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

 

Friday, March 16, 2001 - Cincinnati, Ohio
 

               Fridayâs session of the Council of Elders meetings first dealt with a presentation by Ministerial Services manager Richard Pinelli on church building policy. The very sensitive area of administering Church policy on divorce and remarriage was discussed late in the morning. The day concluded with an executive session. 

Church Building Policy 

            Mr. Pinelli brought two possible avenues to the attention of the Council. Very few local congregations have built or purchased buildings. Most rent facilities for Sabbath and Holy Day services, Bible studies, socials and other church activities. In a very limited number of cases, however, local congregations do own church buildings. The procedure involved has specified that due to the extremely few circumstances that have arisen so far, the Council would review all applications by local congregations to build or purchase their own building. 

            Leon Walker asked the Council to consider another approach. The Council has been involved in crafting the policy, but ãlet the Administration be the administrationä as far as review and approval, he suggested. Appeals would still come to the Council, but the Administration, he proposed, should handle cases from start to finish if there were approval or no appeal of a denied application. 

            Aaron Dean and Gary Antion asked the Council to reconsider some aspects of that approach, such as the ãpublic relationsä involved. As Mr. Antion noted, it would mean the Council was only involved in decisions where the answer was ãnoä at some level. And, pointed out Mr. Dean, difficulties could also arise if the Council reversed an Administration decision and allowed a purchase or construction to proceed. 

            Wider discussion of the proposed policy followed. Don Ward asked if some of the benefits of local church buildings could be included in the policy itself. Victor Kubik (who pastors one church that owns its building ö Terre Haute, IN) agreed, stating that the good experiences should be noted too, although he agreed that there are very real constraints on moving in that direction for any sizable number of church congregations. 

            Mr. Dean put forward the possibility of rewording the policy to the effect that the Administration would handle all requests, and that any denial of an application would be automatically brought to the Council for a final decision. Mr. Walker concurred with that approach. Matthew Fenchel suggested that all Council members should be informed of any approvals granted by the Administration. Mr. Pinelli stated that he could rewrite some portions of the proposed policy, include an ãautomatic appealä clause, and return a rewritten policy for Councilâs decision. This closed the discussion. 

Administration of Divorce and Remarriage within the Church 

Chairman Roy Holladay asked Mr. Pinelli to introduce this topic for the dayâs discussion. He began by saying ãDivorce and remarriage is one of the most difficult areas in the Church.ä 

            The United Church of God has dealt systematically with varied issues of concern to members and ministry. Marriage and Divorce was high on the list of doctrines to review from our inception in 1995. Crafting the statement of our understanding of Godâs instruction regarding divorce and remarriage has been neither rushed nor shallow. 

All who spoke today stressed an agreement with the doctrinal position the Church has adopted on divorce and remarriage. The issue at hand, however, is the administration of divorce and remarriage. The current policy includes the following steps: 

1.       The church member or members bring divorce/marital status questions to the pastor for a decision on remarriage.  (There may be cases where the pastor will need to be the one to approach the member or members.  These would be cases where members divorce and remarry or have plans to remarry without seeking a decision from the Church.)  The pastor is responsible for collecting all necessary information about the marriage, including any forms that need to be completed. 

2.       The church pastor needs to discuss the potential difficulties created by such a divorce with the member(s).  The pastor is expected to cover the relevant scriptures and outline on the subject of marriage.  If both partners in the marriage are members, then Paulâs admonition to married couples found in 1 Corinthians 7 should be expounded in the discussion, specifically 1 Corinthians:7:10-11[10]And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:[11]But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.. 

3.       The church pastor and regional pastor (or international equivalent) discuss the factors in the case with the objective of making a recommendation to a team of senior ministers established by Ministerial Services.  If the case is simple and clear, such as an unbeliever has departed, only the ãPastorâs Assessmentä needs to be completed and shared with the regional pastor.  If the regional pastor agrees that the case is clear and simple, the decision is made at this point (subject to review by the D & R committee).  The regional pastor forwards a copy of the Pastorâs Assessment to the D & R committee for the purpose of record keeping and review.  (The D & R Committee does not maintain the information, but forwards it on to Ministerial Services after review.) This information can be sent by e-mail or regular mail.   

4.       If the case is more complicated the church pastor provides each member involved in the divorce with a ãMemberâs Assessmentä form to be filled out and returned.  (The pastor and regional pastor in consultation make the determination as to whether a case is simple or complicated.)  All forms and information collected by the pastor are shared with the regional pastor (or international equivalent) and the team of senior ministers.  The D & R committee calls a teleconference to discuss the matter.  If all three parties (pastor, regional pastor, and team of senior ministers) agree, the decision is passed on to the members involved by the pastor. 

5.       Any case that cannot be conclusively determined by the pastor, regional pastor (or international equivalent), and the team of senior ministers, is submitted to Ministerial Services for a determination. 

6.       Upon review by Ministerial Services, the case is decided.  The individuals may be declared bound, free to remarry, or it may be determined that it simply isnât possible to reach a decision.  There may also be extenuating circumstances that would prevent reaching a clear decision.  In such cases a ãno decisionä is appropriate.    

7.       In cases of a ãno decisionä whether the individual chooses to remarry (or not to remarry) is a personal decision. In these cases of ãno decisionä it must be clearly explained to the members involved that they are responsible before God for their future actions.  Adultery is a serious sin that can keep one from the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians:6:9-10[9]Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,[10]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.).  These cases of ãno decisionä must be carefully explained to the pastor, the regional pastor and the members involved. 

8.       After reaching a decision (which may be a ãno decisionä) and informing all parties, if the members involved are not in agreement with the decision, they may appeal based on the process for member appeal adopted by the Council of Elders. 

Mr. Pinelli stated that this policy was developed through a consensus reached by field ministry input at a series of two regional conferences, coupled with the Churchâs doctrinal statement and Ministerial Services involvement. One major area that was still unclear, he said, was the consequence of non-compliance. What action should be taken? Is disfellowshipment or suspension more appropriate? What of the member who is judged ãboundä by the Church but remarries anyway and later wishes to return to our fellowship? He asked for the Councilâs guidance in this area. No conclusion concerning non-compliance was reached in todayâs meetings. 

Mr. Kubik had asked to present what he saw as difficulties in the administration of D&R.  He stated clearly that he agreed with and supported the Churchâs doctrinal position on divorce and remarriage, but his concerns involved the process the church uses in gathering information and the multi-layered involvement in such sensitive matters about the most personal areas of an individualâs life. 

Some of his questions involved the following: Should we reevaluate how we administer divorce and eligibility for remarriage? Have we simply carried over traditions and practices from the past? Why should so many individuals be involved in these personal matters? If the pastor along with the Divorce and Remarriage committee cannot make a clear judgment, why would another group further removed do any better? Does this process serve the best interests of Godâs people? 

There are so many variables involved in the gathering of information on individual cases, he pointed out. Some people write voluminously, others are reticent to share personal information. How equitably can we judge highly subjective information often written under great stress and anger? Will more layers of people reading cases be more likely to bring them to resolution?  Before finalizing this process should we not study it further and talk to people who have been involved with it? 

Mr. Kubik proposed the creation of a Family Studies Task Force under the auspices of the Education Committee to devote more time and study to this topic. 

Beverly Kubik also addressed the Council.  She and her husband Victor at one time served on the D&R committee in the Worldwide Church of God. She asked the question ãcan we be sure that we are judging righteous judgment with mercy and faith in a Christ-like manner? How does one discern matters of the heart in complex cases?ä  

Is it not possible, she asked, that in a difficult case we could have three respected senior pastors make a ãboundä judgment while another three respected senior pastors reading the same material might make an ãunboundä judgment? She stated that she would like to see more responsibility placed with the individual in such difficult cases because individually we will stand before God and answer for the decisions weâve made. For that reason, the ãno decisionä ruling in the current administrative policy can be very important in difficult cases. 

Mr. Holladay thanked her for her courage in speaking to the group. He asked for input from two visiting church pastors regarding sentiment of which they were aware. Larry Walker spoke of a few pastors whom he knew to have serious concerns, to the point of conscience issues, in dealing with these sensitive matters. Jerry Aust stated that the Church is being brought by Christ to a point of forward movement in many areas and urged great care in being involved in areas affecting peopleâs lives so profoundly. 

Mr. Holladay acknowledged the hard work and effort that Mr. Pinelli and the Ministerial Services team have devoted to this very tender area. As he said, ãthese concerns have been simmering for some time, and Mr. Pinelli and his staff have tried to deal with it for the good of all in the church.ä  Mr. Holladay stressed that if a task force were created along the lines Mr. Kubik suggested, present procedure should continue in the meantime. 

At Mr. Holladayâs request Mr. Kubik outlined his suggestion. He proposed limiting the group judging individual cases to the pastors involved and a  three-man team serving as coaches/advisors. This would give ãmultitude of counselä yet  reduce the proliferation of highly sensitive information about people. Mr. Holladay mentioned that the proposed Family Studies Task Force should place the study of the administration of divorce and remarriage at the top of its agenda. 

Dr. Ward observed that everything must flow from doctrine. He asked if anyone had a problem with doctrine since he had not heard any such concern.  He also said he hadnât heard a specific criticism of the administration of our doctrine. He agreed that perhaps there were more numerous levels of appeal than needed, meaning too many people had sensitive information. But he had reservations about having the finality of decisions reside at the local pastorate level, noting how such decisions can impact a much wider circle of people in the Church. 

Mario Seiglie stressed that the final approach decided upon must reflect not only our common belief (doctrine), but also evenness of handling within the Church as a whole (administration). He stated that the appeal process protected individual brethren in this area as in other areas within the Church. 

John Jewell noted the concerns held by several, according to the comments made in todayâs discussion. He asked all to consider the serious implications of the scriptural model to which marriage points ö the relationship of Jesus Christ to His Church. Are people taking that as seriously as they should? In view of the attack on the family in our society, it is not a subject to treat lightly. 

            Mr. Holladay polled the Council for its opinion. Should a Family Studies Task Force be formed under the auspices of the Education Committee, as suggested by Mr. Kubik? The Council gave its unanimous decision to form such a task force. The Education Committee (Don Ward, chairman) will draw up a proposal with suggested names, job description, and desired task force function, and return it to the Council for discussion and approval. 

            The dayâs meeting ended with an executive session.                                  

-Doug Johnson

© 2001 United Church of God, an International Association