A CHANGE OF COURSE

Chapter Three

A CHANGE OF COURSE

The time period between the installation of the new General Overseer and the Assembly of 1992 saw some unique historical happenings and prophetical fulfillments. This was a time of fast moving events. Though important at the time, these events are even more meaningful to us as time goes on. A backward look at them gives us more understanding and insight. This deeper understanding helps us to appreciate them even more.

Immediately after the inception of the new leadership, as previously mentioned, a local church in the state of Tennessee split because of doctrinal heresies. During the brief time span of about three months until the Assembly, brethren from across the United States began seeking God for His direction for the Church’s future. There was an understanding of the presbyters who had not accepted the nomination of the Interim Overseer that a time would be allowed during the Assembly for other nominations and for the Assembly’s selection of an Overseer. Instead, the Questions and Subjects Committee simply recommended the blanket acceptance of the Interim Overseer who had been installed through a democratic process. This session of the Assembly was a time of intense manifestations of rejoicing which culminated in the acceptance of the Interim Overseer. It seemed by most all present that the Holy Ghost had put His approval upon the selection. Even so, the outcome was somewhat like that of King Saul of Israel. God’s ultimate will for Israel was that He rule over them. Instead, they refused His leadership and demanded a king in order to be like the nations around them.

God gave them their desires even though their desires were rebellious. He also warned them that a king would oppress and trouble them. Although God’s perfect will was that He rule over them, His permissive will, allowed them to have their king. God did not relinquish His authority over them completely; instead, He opted to choose their king for them. He chose Saul and anointed him for the job. Saul, later of his own accord, turned rebellious against the commands of God which came through the prophet Samuel. God removed His anointing from Saul and placed it upon David. David did not immediately take the throne, but waited in the wings, as it were, until God’s time would come. In this waiting period, he was persecuted by the apostate king whom God had rejected. King Saul had led the people down a path of deception into idolatry. When David came to power, he ruled only a small portion of the kingdom at first because the hearts of the people had been deceived by Saul. Eventually the entire kingdom was ruled by King David. At another time in Israel’s history when they were rebellious against God, the Scripture says, “…he [God] gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul” (Psalms 106:15). This situation was parallel to what was happening to the Church during this troublesome time period.

The next major blunder was in the infamous 1991 Assembly. Anyone remotely connected with the Church can remember this crucial Assembly. The 1991 Assembly is synonymous with the 26th teaching-against the wearing of gold for ornament, with, in essence, the word “against” being removed. The floodgate of carnality was opened and before long the majority of the membership had converted to this “new light” theory of toleration. The irony of the fact is that the Assembly had not unanimously accepted this change. A lengthy business session on Friday was followed by another almost day-long session again on Sunday in the discussion of this matter. The Holy Ghost pleaded on Friday with the delegates of that Assembly to stay in the “old paths.” This pleading was ignored in favor of a discussion which resulted in a chaos which plagued the Church for four long years. An administrative directive was issued after the Assembly declaring the change. In spite of the fact that the Scripture admonishes the Church to see eye to eye and speak the same thing, some were being told to accept members into the Church who were wearing gold while others were told that they had the liberty of not accepting such ones as members. This double standard resulted in mass confusion. Since God in His Holy Word declares that He is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), it is plain to see who was the author of the change in the 26th teaching of the Church!

The new administration proceeded to do and allow things contrary to the former position and practices of the Church. Many brethren called, visited, or sent correspondence to the General Overseer hoping to see a change from the new trend. Many were sadly disappointed at the lack of response and went away greatly troubled over the trend that had been developing.

Within this time period, a financial crisis began to develop in the Church. Some churches were withholding legitimate funds from General Headquarters perhaps through disillusionment of the circumstances or through an assumed liberty they took upon themselves.

In the spring of 1992, Tomlinson College and Bible Training Institute were closed. The issue of the White Wing Messenger which was dedicated to the promotion of Tomlinson College for the upcoming semester was ready to go to press when the surprise announcement was made in the local news media. A half page of promotional material had to be removed from the White Wing Messenger in order to make room for the announcement of the closing of Tomlinson College!

The Ministerial Aid Fund had to be reduced also because of this crisis. The retirement benefits of many faithful ministers were reduced in their allotment and some were dropped altogether.

The change of course which the Church had taken affected not only the spiritual aspect but the physical and financial aspects of the Church as well.