, Holladay, Jewell, Kubik, Luker, McCullough, and Thompson approved formally including affiliates in the wording; Messrs. Dick, Walker, and Ward opposed it, and Mr. McNair abstained. The policy will be edited as needed and returned to the Council for approval in its new form.

The policy on suspension and disfellowshipping, after minor edits, was approved unanimously by the Council.   

Church Outreach Program?

Gary Antion moderated deliberation on a church outreach program on Monday afternoon. The main area of discussion fell on the approach to take ö all are agreed that reaching out to help others is a key element of letting our light shine as Jesus Christ instructed His followers. 

The key question is whether to have a separate foundation, linked to the church, which carries out functions of this type, or to simply have the church directly guide a program. It is expected that members are already reaching out to others as they can in their personal lives in fulfillment of Paulâs exhortation in Galatians 6. 

Some church areas already have programs set up (Toronto, Ontario and Dayton, OH were mentioned specifically). Mr. Kubik works with a separately constructed non-profit organization, called LifeNets, in his efforts to help people in Ukraine, Estonia, Malawi, and other places. As ideas flowed, it became clear that there are distinct advantages in either approach. Obtaining more outside (that is, outside the United Church of God) financial and/or material help is easier through a foundation (witness the assistance obtained from other agencies for the Ukrainian Sabbatarians); working as a church reflects more on the church itself. Visitor Stuart Segall gave an example of the latter. He was asked by the owners of a local health club in his area to volunteer some of his time as a chaplain for the program, offering family counseling, based on his position as a pastor with the United Church of God. This has been an opportunity to ãput the church on the mapä in the community in a positive way. 

Mr. Dick reminded Council of the material Mr. McCullough had presented earlier in the meetings about renewed contact with government authorities in Jordan. This is also a form of outreach. Mr. Kubik suggested defining exactly what each type of outreach could accomplish and progressing as able in all the areas discussed. 

Clarification Regarding Television

Additional information about Fridayâs session on television and radio promotions would be helpful at this point. The TV test of the ãTomorrowä program scheduled to air in early September in Utica, NY, is produced as a pilot program, exceeding national TV technical and graphics standards. It also meets with all legal and programming requirements for network broadcast affiliates. The strict national TV technical and production broadcast standards requirements necessitated a fresh start from cable access production. Several men with different styles and talents were brought in from diverse locations, creating a different look and approach.

Housekeeping Items 

Three housekeeping items were dealt with near the end of the day. Mr. Pinelli asked for and received unanimous Council support for a job description for U.S. church pastors. The Council addressed the timing of the General Conference of Elders for 2000, and set May 6, 7, and 8 in Cincinnati, Ohio as the planned date and location. Following the setting of the General Conference, the Council meeting for early 2000 was discussed, and tabled in order to allow Secretary Gerald Seelig to confirm time-tables for amendment procedures leading up to the General Conference.

The Council ended its day in executive session with a review of its internal evaluation procedure.

-Doug Johnson

© 1999 United Church of God, an International Association