United Church of God
an International Association
Clyde Kilough
Chairman
Roy O Holladay
President
United Church of
God - British Isles
4 New Mill St, Eccleston, Chorley, Lancs, PR7 5SZ
A member of the United Church of God, an International
Association
Tel: 01257 450829
Fax: 01257 453978
5th January 2003
Dear Members of the Charity,
It has become necessary for me to write this letter In
order to acquaint you all with a sequence of events which
have given rise to circumstances, which, if not checked
immediately, could well lead to the dissolution of the UK
charity. More importantly the church members themselves
whom we all seek to serve, may once again be subjected to
rumours about a split in the church here in the UK. As the
CEO I ask you to please read this letter carefully so that
you realise the severity of the problems which a small,
specific group of people, who do not appear to understand
their responsibilities, have not only created but are
continuing on a path which is leading us all into troubled
waters.
As you know, the charity was set up in the UK with a
Constitution and a Board of Trustees in 1999. The Board or
National Council at present is constituted as
follows:
Frank Jarvis, Chairman - voting member
John Jewell, CEO - voting member
Gerhard Marx - voting member
David Payne - voting member
Brian Ellams - voting member
Brian Greaves - non-voting member
David McDermott - non-voting member
Jan Schroeder - non-voting member
All members of the Board of Trustees, or National Council,
of the United Kingdom charity "United Church of God British
Isles" are not only held liable for their own actions in
regard to their being subject to UK charity and trust law,
but each trustee is also bound by his or her fiduciary duty
to the charity. In effect this can best be summarized as
follows:
The relationship between a charity and its trustees is one
of principal and agents and as agents the trustees stand in
a fiduciary relationship to their principal, the charity.
This means that the trustees must at all times use their
powers for the proper purpose, i.e. for the benefit of the
charity. The trustees are legally as well as morally
responsible for all aspects of the charity supervisory and
operational. No trustee may act in a way which allows
either their personal prejudices and/or personal interest
(be that interest directly or indirectly} to influence
their decisions. Further, they are bound to set aside their
own feelings and desires in order to ensure that whatever
powers they exercise (i.e. decisions they make} must be for
the benefit of the charity. These requirements and
fiduciary standards are taken very seriously in charity and
trustee law and also corporate law. They are spelled out
clearly in print by the Charity Commission.
While recognizing that local congregations and national
councils of the United Church of God may work in
conjunction with the Council of Elders to establish
policies and procedures, it should be borne in mind that
both the Constitution and the Rules of Association of the
United Church of God, an International Association,
recognise that national councils in nations outside the
United States are to conduct their affairs in accordance
with the law of their sovereign state, and that the Rules
of Association are subordinate to the governing documents
of the national councils in their respective nations. It
should be noted that the Council of Elders is the Board of
Directors of the United Church of God, an International
Association, which is a corporate body established in the
State of California and governs the American churches
only.
I regret to say that these criteria have been breached by a
very small number of people, including a few members of the
National Council. Efforts have been made to involve the
Council of Elders in the United States in the running of
the British work. As a direct result of this improper
action by a handful of people the operation and
administration of the British Charity is being subjected to
gross interference which is expressly forbidden by United
Kingdom law.
Now while I would agree that in certain circumstances, it
is not only right and prudent to seek help and/or advice
from the Council of Elders, it is a course of action that
would be initiated by the British chairman not by others.
He would initiate it when he judged that there was a
genuine, clear and undeniable irreconcilable difference on
the national council that if it persisted would harm the
church. He would then ask the Council of Elders in the
United States to render a decision. Otherwise it is for the
British church to make its own decisions as to operations
and administration as a charity legally registered in
England and Wales. The chief executive officer has the
responsibility for all other liaison with the Home Office
in Cincinnati and the church in other parts of the world.
He may, at his discretion, delegate some of that
responsibility of liaison to others as appropriate.
As you are the voting members of the British charity I
would fail in my duty to the charity if I did not tell you
of the present situation. As a result of the improper
actions of a few as mentioned above who have then
influenced some in the United States, a well orchestrated
campaign began which has resulted in my being heavily
pressured to immediately step down as of this moment, not
only from all my responsibilities as the chief executive
officer of the British charity, but also as a ministerial
member of the national council and as a member of the
pastoral committee. The pressure is also heavily on me to
not seek any nomination or appointment to these positions.
In a recent email it is said that "I agreed to immediately
step down, etc etc" At that point considerable pressure had
been placed on me. Anything I said was as a result, in my
view, of duress. Then further documents came my way which
showed clearly what was happening. There has also
been pressure to move the office from Eccleston.
To more fully understand the position I am in, I must quote
from an email sent to me by the present chairman of the
Council of Elders, dated 24th December 2002 and with
subject title "Clarification on UK Discussions". It was
copied to Mr Holladay, Mr Kubik and Mr Hawkins. It sought
to clarify another email, one designated confidential, sent
the same day to all members of the Council of Elders. I
cannot of course quote from this one but I can tell you
that its contents include no mention of any matters
relating to Mrs Barbara Fenney.
Quote: "Furthermore I trust that you clearly understood the
council s intent and understanding is that you are stepping
aside very shortly to allow Peter (Hawkins) to take over
his new duties."
There is no mistaking the fact that the chairman, Mr
Kilough, is telling me that it is the council of elders'
intent to replace me by their ensuring that Mr Hawkins is
appointed chief executive officer of the British charity.
Mr Hawkins was copied with this email. Not only do I
believe this to be a violation of ethics, but it is also a
direct interference in the running of a British charity by
an American organization which is expressly negated by
United Kingdom law. Let me elucidate: The principle is that
if you do not have a fiduciary responsibility or
involvement with an organization then you cannot and must
not interfere with its administration or operation.
Let me be very clear about this matter. Mr Hawkins first
approached me some two years or more ago about the
possibility of being part of the work in Britain. Somewhat
more than a year ago I felt it would be good for me to
begin to off-load a lot of the administrative work I had
been carrying. This was brought to the national council
which authorised me to begin discussions with the Home
Office in Cincinnati. For one reason or another we made no
progress until an approval was finally given in August 2002
at a meeting of the council of elders followed by a formal
agreement to the move by both the British national council
and the South African one for him to move to the UK. The
understanding always had been, from the point I first
brought it up in 2001, that the purpose was to relieve me
of much of the administrative load. It would appear now
that another agenda has developed.
Interference by members of the council of elders began
through a few members of the British national council
beginning to not only bypass the procedures laid out in our
own rules but also to bypass those whose responsibility it
is to ensure those rules are followed. This was contrary to
published policy (mentioned above) and contrary to their
fiduciary duty to the charity as they rightly knew, as they
each had been given some months previously a copy of the
Charity Commission publication which covers these things so
there can be no claim of ignorance. There was little or no
effort to ascertain any facts from me relative to the
disfellowslnipment of Mrs Fennney, instead there was a
disregard of the fact that some things are covered by
ministerial confidence. I could not, and will not, breach
that. As a result there was a most dreadful taking up of
positions, a taking of sides when there should be no sides,
and then the development of a "bandwagon" to ensure my
removal from any position within the charity or indeed the
church. This very small number have sought to paint a
picture of me which was not, and is not true or fair.
Indeed, it borders upon the libelous. In my view these
actions not only show a lack of moral judgment but a spirit
and attitude Of rebellion. This has no place in God's
church.
Mrs Fenney appealed to the pastoral committee in the UK.
The committee agreed that her appeal should be passed to
the secretary of the council of elders for onward
transmission to the Ethics Committee for consideration then
by the Member Appeal Committee (MAC) in the U.S. Part of
the process is the requirement that a Christian resolution
should be sought by the one making the appeal before the
appeal is actually made. This did not occur. However, the
MAC duly found that she had been disfellowshipped quite
properly and reported to this effect by letter on 8th July.
She was encouraged by the committee to "If you accept our
decision and wish to have your membership reinstated,
please contact your pastor to begin the process of
reconciliation." Please note that the reconciliation is NOT
with the pastor per se, it is with the church, it is
with God. However this, too, did not happen. Mrs Fenney did
not contact me. Instead, she took her appeal to the council
of elders. Within a few days and with dates between 15th
July and 24th July letters from the same small group
supportive of Mrs Fenney were sent in to the council of
elders, all but one being addressed to Mr Kilough.
Supposing to be supportive of Mrs Fenney they were once
again mainly about me and my alleged shortcomings. Once
again reinforcing an adverse picture of me.
On 24th July, Mr Kilough wrote to fellow council members
saying "It is not my intent here to even begin to try to
sort through the details of who and what was right and
wrong in the situation (the MAC had already, on the 8th
July, rejected Mrs Fenney's appeal and upheld the original
decision) rather I want to alert you to the fact that the
UK members, ministry and national council are dealing with
a degree of inner turmoil that threatens to divide and
severely hurt the church I am sending this information to
you (this comprised copies of the letters sent in by the
small UK group between 15th and 24th July) in hopes of
finding ways to help the brethren there."
Members of the charity, there was no inner turmoil
threatening to divide and severely hurt the church. The
church overall is in good heart. You may have had concerns
over some things you may have heard, but that's different
to a situation described as "turmoil"!
Just last month, December 2002, right at the end of the
recent council meetings in Cincinnati, the Member Appeal
Committee (MAC) met with the Ethnics committee of the
council of elders at which, at the close of the meeting a 6
page summary of events in date order surrounding the issue
of Mrs Fenney's disfellowshipment was given to everyone
with the comment that this showed she had been
disfellowshipped properly and correctly. There is nothing
confidential about the document. It simply does what the
chairman of the MAC said had not been done before, in that
it lays out the events in date order in an objective
manner.
From the time of the MAC's dismissal of Mrs Fenney's appeal
and subsequent appeal to the council of elders, a hostile
climate of opinion has been progressively and deliberately
built against me personally and an impression given in
Cincinnati that the situation in the UK was "critical" and
how "badly the church in Britain was divided" despite the
fact that the MAC had reached the correct decision based
upon all the facts. With the support of the tiny group here
in England, Mrs Fenney claimed she had not had a face to
face interview as part of her appeal. Although this was
properly the responsibility of the MAC, the council of
elders appointed Mr Kubik and Mr Kilough to visit the UK
and undertake this face to face interview. This was duly
carried out, but they then began to widen their involvement
to issues relating to the structure and organization of the
British charity. I would just say at this point that if
what has been happening is allowed to continue then the
ministry will be virtually unable to function. (Can two
walk together, unless they are agreed? Amos 3:3) This is,
after all, a church! A church which has a mission! A
mission given to it by Jesus Christ. The charity is the
structure that is legally required and which enables the
church to operate and to fulfill its commission in a
complex world. The charity is not the work! It facilitates
the work.
Since re-structuring in 1998 the United Church of God -
British Isles has achieved a tremendous amount. In fact,
the progress made by the church in this time has been
little short of miraculous. We are well aware of Divine
intervention in making these things possible as we pleased
our Father - church attendance has grown, churches have
been established, the gospel is being preached, the income
has shown a progressive increase and is currently above
budget. Many opportunities for the work await us. They will
not however open to us if the attitudes of a small number
persist and if there is continuing interference in the
administration and operation of the British charity.
It is my perception that strong and decisive action needs
to be taken so that we remain in charge of our own affairs
nationally, so that we can get on with the work in the
British Isles and in the European, Scandinavian and Middle
East arena. To achieve this, some difficult decisions have
to be made.
For some time now the UK national council has been aware of
the need to make changes to the Constitution the need to
actively which will aid in the more efficient running of
the British charity and it is conscious of pursue ways in
which they can ensure workable procedures and
processes.
The present constitution, our governing document, has some
flaws and makes it difficult to work with, a fact that no
one who has been a member of the national council can deny.
We will need to take appropriate action to remedy the
shortcomings. With a re-drafting of the constitution we
also need to develop a set of Bylaws. Work needs to be done
on this as soon as possible with the view to then bringing
them to you, the voting members of the charity. The
relationship between the ministry and the charity as an
administrative structure needs to be more clearly defined
in order that the work of the church as a spiritual
organism is not hindered. These past few months the
ministry has been operating with virtually both hands tied
behind its back! The work of the church, the work to which
the Father has called each one of us must go forward,
especially as we see the troubles piling up in the world
around us and we come to more urgently realize how close
the return of Jesus Christ could be.
The church is NOT divided, we have here in the British
Isles, a wonderful group of people dedicated to the work of
the Eternal. A lot will be achieved through us if we please
our Heavenly Father. We want to remain part of the United
Church of God, an International Association, but on the
basis of equals, of brothers and sisters in Christ.
It is my hope and prayer that those who have been taking
sides, following personal agendas, taking things into their
own hands following that which is expedient rather than
that which is right, that they will see the error of that
direction and will join with the rest of us in dedication
to the work of the Great God, the Father of us all.
Let me just restate a point I made earlier. I would like to
off-load some of the responsibilities I have been carrying
for these past four years to someone else, but this must be
done, as I'm sure you will agree, in a Christian manner and
in accordance with our charity policies, charity and
trustee law and Charity Commission guide lines. There must
be a whole hearted acceptance by all those involved in the
administration of the charity of their fiduciary
responsibilities and
everything must be done decently and in order.
In love and concern,
John A. Jewell
January 15,
2003
Dear Members and
Friends of the United Church of God-British
Isles,
It is with deep
concern and much prayer that we write this letter to you,
understanding that the recent circumstances in the UK have
been quite stressful and perhaps somewhat confusing for
you.
On January 5, 2003,
a letter was sent to all members of the United Church of
God-British Isles (a United Kingdom Charity) by the CEO,
Mr. John Jewell. In his letter Mr. Jewell made serious and
unsubstantiated accusations against the Council of Elders
and other individuals within Britain. On January 13, the
Council of Elders discussed this matter at length with Mr.
Jewell and asked him to withdraw the letter and write a
retraction as it contained inaccuracies, incomplete
statements and breeches of confidential material. He chose
not to comply with our request.
The Council of
Elders was also gravely concerned about the unprecedented
and highly questionable actions that occurred in the wake
of Mr. Jewell's letter, resulting in considerable turmoil
and unrest among the members of the Church in the British
Isles. On January 7th Mr. Jewell suspended an elder who was
opposed to his continuing on as CEO. Then on Sunday,
January 12, Mr. Jewell suspended from church membership
two, and disfellowshipped another (also an elder), of the
five voting members of the National Council and suspended
another non-voting member - half the entire UK Board of
Trustees! The husband of the non-voting member was also
suspended on January 13. These measures were done without
explanation or any prior warning. We considered these to be
outrageous acts! Furthermore, upon inquiry by the Council
of Elders, Mr. Jewell would not disclose to us the reasons
for these actions against his fellow UK National Council
members - even though any appeal by them would be to the
Council of Elders.
Therefore, we must
respond to Mr. Jewell's statements and actions, make clear
the role of the Council of Elders, and explain our
subsequent actions.
When affairs
deteriorate to the level of "any unresolved conflict within
the National Council", Article K, section (8) of the
Constitution of the United Church of God- British Isles
provides that "the matter shall be referred by the Chairman
of the National Council to the Council of Elders of the
United Church of God an International Association for
mediation and arbitration with a view to resolution." This
same document provides for an appeal to the Council of
Elders by members of the Charity and members of the
National Council [Article E, section (4) and Article I,
section (6)]. The United Church of God-British Isles
Constitution also states that the decision made by the
Council of Elders in such cases will be binding on all
parties. For well over a year now the Council has been well
aware of certain conflicts and difficulties within and
without the National Council in the United Kingdom. As a
result, internal discussions have been ongoing with Mr.
Jewell as a member of the Council of Elders, always with an
eye toward resolution. In the past two Council meetings
(August and December 2002), we spent considerable time with
Mr. Jewell in an
attempt to understand the issues and offer assistance for
resolution. At the December Council meeting, Mr. Jewell
agreed with the Council of Elders on a course of action for
moving forward in the UK. The goal of these discussions was
to achieve a godly solution to this ever-growing
problem.
In his
extraordinary letter of January 5th, Mr. Jewell
acknowledges that he originally agreed with the Council on
a plan to move forward. But upon returning to Britain, Mr.
Jewell changed his mind, stating in his letter that his
previous decision had been made as a result "of duress."
This was shocking to the other members of the Council since
Mr. Jewell never indicated in the December conference that
he was opposed inany way to the plan of action, or that he
felt he was being pressured into accepting it or under any
duress at all. Nor did Mr. Jewell indicate to the Council
of Elders that there had been a change of heart prior to
his January 5th letter to the Charity members. As a member
of the Council Mr. Jewell could, and should, have requested
that the Council
reconsider its previous decision, but he chose rather to
write his letter of January 5th. Mr. Jewell' s
characterization of the Council as interfering in an
international area is a misrepresentation of the facts. The
Council has conducted itself in accordance with the
governing document of the United Church of God British
Isles and our own governing documents and Rules of
Association. Briefly, here are the facts regarding the
involvement of the Council of Elders :
1 . The United
Church of God, an International Association through the
Council of Elders is required by our documents and the
documents of the United Church of God-British Isles to hear
appeals from Church members and members of the National
Council in Britain.
2. As a result of
general awareness of ongoing conflicts, as well as a formal
member appeal, the Council of Elders on several occasions
entered into discussions with Mr. Jewell, the CEO of the
Charity and himself a member of the Council of Elders, in
an effort to bring about reconciliation among those
involved in these conflicts within the Church in
Britain.
3. After many
meetings and hours of discussion, in our last meeting
December 16, 2002, Mr. Jewell along with the Council of
Elders agreed to a plan of action as a way to move
forward.
4. At some later
point, Mr. Jewell changed his mind and rejected the
previously agreed to plan of action.
5. Without
notifying the Council of Elders of his change of heart Mr.
Jewell sent a letter to the Charity members accusing the
Council of Elders of interfering with the British
Charity
6. This letter has
been divisive and it puts forward an incorrect
representation of the role of the Council in this
matter.
In addition, Mr.
Jewell took up a considerable portion of his letter with a
discussion of an appeals case that came to the Member
Appeal Committee (MAC) of the United Church of God, an
International Association. The UCGIA "Policy For Member
Appeal to the Council of Elders" expressly states, " All
information submitted in connection with an appeal to the
Council of Elders must be kept in confidence." Not only did
Mr. Jewell violate this requirement by addressing the
appeal in great detail, but he also omitted several
important facts about the process of appeal. There are
several clear steps in the appeal process, including the
MAC making a determination whether the appeal should be
upheld or overturned. If the appealing party is not
satisfied with the decision of this committee, then it is
quite appropriate for the individual to appeal to the next
and final level - the Council of Elders. In the case
referenced in Mr. Jewell's letter the appeal was brought
according to policy to the Council since the MAC did not
overturn the action taken against the member. Before the
Council of Elders could reach a decision in the case, a
resolution was apparently achieved, the UK Pastoral
Committee rescinded the decision, and the appeal was
subsequently withdrawn. Considering that such matters are
highly sensitive and that we have a strict confidentiality
policy, it was inappropriate for Mr. Jewell to bring them
up in his letter. In addition, he gave misleading
information about our process of member
appeal.
Since Mr. Jewell
did not comply with our request to rescind his letter of
January 5,2003, the Council of Elders has chosen to
communicate directly with all of you. Regrettably, we have
been forced to take the steps of revoking Mr. Jewell's
ministerial credentials and removing him from the General
Conference of Elders of the United Church of God, an
International Association. This action, conveyed to him in
a Council teleconference, was taken January 13 , 2003,
effective immediately. By virtue of this removal, he is
also no longer eligible to serve on the Council of
Elders.
It is not the
desire of the Council to thrust itself inappropriately into
the affairs of the British Charity, but it is the
responsibility of the Council to arbitrate and assist in
resolving conflict. The Council also has the responsibility
to address matters of concern involving the conduct of
ministers who are credentialed by the United Church of God,
an International Association. W e hope that this letter has
helped clarify some of the issues involved in this
difficulty. Our goals and desires have not changed since
the beginning days of United. We continue to pray to our
Father in heaven for guidance in these matters. As a
Council of Elders, we are deeply committed to working
together with our brethren in Britain to achieve a godly
solution to the ongoing conflict.
We have confidence
that the UCG-BI ministry and the National Council will
carry out their respective ecclesiastical and Charity
functions in unity and teamwork, and in the safety and
wisdom provided by a multitude of counselors (Proverbs
11:14 and 24:6). Resolution, righteous judgment and
reconciliation demand the most from us spiritually, but God
does provide the most for us through His Spirit. We want to
convey to you that you have our deepest concerns, and our
prayers are with you. Please let us know if there are any
questions and we will do what we can to
address and clarify your concerns.
Sincerely, on
behalf of the Council of Elders,
Clyde Kilough
Chairman