Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, August 15, 1980
Page 9
and barrel!
Dean Kelley was very supportive of the position held by the
Worldwide Church of God and made some fine remarks against the dangerous
trend toward greater regulation of churches.
Toward the end of the program the IRS representatives came on the show,
but on a separate stage (regulations did not permit them, they said, to
be on the same stage with the others). They briefly discussed IRS law
pertaining to churches and answered several questions from the audience
present in the studio.
A frequently asked question is whether members are really asked to tithe
as much as 30%. Mr. Rader replied that it was not true that members are
requested to tithe 30% of their income. He said, "I myself tithe about
40% of my income, and have for a considerable period of time. But members
are only required, under God's law, to tithe 10%.
And then they save 10%
themselves for their annual family vacation, which they attend in the fall
--what we call the Feast of Tabernacles. And then every third year
throughout their lifetimes, they will then donate another 10% for the
indigent."
With so much talk about the receivership and the initial attack on the
Church, Mr. Rader was asked to clarify the present state of the litigation
and whether there is now a receiver in the Church. "No," Mr. Rader re
plied, "the receivership is, from a practical standpoint, not a matter of
concern. [However,] it's a little bit like a sword of Damocles; that's a
sword hanging over your head. But the receivership has been lifted and
we have been operating our own affairs for almost a year and a half."
As the bizarre and improbable story of the lawsuit was related by Mr.
Rader over radio WMCA, the show's hostess exclaimed: "I don't understand
how a state can appoint a receiver to take possession of church property
or records and then overtake and supervise operations until litigation has
been concluded!"
"No one else can," replied Mr. Rader, "and that's one of the reasons that
we were successful in getting other people (who are] interested in the
First Amendment, and particularly freedom of religion, to rally to our
efforts to thwart the attorney general's take over of the Church, bend
it to its will or destroy it in the process. A very bizarre thing lies
in the genesis of this case....
"The attorney general actually did not begin the lawsuit," continued Mr.
Rader. "There was a very abstruse section of the California Administra
tive Code which would permit, under a showing of the most remarkable cir
cumstances, (which were not present here) a private person to get per
mission to sue in the attorney general's name. And so six former members
went to a private lawyer who in turn convinced a deputy attorney general
(not the attorney general, but a deputy attorney general), to permit him,
the private lawyer, to bring an action in the name of the Attorney Gen
eral. As soon as we put up a vigorous defense, that private attorney
dropped by the wayside, the dissidents disappeared, and lo and behold the
attorney general was left holding the bag and a tiger by the tail!"
One caller in New Rochelle alluded to "cults" and asked if God's Church
was "truly Christian." Mr. Rader said yes, we are Christian but we can
be differentiated from other churches by our beliefs. He explained we