There has been much confusion in recent months surrounding the proper Biblical guidelines for Church governance, and on the importance of the Great Commission in the Church's setting of priorities. The Living Church of God was formed as a result of conflicting perspectives on these issues. The article below was excerpted from a letter written by the Church's Treasurer, Fred Dattolo.
Conflict on How the Church Should be Governed
Those who have read all of the papers recently mailed to the ministry and membership in an attempt to rebut Dr. Meredith’s letter to the membership will notice that these papers repeatedly imply that the “government” booklet is the only document that the Church should use in formulating its position on government. For example, it is stated that “the Government booklet is VERY CLEAR as how the NT Church functioned, and as how, then, GCG would function” (letter to the Council of Elders, May 11, 1998). There are several problems with this conclusion. First, the booklet had a specific purpose. Note how Dr. Meredith himself explains it:
“This booklet is NOT intended to be a thorough discussion of all the details and ramifications of church government. Please understand that. Rather, it is intended to help honest and courageous Christians know what they should do when the controlling leadership positions in their church organization become hijacked or corrupted by evil men whose agenda is to turn that church from the Truth” (When Should You Follow Church Government? October 1995, p.2).
In other words, as Dr. Meredith stated on several occasions, his intent was to show the brethren that when the leader of God’s Church quits preaching the Truth, the brethren are not obliged to remain in the corporate organization. Therefore, the emphasis of the booklet supports the purpose for which he wrote it. Even so, contrary to what certain individuals would have us believe, Dr. Meredith did not say that Peter was not a leader among equals! Although he did not emphasize it as much as he could have with dozens of scriptures, he nevertheless states:
“You do find that Peter took the lead among the original twelve apostles and was acknowledged…as the main speaker and leader…Peter was entrusted with the administrative supervision of preaching Christ’s Gospel to the ‘circumcision’” (ibid. p.12). Let us now use an analogy to explain this further.
What is the purpose of the booklet on tithing? Is it to explain everything there is to know about tithing or simply to introduce newcomers to the concept? What if one takes the same approach to the tithing booklet that is taken to the government booklet? One would then have to insist that the tithing booklet be the only document the Church use in formulating its position on tithing. Furthermore, one could assume that the author does not believe in second or third tithe since these concepts are not mentioned in his booklet! This is absurd, of course. Why do some insist on applying the same logic to the government booklet? It does not make sense. Just as the Church has published articles that expand the tithing booklet, it has likewise published articles that expand the government booklet. Examples include the article by Dr. Meredith, What is the Biblical Form of Church Government? (GCN, Sept/Oct 1995) and the article written by me, An Open Letter in Defense of Global (GCN, July/Aug 1996). These articles amplify and add to the narrowly defined purpose of the booklet!
There is another problem with such a conclusion.
The Church has consistently stated that it follows the teachings of Mr. Armstrong. To accept a narrow interpretation of the booklet alone—while ignoring other articles and sermons—is contradictory to what Mr. Armstrong clearly taught. Reading material written by Mr. Armstrong is shocking and eye opening by comparison because it shows how far those holding this opinion have strayed from the Truth about government we all learned under God’s end-time apostle! [Please refer to selected excerpts from a 1979 article by Mr. Armstrong, presented at the end of this article]
There is yet one more problem in respect to the narrow use of the government booklet. Such use seems to elevate it, incomplete as it is, higher than the Scripture. Notice this comment in a letter to the Council of Elders, dated May 11, 1998. It states “Fred Dattolo’s letter, with all respect, should not be given a position of overriding the clear statements of [the booklet]”. This letter contained a compilation of key scriptures showing that Peter was indeed chief, or first among equals, as well as quotes by Mr. Armstrong on the subject—all summarily dismissed in one sentence.
For months, many waited for someone to address the scriptures brought out in that letter. Dr. Meredith did so in a sermon on government given at headquarters on November 7. Some in the congregation felt it was the most balanced sermon on government they had ever heard. Some expected the study papers by Church leaders to shed some light on these scriptures too, but they were for the most part ignored. One paper does indirectly refer to one of these scriptures. Notice this statement: “Some think it proper to call Peter ‘first among equals.’ The Bible never uses this terminology…” (A CANDID A-N-A-L-Y-L-Y-S-I-S [sic] of R.C.M’s Paper Entitled: “THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT?” page 10). Is this a true statement according to the scriptures?
In Matthew 10:2, the apostle Matthew states this: “Now the names of the twelve apostles [all equal in rank] are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother…”. Does the word “first” [Greek “protos”] merely imply chronological order? No! The Gospel of John shows that the apostle Andrew was called before his brother Peter (John 1:35-41). Andrew was the one who told Peter he had found the Messiah, so Andrew was “first” in that sense. What could it mean then? Notice how the Greek word “protos” is used in the following passages:
Matthew 20:27— “And whoever desires to be first (KJV: “chief”) among you, let him be your slave.”
Matthew 22:38— “This is the first and great commandment.”
Luke 15:22— “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe’…”
Acts 16:12— “and from there to Philippi, which is the foremost city of that part…”
Acts 28:7— “Now in that region there was an estate of the leading citizen…”
I Timothy 1:15— “…that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”
Revelation 2:4— “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.”
Obviously, these passages speak about much more than simply being first on a list! When one considers all the scriptures pertaining to Peter, it is easy to conclude that Peter was, as Mr. Armstrong put it, the CHIEF apostle. This agrees with what Matthew stated. In other words, Peter was “first among equals”!
A balanced study of this topic would have included many basic scriptures that were ignored. For example, when does Christ change a man’s name and what significance does it have? He changed Abram’s name to Abraham, Jacob’s name to Israel and Simon’s name to Peter— meaning “a stone” (John 1:42). Christ was the Rock! Do we just overlook that fact or do we accept that Peter (the stone) had authority under Christ (the Rock)? What significance is there in the fact that only Peter received the “keys” of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19)? What do other scriptures tell us about “keys”?
What significance do we place on the fact that Christ used Peter first, to “open up salvation to the Gentiles” as Mr. Armstrong often put it, even though that was Paul’s commission? When this was mentioned to an evangelist several months ago in his office, he replied “that is not correct” and referred me to Acts 8:14, citing that both Peter and John were first sent to the Gentiles. This is not exactly what that scripture says. Referring to Peter alone, Acts 15:7 states: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”
Now, look at Acts 15. Was Peter just a figurehead, merely a coordinator, or did he have real authority over the other apostles, as long as they were together in Jerusalem? Mr. Armstrong said that “this crucial crux chapter [Acts 15] has been misunderstood, twisted and distorted” (WN, Feb. 19, 1979, page 4). He also stated that “the Jerusalem conference showed that PETER was predominant over even Paul” (ibid. page 2). In Acts 15, we find that there was “much dispute” , “long discussion” or a “keen controversy” as different translations render verse 7. When a decision finally had to be made, this evangelist assumed that there was “consensus”. The Bible does not say that!
After all the debating and listening to all sides, Peter rose up to settle the dispute. Notice after he spoke that “all the multitude kept silent” , “ther e was no further discussion” , that “this silenced the entire assembly” as different translations render verse 12. As Mr. Armstrong put it, “the other apostles and ministers were all in confusion, arguing and disputing. But CHRIST silenced them by speaking through His CHOSEN chief apostle, Peter” (ibid. page 4). Peter had spoken and that settled the matter. Paul and Barnabas went on to give “the NEWS of what God had [done] through their ministry. They were NOT giving their input to the disputed question—the question had been SETTLED—by PETER” (ibid. page 2). As pastor of the Jerusalem Church, “James merely CONFIRMED Peter’s decision, making it official” (ibid. page 2). Then we see the ministry rally around the decision because they supported Peter’s role as their leader. You must read the article to get the in-depth analysis of Mr. Armstrong’s interpretation of Acts 15. In light of all the scriptures pertaining to Peter, these novel interpretations of Acts 15 do not make sense—Mr. Armstrong’s interpretation of Acts 15 fits with the totality of Scripture. The Bible shows there was support for the decision but it does not say there was a consensus.
Conflict Regarding the Church’s Mission
The proper form of Church government is only one of the issues of conflict that resulted in the establishment of the Living Church of God. The other is the focus that the Church should have in accomplishing its Work. It may be helpful to consider the document “Strategic Plan, presented to the Global Church of God’s Council of Elders, September 8, 1998”. Notice these quotes:
“SUBSTANTIALLY ALL FEEL…when we are focused properly, God will bless the Work…”
“The consensus is that available resources, money and people, should be focused at this time, on building and strengthening Headquarters and the Ministry.”
“Thus ‘the feeding of the flock’ would become our highest priority, for a time” (emphasis ours). This recommendation was made in spite of the fact that “feeding of the flock” had risen to 55 percent of the Church’s annual budget while “preaching the Gospel” had dropped to 34 percent and “administration” had remained constant at 11 percent.
“PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL: During this time of reaching out to our brethren, we might continue devoting funds to the ‘preaching of the gospel’ in the areas of public access TV in the U.S.” Conspicuously omitted from consideration was WGN.
“OVERALL STATEMENT OF CONCLUSION: Commit the resources that God provides toward the people that God has provided; nurture and strengthen the ‘flock’ that God is providing—to prepare them for His soon Coming. This was the assignment left by God’s Apostle, Herbert W. Armstrong, at the time of His death.” However, notice Mr. Armstrong’s last words to all the membership, which directly contradict this statement. In his member letter of January 10, 1986—just six days before his death—he states:
“Continue to sacrifice through 1986 to finish the commission God has given His Church”. What did he mean “the” commission? His final words to the membership were these: “Each of you must commit yourself to support God’s Work, to fast and pray. God’s Work must push ahead this coming year as never before. [What did he mean by “God’s Work”?]. God is opening new doors in television and in [magazine] distribution. Help us walk through them. Praise and thank God, and pray for His Work. Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart for your prayers and for me personally.” As you know, Mr. Armstrong referred to the proclaiming of the Gospel as the GREAT commission. Notice Luke 4:42-43. The crowd sought to keep Jesus as their Shepherd, for themselves. However, he clearly stated “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent.” The New Testament pattern was to proclaim the Gospel first and then to feed the sheep. Mr. Armstrong followed the same pattern. Dr. Meredith, in founding the Global Church of God, had the same vision. There is no scriptural basis indicating we should make “feeding the flock” our top priority! We know that Dr. Meredith would not agree with that and it became a point of contention.
Conclusion
Many who have met with Dr. Meredith, in formal meetings or in informal settings, can confirm that he is not the person portrayed by some of those opposing his Biblical vision of the Work of the Church.
Between 1993 and 1996, when Dr. Meredith was effectively leading the Global Church of God, there was incredible growth. Even in 1996, the income went up about 20 percent over the year before. Only in the last couple of years did the growth slow to only about 5 percent. WHAT HAPPENED? Notice what Mr. Armstrong wrote in the Worldwide News, Feb. 19, 1979:
“WHAT CAUSED GOD TO WITHDRAW HIS BLESSING AND POWER? …Following different leaders, speaking different things, watering down the sacred and precious truths of Christ…Once such division starts among ministers it is a difficult matter to correct.” You be the judge of whether those words apply today!