TROUBLED WATERS

Chapter Two

TROUBLED WATERS

For many years the church was on a downward trend drifting into a state of lukewarmness, complacency and a worldly attitude. The former spiritual fervor and zeal for the Church vision and mission of winning the lost and gathering the other sheep into one fold seemed to be dwindling away. This unique quality of the Church began to be replaced by a materialistic mind-set, dominated by an educational emphasis. More and more, empty programs were replacing the spiritual essence of our local services as well as our conventions and assemblies. Many were hoping that each Assembly would see a turning-point, back toward a deeper spirituality among us. Instead we seemed to drift farther and farther away from our spiritual moorings.

God had blessed the Church in recent years with an abundance of finances and we were able to build a modem printing facility, headquarters office building, Assembly tabernacle and college. These material blessings drew us into a false security and we begin to trust in the arm of flesh and lean less and less upon God who gave us these blessings. The condition just described which we had slowly drifted into, is the perfect breeding ground for deception, rebellion and idolatry.

It was in this setting that the presbytery meeting was called by the General Overseer in April 1990. The purpose of this meeting was to find help for the aging General Overseer. The meeting was to convene April 30 - May 2, 1990. This meeting would be the most important meeting in the last 46 years history of The Church of God. Such a meeting should have been approached by a deep and sincere personal commitment of those involved through a personal dedication in prayer and fasting. Instead, we later learned to our sorrow that it was for the most part politically motivated by many of the ones involved. Reports surfaced later that high ranking Headquarters Officials had previously instructed some of the National Overseers on how they wanted them to vote. One State Overseer referred to the meeting as a little group of “hillbillies” whom God was not very concerned with! Instead of getting down to the seriousness of the business-at-hand much time was spent during the forepart of the meeting on a sideline issue of whether or not to have the meeting videotaped!

Some arose in the first session and demanded that the General Overseer resign his office before they could get on with their task. He reluctantly submitted to them with the intent to return at the close of the meeting to pass the gavel to the new leader whom they would choose. After three days of discussion, the presbyters became weary and were anxious to return to their fields of labor. A hurried decision was reached but not in harmony and without one-accord. Forty-eight were for, thirty-three against, with five refraining from voting for the man who was declared to be the one to replace our beloved aged General Overseer. The meeting adjourned with several of those thirty three voting against this selection not submitting to the majority.

The idea of change had been around for a long time. A subtle attitude of change had been working undercover for more than two decades. The advocates for change saw their golden opportunity to gain control and force their agenda upon the Church. Their cause was served in nominating a candidate whom they knew would serve their purpose. The candidate, though reluctant at first to be questioned by his peers, eventually acknowledged that he had trouble with the doctrine of the exclusivity of the Church and also with the 26th teaching, against the wearing of gold for ornament. In light of this admission by the candidate, the majority of presbyters voted in his favor. Their vote seemed to imply that they too, denied the exclusivity of the Church, along with supporting other heretical beliefs.

The gavel was passed to the one who was selected in this democratic manner in a ceremony on May 3, 1990. In his acceptance speech, the new Overseer stated that there were two groups of members in the church. One group was described as liberal while the other group was described as conservative. He stated that he wanted to be Overseer of both groups. Thus, an official public recognition of a church divided was pronounced by the Churches’ highest administrative official.

The Holy Ghost had stated it in different terms in 1986 when He spoke to us in the General Assembly and told us that there was a church inside a church. The “church inside,” or the true remnant of the “Church,” wanted to follow God and remain in the “old paths” (Jeremiah 6:16), while the “church” wanted to change the doctrine to follow after the world. Common sense, the Word of God, experience and the spirit within us tells us that these two opposite elements cannot co-exist together. The fleshly ways and true spirituality cannot remain together in the same camp, for they are enemies. It was inevitable that the two would have to separate and go their separate ways, because they are incompatible, and incompatibility is the opposite of unity, a hallmark which The Church of God must reach before the rapture.

As we reflect back upon recent church history, we can see that the new General Overseer was of the liberal persuasion inasmuch as he catered to the liberal faction in allowing them to get the upper hand in contemporary issues facing the Church. The liberal faction began to come forward and openly express and promote their heretical doctrines and viewpoints. Many letters and papers were written and widely circulated purporting doctrinal change. One advocate wrote a manuscript attacking the character of our former General Overseer, A. J. Tomlinson. In doing so he was not only

attacking the character of a deceased warrior, but was indirectly attacking The Church of God. This person was never disciplined in spite of the fact that hundreds of brethren faced the Church’s Counseling Committee with this grievance and wrote letters and made telephone calls to the General Overseer requesting disciplinary action against this one for writing and circulating a manuscript of this nature among the Church’s constituency. Although it has been reported by many trustworthy people that this minister has recently contemplated pulling away with a following to form another organization, to this day, he still holds high rank in his church denomination and is revered by many of the members and leaders who are left in this apostate organization.

A pastor of a local church within a thirty-minute drive of General Headquarters had become emboldened a few months before the called presbytery meeting and began to preach against theocracy. His congregation had grown quite large by this time through personal witnessing and soul-winning endeavors. The new administration was forced to deal with this minister, though reluctantly. His membership, many who were new and quite worldly, was easy prey for this deceptive doctrine. The majority followed him in forming an independent church, taking many thousands of local church dollars with them. The number of members from this church who are members of The Church of God today comprise less than five percent of the original membership roll before this local church split. What happened in this local church seems to portray to us a portrait of what was soon to take place in the general church. Many similarities are present in the two entities: (1) they both grew to a respectable size, (2) they both adapted practices and policies from the worldly denominational system, (3) an apostate leader arose in both, (4) they both forsook theocracy, (5) a split or dividing occurred in both, (6) the true remnant of both eventually had to struggle to find a new place to worship and (7) the percentage in both which embraced the truth was approximately the same. God teaches us divine truth through natural things. Many parables in the New Testament are used in this manner. Is God trying to teach us something today? If so, are we listening???