Basic HTML Version
Worldwide Church case 'chilling' to Methodist pastor
Dr. ]. Gordon Melton
EVENTIJALLY. it may be that
we will decide that we should be
grateful to the attorney general of
theStale ofCalifornia.
We take so many things for
granted. we Americans. We !lave
been ,o blessed becau11e our walls
are ,o
ru,11
and aoltr1M1I that it is
easy for us not to feel threatened,
for us to forget that the barbarians
are always waiting just outside the
gates.
Perhaps it is good for us to be
frightened some, once in a while
and just a little. and perhaps,
eventually, we wi l l thank the
attorneygeneral for fri,titeninc us.
Not yet.thoufb. Not while we still
feel the chill.
Is that melodramatic? I do not
mean it to be 111. I am frightened. I
am chilled by tbe attorneygeneral
of the Stale el California. by whathe
is attempting to do to the Worldwide
Oiurcb ofGodand, by otension, to
all of us who believe we have a
constitutional right to practice
reliCion u we ,ee fit and without
government interference. And I
think the thing that frightensmethe
most ishis apparent confidence that
the courts are going to agree with
his position, aposition that seems to
meto be tolally indefensible.
A quick review of the case: in
January, six former members ol the
Worldwide Qiurcb ol God visited a
private attorney to complain that
they believed the church's money
was being misused by the leaders ol
the church. That attorney took the
complaint to tbe attorney general '1
office.
The attorney general "deputized"
tbat private attorney to act as a
kind of quasi-deputy at torney
general in conjunction with a real
deputy attorneygeneral.
They then, without notice to
church of f i c ial s , which thei r
que s t ionab l e eva l ua t i on o f
California law 1eem1 clearly to
demand, obtained thecooperation of
a judge who inued an order
establi1hing a receiver to take
control of the church's adminis
tration, finances and records. to
completely take over the church.
The receiver and representatives
of the attorney general's office then,
still without warning or notice,
raided the church's offices and
announced they we r e t aki ng
possession al all cburcb property
and money and that, furthermore,
Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of
the church and for 41 years Its
spiri tual bead, and Stanley R.
Rader, the church's chief adminls·
trator, were fired. They told stunned
and protesting church members that
this was being done for their own
,ooc1.
Their grounds for this outrageous
action was the opinion of thedeputy
attorney general and bis deputized
private partner that California law
makes the assets o f re ligious
organizations public money and
establishes the attorney general as
guardian of thatmoney.
They arrived at that conclusion by
definin1 a church as a "charilable
trust" and arguing that California
law says that the attorney general
has the right and duty to make sure
that
a
charilable trust. being a tax
exempt organization, is using its
money for charitable purposes.
specifically the charilable purposes
spelled aut in its bylaws.
To which I reply:nonsense.
What we have here instead is a
very publ ici zable case which
promises to generate some very
large legal fees, and already has.
The deputized private attorney
general already has aslted that the
church he is atlacking be made to
pay that fee.
The original court-appointed
receiver. now being succeeded by a
second receiver after six weeks of
work, has asked that the church be
o rdered to pay additional fees
totaling $2:i0,000 to him and his
attorneys.
Things become curiouser and
curiouser. as someone once said in
Wonderland. It could even be seen
as funny. if it were not soserious.
ll
i s 1e r i oua, however .
Unchallenged, this action by the
State of California wi ll extend
government's authority into the
private life of every church and
reli1lou1 organization, with blatant
disregard for the Constitution, and
will say that a government lawyer
bas the ri1ht to decide how a church
can extend its mission, spread its
mes�age, obtain and spend its
money. How far is it from there. one
wonders. to a government lawyer's
a111umption that hehas the right and
duty to determine what a church's
message should be, or should not
be?
Does thllt sound too hard to
believe? I said earlier that we
Americans lalte toomany things for
granted. Perhaps we have heard so
many t imes that this is a free
country that we have forgotten that
freedom's price is, indeed, eternal
vigilance.
And at the same time, we want to
sound modern, sophi st icated.
Certainly we do not want to sound
like reli1ious fanatics or. God
forbid, extremists who would say
emba r r a s s ing t h ings about
preferring death to the loss of
liberty.
Even in whispers, we would not
say the word "conslpiracy." and if
we wonder deep in our hearts
whe ther the Catho l i cs or the
Methodists or the Lutherans might
benext, wedonot say ,o.
That could not happen. t he
"real" religious groups could not
be at tacked. This is America,
af ter al l; no one is
a
!lack ing
rel11ion, only some California
Other
SUNDAY,MAKHU, lt7f
cult. Nothmg we need to worry about
But I am worried. Not about the
Worldwide Church of God and its 100.000
members. I am director of the Institute
for the Study of American Religion but
I also am a pastor with the United
Methodist Church. and I could never be a
member of the Worldwide Chutch of
God.
I do not believe in that church's
system of government which places all
authority in one man. as I do
not
accept
Papal infallibility.
The doctrine of the Worldwide Church
of God denies major Pro testant
perspectives on the Trini ty. ,race and
salvation. which I accept and believe in.
It sees itself as the one true Voice of God
in today's world, and that I could never
believe.
None of lh.at matters. What matters,
and what worries me. 1s that the state is
atlacking one of the freedoms we take
most for granted, and is not only
demanding that we accept that attack,
but is almost contemptuously casual in
its assumption that we will.
As a pastor. I am not accounlable to
the state. As a citizen. I am bound not to
commit crimes, but as a pastor I am
accounlable for theadministration of my
church affairs only to my church's
present members. to the bishop placed
in authority over me. to by bishop's duly
appointed representatives. and to the
Northern Illinois Conference of the
United Methodist Church.
•
voices
A-9
That all seems clear to me, even
unarguable. It seems to me that
separation of church and •late mean
exactly that. separation; and that the
First Amendment of the Constitution ol
the United States means exactly what it
says, t ha t no l aw shal l be made
"respec t i ng an establ ishment o f
religion. or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
Therefore. I consider the actions of
the attorney general of the State of
California. and I as� myself, why?
And I ask myself, if we do not resist
this, what then
1
Finally, I wonder if I do not hear.
faintly yet, but distinctly, the rattling of
swords just outside our gates.
And l say to myself, I must resist this,
and I must do what I can to get others to
join me.
That is why I write here, to call upon
all who are committed to preaervin& our
fr&!<ioms to join forces. Speak out, write
to legislators, to newspapers, television
stations, magazines. Say that we will not
stand for this.
Let them know that we are aware, that
we see what is being done, and that we
will not permit it. Tell them that we
remember. with Montesquieu, that, "A
nation may lose its liberties in a day,
and not miss them in a century.•·
And we will not let it happen.
Dr. MellN 11
.areetor
ol tu la.U•te
for the Study of America Rellllon Ill
Evan11on, IU
Editor's Note: The above article is being
reproduced by permission of the Pasadena
Star-News.
I
Ul
I