![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/journal-logo.jpg\"){kind=logo}
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
COGwriter <\/a><\/p>\n The latest issue of The Journal<\/em> has the following:<\/p>\n BIG SANDY, Texas\u2014Every once in a while THE JOURNAL senses the need to interview a longtime friend and Church of God member about some subject or other. Several interviews in this newspaper with the friend, Ellis W. Stewart\u2014who lives here with his wife of 55 years, Pat\u2014have touched on matters pertaining to the United Church of God (UCG).<\/p>\n Mr. Stewart, 76, is a UCG elder and has served as such since 1995, the year of the massive splits from the Worldwide Church of God that seeded many of the present-day Churches of God…<\/p>\n Surprising results<\/strong> Q: What was most surprising to you about this year\u2019s conference? A:<\/strong> I think it was the way the voting went.<\/p>\n Q: Just what do you mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n A<\/strong>: Well, I expected some of the [proposed] amendments [to the church\u2019s bylaws] to go the other way in the voting. One of them was the relocation of the office [from Milford, Ohio, to the Denton, Texas, area].\u00a0 I also expected the conflict-of-interest amendment to pass, but it didn\u2019t…<\/p>\n Q: Didn\u2019t Roy Holladay lose his job as president because of what was apparently a principled stand of his to resign from the council when the council selected him as president of the church? Wasn\u2019t his resignation from the council to avoid a conflict of interest?<\/strong><\/p>\n A<\/strong>: I don\u2019t know. He was not voted back in. What causes anyone to lose their job? It\u2019s voting, or balloting, or whatever you want to call it. Almost all of our presidents have been fired, if you want to say \u201cfired.\u201d<\/p>\n Q: So which side do you lean toward? Do you want to reveal how you voted on the conflict-of-interest issue? A: <\/strong>No, I don\u2019t. I think our voting should be private. I see both sides of the story.<\/p>\n The new majority<\/strong><\/p>\n Q: What do you think about the new makeup of the council?<\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> We prayed and fasted [before the recent election of council members], and I feel God\u2019s will was done. Apparently God wanted new people on the board with, probably, new ideas. New people usually have new ideas. I don\u2019t know why God calls different people to different jobs, but it says that Christ places us in the church where it pleases Him. This [the UCG] is just a physical organization that helps run the church. United\u2019s a part of the church. So I would think this [the election results] is God\u2019s will. I think, when we fasted and prayed, God tried to show us something.<\/p>\n Why not unanimity?<\/strong><\/p>\n Q: You elders fasted and prayed for God\u2019s will to be done in the election.\u00a0 So why didn\u2019t God inspire the votes to be unanimous?<\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> God guided the men who were voting by letting their opinions be known.<\/p>\n Q: So you voted not necessarily to determine God\u2019s will but to determine what the elders\u2019 opinions were?<\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> There is safety in a multitude of counselors. Maybe that\u2019s what Christ is trying to show His church. That\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to do. What does the vote tell me? What does it tell the president? What does it tell the council?\u00a0 What does it tell God?<\/p>\n It says that the opinion of the majority of the elders was that the decision to move the office should be Q: A minute ago you said the vote reflected God\u2019s will, which I assumed meant you believed God\u2019s will was that the church not move its office to Texas. Now you seem to be saying that the vote was successful, and in line with God\u2019s will, simply by determining and documenting the majority opinion of the elders. Aren\u2019t those two different things? <\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> The conference is a way for the elders to participate in a multitude of counsel, which is the system we set up in Indianapolis [at the UCG\u2019s founding conference, in 1995]. Voting, maybe we should call it balloting, is a way to determine the consensus among the elders, and I believe it is God\u2019s will that we determine what the Q: Both votes were very close. So you don\u2019t think either one reflected any kind of consensus? <\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> It means that half the people are for the move and half are against it. If the vote had been 90 percent for and 10 percent against, I\u2019d say let\u2019s get on with it.<\/p>\n Q: What about 60-40?<\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> Sixty-40 maybe, but not when it\u2019s this close.<\/p>\n Two problems with WCG<\/strong><\/p>\n Q: So you\u2019re saying that trying to build a consensus that\u2019s more than just a simple majority is a way to get back to the principles espoused at the founding conference in 1995? <\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> When we went to Indianapolis, I think some people thought that the only thing that was wrong with Worldwide was that the doctrine was wrong because in Worldwide we were going to throw away God\u2019s law. But when we got to Indianapolis we also changed the way the government is run, and I think a lot of people still do not see that. They think it was just a doctrinal change rather than both a doctrinal and a governmental change.<\/p>\n Eventual move?<\/strong><\/p>\n Q: Concerning the other surprise for you at the conference, do you think the church will eventually move its headquarters to Texas? <\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> Why do I need to answer that?<\/p>\n Q: Well, you don\u2019t have to answer it. It\u2019s just that this is an interview, and that\u2019s one of my questions.<\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> I think that, because in a multitude of counsel there is safety, after all the facts are in, our administration will see whether it\u2019s God\u2019s will to move to Texas, okay? Why haven\u2019t we moved already? Because we\u2019re trying to get a consensus, through a multitude of counsel, to see if it\u2019s what we should do or not.<\/p>\n Q: To do what? To build a consensus or to see if it\u2019s God\u2019s will for you to move? Remember: You\u2019ve been implying that those are two different things. <\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> To get a multitude of counsel, and I don\u2019t agree that we\u2019ve been talking about two different things…<\/p>\n Changes of direction?<\/strong><\/p>\n Q: Are you optimistic about the new majority on the council? <\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> I\u2019ve been optimistic about United from day one. Yes.<\/p>\n Q: Do you see any changes of direction\u2014course corrections, so to speak\u2014with the new council majority in charge? <\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> This involves people. I hate to compare the church with Democrats and Republicans, but you\u2019ll have different people with different views ruling for a while, and then they\u2019ll switch and rule a different way. God lets things like that happen. I don\u2019t want this to be a political thing. I think with new people there\u2019s new blood, and apparently it\u2019s good to rotate responsibilities. That\u2019s why we transfer people around a lot of times and give them different responsibilities. I think it\u2019s good for the organization. So I am optimistic. What do you think, Dixon? Do you think there\u2019s going to be some changes?<\/p>\n Q: I think, yes, there will be some. I see, at least in small ways, the possibility that UCG members will get the go-ahead to innovate on a local level concerning preaching the gospel or whatever they believe constitutes doing the work, as the Churches of God like to say. In other words, the new majority could signal a return to some of the original ideas and ideals of the majority in Indianapolis in 1995. <\/strong><\/p>\n A:<\/strong> Any organization is going to make mistakes, and I think, by consulting a multitude of counselors, the new people will realize the mistakes that we made in the past. Then we will step out and get the opinions of the elders before a major decision is made in the church. So I think that will be a plus. The interview continued, but the above gives a pretty good idea of how it went.<\/p>\n To highlight one of the things that Eliis Steward stated, I will repeat it with my own bolding:<\/p>\n But when we got to Indianapolis we also changed the way the government is run, and I think a lot of people still do not see that. They think it was just a doctrinal change rather than both a doctrinal and a governmental change.<\/strong><\/p>\n UCG has various opinions on governance.\u00a0 My own opinion is that this is to be expected as it rejected Philadelphia-era governance.\u00a0 The government change it made was a doctrinal change and it showed a rejection of the type of governance that the leaders of UCG had publicly endorsed for many years prior to the formation of UCG in Indianapolis in 1995.<\/p>\n The fact that UCG rejected Philadelphia-era governance should show any with eyes to see that UCG is NOT Philadelphian.<\/p>\n Some articles of possibly related interest may include:<\/em><\/p>\n Polycarp, Herbert W. Armstrong, and Roderick C. Meredith on Church Government<\/a> What form of governance did the early church have? Which form of governance would one expect to have in the Philadelphia remnant? The people decide and\/or committee forms, odd dictatorships, or the same type that the Philadelphia era itself had? COGwriter The latest issue of The Journal has the following: BIG SANDY, Texas\u2014Every once in a while THE JOURNAL senses the need to interview a longtime friend and Church of God member about some subject or other. Several interviews in this newspaper with the friend, Ellis W. Stewart\u2014who lives here with his wife of 55 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cog-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nreversed.<\/p>\n
\nconsensus is…<\/p>\n
\nHowever, I also think that if we have leaders we should let them have the responsibility. I don\u2019t think we
\nindividuals should try to micromanage the men we\u2019ve put there for those responsibilities. That\u2019s one thing I don\u2019t want to see happen.<\/p>\n
\nDifferences between the Living Church of God and United Church of God<\/a> This article provides quotes information from the two largest groups which had their origins in WCG as well as commentary.
\nGetting the Gospel Out is More than a Local Job<\/a> Discusses Biblical rationale for doing an international, and not just a local, work.
\nThere are Many COGs: Why Support the Living Church of God?<\/a> This is an article for those who wish to easily sort out the different COGs. It really should be a MUST READ for current and former WCG members or any interested in supporting the faithful church. It also explains a lot of what the COGs are all about.
\nThe Philadelphia Church Era<\/a> was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the Living Church of God.
\nThe Laodicean Church Era <\/a>was predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. Non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"