Concerned Sister writes:
The example of HWA's 1939 article as mentioned above (in the post Welcome to COG, Incorporated) illustrates the flip-flop of reasoning he did on not just the issue of church authority and government but also on the control of financial resources as well.
"There is not one single HINT in the NEW TESTAMENT of any Church BOARD with authority to rule, to govern, to decide doctrine, or to handle tithes and church finances (the whole church)..."
He is lashing out against a centralized "board" since that is the type of organization the COG7 utilized at the time. He pushes for local autonomy of each congregation, with no single congregation or authority having centralized control over the others.
It is indeed damning to go from teaching that the principle of church government is the "image of the beast" basing itself on the "IMPERIAL MODEL" with the church being defined as "...the collective body of individual saints who are sanctified and CLEANSED by Christ!" and a plea to "Let us stop speaking of some organization as "the Church", or "our Church!", and "let us drop all effort to BUILD UP A MOVEMENT or AN ORGANIZATION! Let us quit working FOR organizations, and work FOR THE LORD ---and the salvation of souls!" to seeing the rigid hierarchy of the WCG and most of the splinter groups we are all familiar with, where one guy is primarily in control of the group, and a "council of elders" at least in theory is consulted occasionally over administrative and doctrinal issues.
This however, is not the only time a minister has done this kind of bait and switch on this subject over the course of time. It usually happens when an individual or group of ministers leaves one organization and needs to justify to the congregants the creation of another. I have in my possession a booklet published by Rod Meredith in 1995 called "When Should You Follow Church Government?" This booklet was in circulation for just a little while during and after the split of the WCG, but then ceased to be published and made unavailable. A PDF of this document can still be found online.
In this booklet, Meredith reveals that he and Herman Hoeh were instrumental in helping to shape the direction on church government that WCG took.(pg.5) He then has this to say concerning church government on pg.9... "But, we unwittingly went too far. We began to compare Mr. Armstrong with Moses-a special prophet God talked with face to face. “...”We confused the position of Herbert Armstrong with Moses..." And on pg. 10... "Many ministers began to use the example of Korah's rebellion and similar examples to imply that if anyone ever left this Church even in hurt or confusion-they were REBELLING against the "Government of God" just as surely as Korah and his followers..." Later on pg.11... "If we look into the New Testament with an open mind, we find a warm, brotherly, service-oriented approach to church administration. This different approach affected the way the early brethren and ministers interacted with each other, and the way they handled disagreements." Pg.12... "Was there in the New Testament Church any example of a human leader acting as a "Moses figure" or a "Pope Peter," who towered over the other apostles and elders, giving them orders, threatening to "fire" them? I cannot refer you to any Scripture illustrating this style of "church government" because it IS NOT THERE!"
Men tend to say whatever is necessary at the time to attract the followers they covet. They then change their tactic in order to control and keep those people. When they leave a group the "church" becomes a "spiritual organism" not to be confined to a single organization. Later on the "church" is contained within the new group, and those that dare to question that "authority" are charged with rebellion against "God's government"