Atmosphere
of Fear and Intimidation
1974 David
Antion Memo to Garner Ted Armstrong
WORLDWIDE
CHURCH OF GOD
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 18, 1974
TO:
Mr. Ted Armstrong
FROM:
David L. Antion
SUBJECT:
Problems
Dear
Ted,
As
you are well aware there is a great lack of confidence in the field ministry
toward Headquarters in Pasadena. This has been building up for sometime. It is
now intensifying to an explosive condition.
A
look at the history in the Work over the last few years will give a background
to what is happening today. The roots of Doctrinal problems go back to the
mid-sixties when effective Ministerial Conferences came to an end.
Today,
most of the ministers in the United States have heard of the Doctrinal problems.
Some do not know what the questions are, but they do know there are questions.
A
number of ministers have major questions with conscience in regard to certain
doctrines and practices held by the Work. I am sure you will understand this
since you have expressed some questions yourself. It has become widespread that
you have doubts about the D & R Doctrine.
In
the last year, I received many questions about the Doctrines now under intense
scrutiny. I tried to assure the ministers that there would be Doctrinal
discussions at Headquarters where we would go into there matters.
In
the fall of 1972, I wrote a memo to Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong stating the
problems then extant in the field. I expressed at that time that ministers were
losing confidence. They were in doubt on such matters as Healing, Prophecy,
Divorce and Remarriage, Church Eras, etc. I strongly recommended that we hold
regular high leveled doctrinal and judgmental conferences to consider the many
questions that had been coming in. At my urging (and Mr. Portune's support) your
father consented to hold some Evangelists meetings prior to the 1973 Ministerial
Conference. At the time we took up Tithing and a couple of other topics. You
attended a few of the sessions, but were busy with T.V. a good part of the time.
These
meetings started November 1972 and continued until shortly before the conference
in January 1973. Robert Kulm was instrumental in helping edit the material for
the conference. We did go into Tithing, inviting people to Church, hair lengths,
sideburns, etc. All minor issues, while as you said, "the major issues lie
there screaming for attention." But it was the best we could do at the
time. Even that took a lot of prodding and pushing to accomplish.
The
meetings died after January 1973. Meanwhile, issues like
"Sacred-Names" came up. In December 1972, it was announced that the
committee was researching Divorce and Remarriage. This became widely known all
over the country. Many began to look into the Doctrine. Also, in the first half
of 1973, Pentecost came sharply into focus with at least one Evangelist in
Pasadena observing it privately on Sunday. There were several other ministers
who did the same. This news also got out to the field causing several to start
looking in the matter for themselves.
Presently,
these Doctrinal matters are absolutely critical.
Over
the last year, but especially in the last six months, I have talked with
ministers who have major questions on D & R and on Pentecost. I urged them
to hold fast and that Headquarters was working on getting a Doctrinal meeting
formed and that these things would be gone into and answered. As you know, I
have been fully behind Doctrinal discussions. I have urged that full Doctrinal
meetings take place.
Presently,
there are two Regional Directors who feel that they probably cannot
conscientiously handle D & R cases according to our present Doctrine. There
are several other ministers who also feel the same way. There have been a number
of ministers at Headquarters who have refused to sit in on D & R
discussions, but who do not want it to be known. These Headquarter's ministers
are glad they don't have to handle D & R problems, because they cannot do it
conscientiously.
At
the risk of losing my credibility, I have asked men to be patient, that
something would be done. If only something had been done two years ago, or
fifteen months ago, or even six months ago the problem would not be as acute
today.
But
here is what happened. John Mitchell, Tom Fish, Al Carrozzo, Barry Chase, and
Bob Jenness have left; word of the issues has spread far and wide. Papers on
Pentecost and D & R primarily (and other subjects secondarily) have
circulated to people not only in Pasadena, but also over the country. Many
ministers are fully informed on these subjects. Others have definite opinions of
conscience.
It
was good news in January for the men to hear that Pentecost was going to be
looked into. But, it now appears that Pentecost is only the tip of a major
Doctrinal iceberg. It is being watched mainly because it will indicate the
climate in the Church for truth-seeking and change.
Even
now, some feel that Pentecost is only being examined because the organization is
being threatened, not because truth is being sought.
I
must now bring other problem issues to you as I see them. The situation is so
critical, a number of men will no longer be held back by asking them to be
patient. You may wonder why I don't do something. I have less authority to
tackle the real issues than you do, and you feel pretty powerless to get at the
solutions sometimes yourself.
With
Ernest teaching doctrine, word is spreading faster. Because we are looking at
Pentecost, it has given rise to greater questioning in other areas of Doctrine.
Personally,
I have had to do some preliminary study into D & R because of the questions
from ministers. I am convinced there are major questions with our present
doctrine as expressed in our booklet "Marriage and Divorce." These
questions need to be resolved.
Not
only are there Doctrinal issues, but also there are questions of personal
accountability. In the minds of some ministers, questions of Pentecost is not a
matter for one man to decide and everyone else to obey. It is a matter of what
the Bible says and our responsibility as servants of God to accept God's word.
The
same is true for D & R. The men who feel conscience stricken on the subject,
feel that they are "hirelings" who are expected to carry out the
administration of what someone else decides. They feel they are being asked to
obey whether they agree or disagree without answer or explanation to questions.
Of course, they know that to disagree is being "disloyal" and that
they can be put out of the Church and out of the Ministry.
This
brings up another subject which I must mention here. That is the general
governmental atmosphere of the Work. Personally, I feel (and I think many others
feel, or would feel the same, if asked) that the atmosphere is not conducive to
seeking truth. It is not an atmosphere which produce honesty, candor, openness.
Rather, it is an atmosphere, which by its very nature, intimidates, makes
cowards of men, forces conformity to those in authority.
There
have been many meetings in which I felt there was more to be discussed. But the
atmosphere was intimidating. To bring up another point for consideration, there
were times when one would have to fear for his job.
Witness
our meeting of 1972 about the budget, when Mr. Herbert Armstrong decided that he
would write the fasting and prayer letter to get the income up to 30 percent.
Whenever
a man states his feelings, he is often made to feel guilty by the frequent
quoting of Korah's rebellion or Miriam and Aaron's speaking against Moses.
Speaking
one's mind is not necessarily tantamount to challenging the office of a
superior. Yet, at times a person who speaks out is made to feel like a rebel.
There
were cases of murmuring in the new testament (Acts 6), but it did not cause the
apostles to react with authority and power. Rather, they looked into the cause
of the murmurings. When they found the cause they dealt with it. The cause was
not the murmuring itself, but the neglect of the widows. When they saw this they
took the proper steps immediately to correct the situation (not the people).
I
am sure, you yourself, have experienced this intimidated feeling at times. I
feel that hundreds of people from Big Sandy to England, from Australia to South
Africa, and from Canada to New Zealand could say the same.
I
am coming to you with what is one of the greatest burdens of my life. There is
no way to hold the field together without facing the problems honestly and
courageously. We don't have enough ministers available to cover the loss if we
don't solve the heart of the problems.
Here
are the things that, in my judgment must be dealt with in order to save the
Church from breaking up:
1.
We must change the atmosphere to an open climate without fear and intimidation.
The signs in the recent happenings in the field are signs of fear that the
organization will not deal fairly with the local minister. That's why a minister
will refuse to come to Headquarters for questioning. He is afraid that the
organization will blacken his name. When people fear for their security, when
they are fearful of being fired, they feel trapped and do things from fear, not
from logic or loyalty.
If
one person accuses another, what happens? The accused person is assumed to be
guilty and must defend his reputation, justify himself, but yet he still suffers
from a hidden under-the-surface suspicion that sometimes lingers for years. This
atmosphere does not produce good fruit. And it does not produce loyalty.
Loyalty
cannot be demanded or commanded. It is not produced by fear.
It
must be given voluntarily by men who are unintimidated and who really believe!
2.
Doctrine. D & R must be discussed for the sake of the ministry as well as
the people. It must be discussed in an open, candid atmosphere where a man can
express his feelings without having a stigma attached to him the rest of his
life.
There
are other doctrinal matters which must be discussed in the near future. These
will become major issues as they become known. In fact there should be men
appointed who devote almost full time to Doctrinal and judgmental issues. It
would be good if some of them have field experience so that practical issues of
the field can be represented.
I
have spoken candidly in this letter. I have tried to be straight forward and
honest with you for the good of the Work. I hope this letter does not stigmatize
me as rebellious, resentful of authority, or disloyal. My intent is to inform
you of the dangers I see and to try to be loyal by helping you the only way I
honestly know how at this point.
I
would like to request that your father be brought into the situation as soon as
possible. It would be good for us to have an audience with him and to appraise
him of the whole situation. Since he is the only one with the authority needed
to make the changes necessary to resolve these problems, it seems we must take
the crisis to him.
In
any case, the situation is extremely grave. there is no way I can keep the field
from coming apart though I have tried. I have introduced many projects to keep
the men encouraged and to help them in their work. But that is not the answer.
These are matters of Bible and conscience. We cannot ask or demand that men
throw these aside for the sake of the organization.
I
don't wish to add to your burdens at this time, but it is a crisis situation
that I feel must be dealt with soon.