Quit pickin' on Joe

It always amazes me when people don't "get" the problem with the way Joe Tkach's GCI is set up.

"As for the board members, who should they be? Who would be the voting populaton [sic]? The general membership of GCI? Should there be the travesty like our current national elections carried out in GCI?"

GCI isn't a private company, it's supposed to be a church, a non-profit. It claims a membership. A church needs lines of accountability that ensure that membership is fairly served. It needs officers who serve at the membership's pleasure. It needs lines of accountability that flow both ways - no just accountability of the "members" to the leaders, but even more importantly the leaders to the members.

The Episcopal Lie

GCI claims to be organized on an episcopal basis. That's a fiction. There was no talk of any such thing until the receivership crisis. Prior to that WCG (as it was then known) operated on a legally different basis. Not that it lived up to those obligations; that was one of the big issues that underlay the action by the State of California. The near-papal claims that then conveniently emerged - and the reorganization as a corporate sole - were little more than a ruse to avoid its obligations. Joe Tkach has maintained the lie despite the fact that there is no appetite in GCI for a return to the old Armstrong ways.

Have a look at other church bodies, both in North America and throughout the Western world. Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopal (yes, even the Episcopal Church), Lutheran, Adventist, Methodist. Add in the Church of God (Seventh Day) for something more directly related to GCI. All have some form of representative structure varying from General Conferences to delegated Synods. Even the Mormons go through the motions. GCI? Not.

It's entirely moronic to imply that because a particular political system has flaws, therefore members of a church should be deprived of their rights and the leaders effectively given carte blanche to do as they please. No system is perfect, but some are clearly much better than others. There's a wide range of helpful models out there used by various denominations. One thing is for sure, GCI's is among the very worst. It takes some swallowing, but both LCG and UCG do a better job in transparency (though their structures continue to deny basic lines of leadership accountability).

But Joe and Co. are nice guys

It's not an issue that a Board has some decent members. Joe has been careful in that respect, apart from larding it up with Tammy. The issue is - is it a real board, capable of independent action and hauling the church's officers into line when necessary? Or is it a collection of carefully selected yes-men and yes-women beholden to the "owner", serving at his pleasure. And exactly who do those board members represent given that they're appointed not elected.

Questions that need clarification

Wouldn't it be wonderful if one of those hand-picked board members responded to the following questions and set any misunderstandings at rest?

1. Who is Joe accountable to?
2. Who is the Board accountable to?
3. Who has (and hasn't) access to the financial statements?
4. Who has (and hasn't) access to Board minutes?
5. What exactly is the legal status of the GCI "members"?

My understanding - and I hope I'm mistaken or years out of date - is:

1. Technically the Board. In reality no-one.
2. Joseph Tkach Jr.
3. Almost nobody. In contrast to UCG and LCG which, dubious as their organizations might be in other ways (and I'm a fan of neither), have a solid record of reporting to their memberships - and in fact anyone else who cares to view them.
4. Almost nobody. In contrast to UCG which publishes minutes online for all to see.
5. They have no real status or rights. Apart from some limited local input, denominational decisions are taken over the tops of their heads entirely. You could describe them as "stakeholders" or "clients". Members? Not really.

Again, I'd be delighted to correct any misunderstandings on my part. The challenge is for Joe or any of his Board members to set the record straight. One lives in hope, but I won't be holding my breath.

A company - unless it's a small family firm - has shareholders. The shareholders meet to determine and approve company policy. GCI doesn't even allow that. No shareholders except Joe and ... who knows.

The Bottom Line

A Christian Church isn't a family firm. It isn't a commercial business. It isn't a personal fiefdom. It shouldn't be run like North Korea. Members are entitled to a voice and representation or they're not really members. Whether or not the "Beloved Leader" postures as a model of benevolence or not is beside the point.

Some Reformation: Joe heads to NC

"Just yesterday morning (August 25), after months of prayerful deliberation, the GCI Board met, concluding that we should proceed to implement plans to relocate the Home Office to a yet-to-be-determined location in North Carolina."
Joe Tkach Jr

So the Tkach sect is uprooting again. Oregon (in early Herbal days), Pasadena, Glendora and now an undisclosed location in North Carolina.

Yet-to-be-determined? I don't believe a word of it. Months of prayerful deliberation? You mean back room plotting?

The question is, why the move?

Of course, Joe has an explanation.

"Southern California has served us well, yet over time the cost of living has reached the point where consideration has to be given to relocating."

Cost of living?

"A major consideration for relocation is that we can cut our overhead (i.e., cost of doing business in California) by $500,000 per year. While this may seem reason enough to move out of California, there are other advantages. Our Glendora church property has significantly increased in value; by relocating, we would access some of that accrued equity to go directly into our mission of the gospel proclamation... Another significant factor to consider in relocation is 65% of our congregations are in the eastern half of the continental US... Our management team has been searching for an area with good quality of life and access to more affordable housing for our employees."

Sounds a lot like the reason the Meredith sect gave for relocating to Charlotte. The old boys wanted a nice lifestyle with a nice climate to see them out. Everything else, one suspects, was justification after the fact. Beneath all the PR bullgeschichte that Joe burbles, it'd put good money on similar factors being in play this time too. Could it be that, in the process, Joe can dump some unwanted baggage and set himself up for an even nicer sinecure of a retirement?

"... more affordable housing for our employees"? Really. How many of these lucky employees will have to stay behind in LA to keep close to family? Tough break. Those who own homes in the area? Did they get a vote? Let's not be silly, this is all about Joe & Co. getting their way and devil take the hindmost.

North Carolina is where Armstrong sects go to wither and die. The Ritenbaugh sect (Church of the Great God, Charlotte), the Meredith sect (LCG, Charlotte). Do you think Joe might have (hush, hush sweet) Charlotte in mind too? The possibilities are intriguing; imagine Wednesday night beer and poker with Joe, Richard and Gerry!

Think back to the name change to GCI. Joey had it all prearranged, then they decided to pull a soft PR stunt and take member suggestions into consideration. How thoughtful and consultative. When the dust settled, they still went with a variant of Joe's first choice. Surprise!

Final thought. PG Joe writes about his Board. He gives cute little bios of the members. The one thing he doesn't explain is how these individuals ended up on the board. Elected were they Joe? Or perhaps they were appointed from on high, the angel Moroni descending with the names inscribed on holy scrolls. No, not so likely. Appointed, yes; from on high, yes. On high being Joe's big boy chair in his soon to be relocated office.

Sounds like a Board accountable not to the church, not to the members, but to... guess who? Was there ever any possibility that voices on that board would be raised in opposition to their lord and master?

Some reformation.

G(C)I Joe on Brexit

Joe Tkach has ventured forth to offer enlightened commentary on Brexit in his Weekly Update.

"You have likely heard a lot over the last couple of weeks about “Brexit.”"

Yes, likely.

"GCI-USA Regional Pastor Rick Shallenberger was in the UK the week of the vote and sent me this report".

 On holiday was he? I guess Rick is one of the few left on the payroll.

"What bothers me the most, Joe, is to hear Christians speculate that this decision fulfills prophecy, some indicating that it aligns with British-Israelism. I even heard some say this decision makes way for the rise of the Holy Roman Empire. It saddens me when people read more into an event than is there. The British people need our prayers as they transition into a new reality for the country. Whether or not this was a good decision, it happened and so we pray for the people involved. We also continue to pray that God provides the means for the gospel to be shared in Great Britain."

The trite comments about providing "the means for the gospel to be shared in Great Britain" deserve a separate response, something about "American Evangelical Imperialism", but maybe another time. More to the point, given that Rick will have been chatting to local GCI members, not rabid LCG/PCG types, it seems all that quoting of Torrance and "Trinitarian theology" has had little effect on the doughty survivors from WCG days. Guess that's a "fail".

Back to Joe Jr.

"Years ago, Hebert Armstrong (our denomination’s founder) did say that Britain would eventually leave the European Union. But he did not get that idea from Scripture—he got it from others who taught what is known as Anglo- or British-Israelism... It’s all too easy to grab hold of a few prophetic statements someone makes, thinking they are right and thus should be followed. But we must look at the larger picture. Herbert Armstrong (along with others) made multiple prophetic statements eventually proven wrong. Mr. Armstrong twice wrongly predicted detailed time-frames for end-time events, including Jesus’ return. Major erroneous predictions like those far outweigh the few, relatively minor predictions that actually came to pass."

Did you catch the typo... Hebert Armstrong? Not a professional look Joe. Must have fired all the employees willing to proof read his stuff.

Overall what Joe says is fair comment, and the sort of thing you might read here. I suppose we have to acknowledge that Joe at least addressed the elephant in the room as Brexit has dominated news... Herb's prophecies on Europe, albeit in a hand-wringing, passionless sort of way.

Then it's back to the gelatinous platitudes.

If knowledge is power...

If knowledge is power, Joe isn't sharing

Time for a quick quiz, brethren.

Section 1

(a) What is the name of GCI's outreach magazine?

(b) What is the name of GCI's member magazine?

Section 2

(a) Does GCI have a Facebook account for members to follow?

(b) Does GCI have a Twitter account for members to follow?

Section 3

How do GCI members stay current on church news and developments?

There, that wasn't so hard. Five simple questions, 20 points each to provide a nice percentage-like score out of 100.

Answers

Section 1: (a) there is none, Christian Odyssey no longer exists, not even as an "online only" publication. (b) there is none.

Section 2: (a) no. There is a GCI page - here - but it's "automatically generated based on what Facebook users are interested in and not affiliated with or endorsed by anyone associated with the topic." (b) no.

Section 3: apparently whatever the pastor decides to tell them at church services, plus whatever carefully curated items appear on the church's webpage under the heading 'GCI News'.

What's going on here?

If knowledge is power, Joe isn't sharing.

But wait, you cry, there's Joe's online Weekly Update! Not really. Joe uses the Weekly Update to ramble on in sermon mode. The March 2 version, for example, is entitled "Beware historical revisionism". Not a scrap of news about GCI in it anywhere.

So how do GCI members stay informed about developments in their church? Easy. They don't. UCG, COGWA and LCG do a much better job.

There are blogs; Ted Johnston, Tammy Tkach (last updated in August last year). But that's not news. Whatever "in-reach" GCI provides is woefully lacking in content or substance. It's true that some GCI congregations have their own local FB pages, but that hardly counts.

And outreach? What outreach?

It's all a bit gulag-like. Have Joe & Co.

(a) just given up?

(b) a Machiavellian (or Orwellian) method in their madness?

(c) both of the above

Sorry, I don't have an answer for that one, but I suspect 'c'.

So, how was your score?

From the original AW: Tkach's death grip on the church

Moves are afoot to make 2010 the year Joe Tkach can't ignore the call to accountability, with the initiative coming from the Purple Hymnal blog site. AW supports that unreservedly. Here - in condensed form - is an editorial from way-back-when (2004 actually), and a series of graphics, that appeared on the precursor to this blog. Nope, the call for Joe to finally get a conscience and surrender his sinecure is hardly new, but the old boy apparently has a hide as thick as a rhinoceros: the man apparently has no shame. This year, maybe, the hammering on the door will be loud enough, and insistent enough, to force some movement at last. If that amounts to GCI belatedly signing up to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, it would be a good start.

Americans elect their president every four years, and wisely limit any one incumbent to two terms. The same cautious approach is evident in the constitution of many churches. A church, like a nation, should not become the personal fiefdom of any individual, no matter how sincere or gifted they might be. Yet Pastor General Joe Tkach was appointed, not elected. Moreover he's already served a lengthy term as spiritual leader of the Worldwide Church of God, and apparently has "life tenure". Doesn't that sound more like a fringe cult than an evangelical denomination?

Almost all churches, including related movements like the Church of God (Seventh Day) and the United Church of God, have systems in place that hold their leaders accountable to the membership. Church presidents serve a limited term. Not so the WCG. Joe Jr. (he prefers to be addressed as Doctor Tkach) holds the very same title and office that Herbert W. Armstrong held. And while Joe is happy to trash any number of church traditions and doctrines from the past, he shows no enthusiasm for seeking endorsement for his position as the church's top dog. No General Conference exists to provide a counterbalance to the Pastor General's authority. The power of the ministry has been shown to be severely limited: stand up to Joe and Co. and you're likely to become a "pastor without portfolio".
The traditional argument that the Pastor General is accountable solely to Christ won't wash. The theology on which that particular bit of self-deception was based has long since been swept away in the flood waters of change. Has Joe heard about "the priesthood of all believers"? His friends in the wider evangelical community certainly have. In practice, "accountable to Christ" means not accountable at all.

But it gets worse. Legally it appears that the Worldwide Church of God is still "privately owned", and Pastor General Tkach is "sole proprietor". Caught off guard in a radio interview, he was asked what would stop him from just taking the money and leaving. The only reply he could come up with was that hisfamily would stop him.
While Tkach might deny that he "owns" the church, with the current legal structure of the organization the reality seems to be that he can hire and fire all board members at his personal discretion with absolutely no reason given. That's in writing. He can do whatever he wants with the corporation as long as it complies with government rules for a non-profit organization.

Here's what Michael Feazell said back in 1996, speaking to a conference of regional pastors.

"The church needs to be a priesthood of believers... It needs to be doing ministry. Everybody in the church has a stake in that--whether it's women, men, teens or children."

Stakeholders must have a voice. They are not powerless, passive observers.
The simple truth may well be that Joe doesn't trust the church he presumably serves. He won't risk relaxing the reins lest people come up with ideas he doesn't endorse. Perhaps Joe considers himself indispensable. Perhaps he's a control freak. Could it be that he is unwilling to lose his comfortable sinecure?

Pastor General Joe has been chief shepherd of his dwindling flock for far longer than is decent without, at the very least, endorsement from the membership. How long will he remain on his pontifical throne? (even the pope is elected by a college of cardinals). Will he be Pastor General for life - a religious version of Fidel Castro?

Michael Feazell writes in the July 2001Worldwide News: "If your church is a spiritual detriment to you, then you should consider finding another one... When the leader of a church indicates that he is God’s unique messenger or special representative in comparison with other Christian ministers... then you have another example of a church that is spiritually detrimental to its members."
Wise words. But what about churches where the leaders have safely elevated themselves beyond the influence of the members? A church, for example, that permits only token involvement of it's members in governance at either local or denominational level? How can Feazell justify the office of Pastor General and the hierarchical structure of the church in light of his own statement?

Tkach is on record as saying: "This fellowship has always been Episcopal, which is hierarchical..." Perhaps so. But this fellowship had always been Sabbatarian too, but that wasn't allowed to stand in the way of change. Even if an "Episcopal" model is to be used, there would need to be a long hard look at the parliamentary procedures actually used by the groups like the Episcopal Church; procedures which do indeed involve representative bodies of lay members at all levels. The Worldwide Church of God is out on a limb when it claims "episcopacy" as some kind of precedent for leadership by a clique or self appointed oligarchy. It is no such thing.

Joe has been single-minded in his efforts to inveigle his way into the evangelical mainstream. But despite cuddling up to evangelical leaders, his leadership style arguably has more in common with Louis Farrakhan than Billy Graham.

They used to say in Pasadena that the only thing that would topple Herbert Armstrong from his throne would be the Second Coming.

Apparently some things don't change.

Accountability check

http://wp.me/paBQA-5H

The Apostolic Chair

This was the first editorial I wrote for the former AW website. It's been updated slightly for the blog, but essentially it dates to 2001. Sadly, five years downstream, it still seems just as relevant.

Americans elect their president every four years, and wisely limit any one incumbent to two terms. The same cautious approach is evident in the constitution of many churches. A church, like a nation, should not become the personal fiefdom of any individual, no matter how sincere or gifted they might be. Yet Pastor General Joe Tkach was appointed, not elected. Moreover he's already served a lengthy term as spiritual leader of the Worldwide Church of God, and apparently has "life tenure". Doesn't that sound more like a fringe cult than an evangelical denomination?

Almost all churches, including related movements like the Church of God (Seventh Day) and the United Church of God, have systems in place that hold their leaders accountable in some way to the membership. Church presidents serve a limited term. Not so the WCG. Joe Jr. (he apparently likes to be addressed as Doctor Tkach) holds the very same title and office that Herbert W. Armstrong held. And while Joe is happy to trash any number of church traditions and doctrines from the past, he shows no enthusiasm for seeking endorsement for his position as the church's top dog. No General Conference exists to provide a counterbalance to the Pastor General's authority. The power of the ministry has been shown to be severely limited: stand up to Joe and Co. and you're likely to become a "pastor without portfolio".

The traditional argument that the Pastor General is accountable solely to Christ won't wash. The theology on which that particular bit of self-deception was based has long since been swept away in the flood waters of change. Has Joe heard about "the priesthood of all believers"? His friends in the wider evangelical community certainly have. In practice, "accountable to Christ" means not accountable at all.

But it gets worse. Legally it appears that the Worldwide Church of God is still "privately owned", and Pastor General Tkach is "sole proprietor". Caught off guard in a radio interview some years ago (on the Larry Mantle "Airtalk" show), he was asked what would stop him from just taking the money and leaving. The only reply he could come up with was that his family would stop him.

While Tkach might deny that he "owns" the church, with the current legal structure of the organization the reality seems to be that he can hire and fire all board members at his personal discretion with absolutely no reason given. That's in writing. He can do whatever he wants with the corporation as long as it complies with government rules for a non-profit organization.

That things don't have to be this way was demonstrated some time ago by an independent Church of God congregation in Tulsa. The Journal, May 2001, reported the ordination of new pastor Ray Kurr. These Sabbatarian Christians have decided to bring the terminology of ministry into line with the service-oriented function originally intended.

Ray Kurr commented "I showed that a pastor does not get between members and Jesus Christ." The article continues "In other church groups... a pastor had to grant permission for the general membership to do many things. 'As a pastor I have no intentions to behave in such an oppressive manner. If the Holy Spirit is moving you to benefit other churches with special music or take a group of friends of the congregation to help at the local shelter, just do it.'"

Joe might regard the members of this local splinter group as "legalists" due to some of their doctrinal beliefs. Yet these people seem to have a fuller grasp of the freedom of the gospel than the top leadership in Glendora demonstrate. Here's what one member posted on a news board:

The ministers have their marching orders and you will see more and more of this coming up soon... the subject of "days" [to worship on] seems to show the most clearly how things are being done...

We were given the right [for local churches] to choose the days ourselves. No real restrictions were placed on us and I felt Wow! this is a real empowering of the people. Well, it hasn't turned out that way. The clear motive now is a complete move from our past traditions to mainstream ones. The people may have chosen to keep the older ones but the ministry are to move us along. So there really wasn't a choice after all.

This is not empowering the people... The level of control on the WCG members is not unlike the Roman Catholics or even the Mormons for that matter.

Empowering the people is a scary thing. It means that you will not be able to control everything the way you would like. But maybe what this produces is something wonderful for the people.

Here's what Michael Feazell said back in 1996 - a full decade ago - speaking to a conference of regional pastors.

"The church needs to be a priesthood of believers... It needs to be doing ministry. Everybody in the church has a stake in that--whether it's women, men, teens or children."

Stakeholders must have a voice. They are not powerless, passive observers.

The simple truth may well be that Joe doesn't trust the church he presumably serves. He won't risk relaxing the reins lest people come up with ideas he doesn't endorse. Perhaps Joe considers himself indispensable. Perhaps he's a control freak. Could it be that he is unwilling to lose his comfortable sinecure?

Pastor General Joe has been chief shepherd of his dwindling flock for far longer than is decent without, at the very least, endorsement from the membership. How long will he remain on his pontifical throne? Even the pope is elected by a college of cardinals! Will he be Pastor General for life - a religious version of Fidel Castro?

Michael Feazell wrote in the July 2001 Worldwide News:

"If your church is a spiritual detriment to you, then you should consider finding another one... When the leader of a church indicates that he is God’s unique messenger or special representative in comparison with other Christian ministers... then you have another example of a church that is spiritually detrimental to its members."

Wise words. But what about churches where the leaders have safely elevated themselves beyond the influence of the members? A church, for example, that permits only token involvement of it's members in governance at either local or denominational level? How can Feazell justify the office of Pastor General and the hierarchical structure of the church in light of his own statement?

Tkach is on record as saying: "This fellowship has always been Episcopal, which is hierarchical..." Perhaps so, though a case can be made that in the early years it preserved a more congregational structure. But even if true, this fellowship had always been Sabbatarian too, but that wasn't allowed to stand in the way of change. And if an "Episcopal" model is to be used, there would need to be a long hard look at the parliamentary procedures actually used by the groups like the Episcopal Church; procedures which do indeed involve representative bodies of lay members at all levels. The Worldwide Church of God is out on a limb when it claims "episcopacy" as some kind of precedent for leadership by a clique or self appointed oligarchy. It is no such thing.

Joe has been single-minded in his efforts to inveigle his way into the evangelical mainstream. But despite cuddling up to evangelical leaders, his leadership style arguably has more in common with Louis Farrakhan than Billy Graham.

They used to say in Pasadena that the only thing that would topple Herbert Armstrong from his throne would be the Second Coming.

Apparently some things don't change.

Vision Casting with PG Joe

The latest Together (the replacement for the Worldwide News) includes the following informal job description for Pastor General Joseph Tkach:

"President Joseph Tkach oversees the spiritual and business affairs of the denomination, providing denomination-wide leadership and vision casting and fulfilling the many administrative duties required for national and international incorporation and registration.

"Dr. Tkach speaks regularly at church leadership conferences and meetings around the world, keeps current on theological and social issues, and represents the church at the various Christian organizations in which it holds membership..."
Vision casting? Keeping current? In other words, Joe doesn't do much. The position is, one might conjecture, a sinecure: very nice if you can manage it. The hagiography, part of a glowing report on the sect's new facility in Glendora, is written by Mike Morrison.

Mike fails to mention that PG Joe has an undisclosed salary, has never been elected to his position, runs a rubber-stamp board (making it almost impossible to replace him) and has overseen the continuing and irreversible disintegration of the church. Joe is, in other words, the Fidel Castro of the Evangelical gulag.

The stark nature of the WCG's continuing autocratic rule is plastered over by claims of "episcopal governance" (an outright misrepresentation) and sickly evangelical rhetoric. Apparently most people haven't been fooled: those with get-up-and-go have simply got up and gone. Sadly, too many into the waiting arms of the Armstrong warlords: Meredith, Flurry and their ilk.

How then does Joe justify his role or the perks of his office? Clearly he has been less than demonstrably competent. In recent months he even seems to have lost the support of Greg Albrecht, once an obsequious apologist, now steering "his" Plain Truth ministry in new directions and freezing out Joe and the WCG. And then there's the issue of the name change that changed back again. The church doesn't seem to be exactly in a safe pair of hands.

The reality is that Joe is unlikely to ever do the right thing and either step aside or (the better option) reform the administration by creating representative leadership. Sitting back in that big comfy chair, it's more than likely he'll be there till they wheel him out. If he can't do the deed, those remaining can still do the next best thing: cut their financial support and start looking for a healthy alternative.