When I was returning to California in mid-August from the first meeting with the task forces of the United Church of God (UCG) and the Church of God, Christian Fellowship (CGCF), the flight path took us over some of the many forest fires burning in the western states. The summer of 2000 was dubbed the worst season of wildfires in the last 50 years, perhaps even the last century. Looking down on the pillars of smoke, the thought came to mind that the decade of the '90s was also the worst time of "spiritual wildfires" in the Church's last century.

The analogy does not end there. Most of the summer's forest fires were ignited by circumstances beyond anyone's control-lightning strikes in particular, or freak accidents such as sparks from machinery. Many of the Church's "fires" were also started by circumstances beyond our control, particularly the lightning strikes of doctrinal changes.

However, some of the most tragic forest fires occurred due to human error. They were particularly distressing because the catastrophic losses could have been avoided. A couple of the deadliest fires of this type were called "controlled burns"—fires deliberately set by forest service workers with the intent to clean hazardous materials and actually make the woods safer. Mistakes in judgment about other forces at work, usually the weather conditions, led to these small fires leaping destructively out of control. Similarly, we can sometimes look back and see situations in the Church where no one intended that anyone suffer loss, but errors in judgment nevertheless led to "controlled burn" situations erupting into raging blazes.

The forest fire analogy is not new. In the first century the apostle James wrote, "Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things. See how great a forest a little fire kindles! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell" (James 3:5-6).

To our chagrin, no one is exempt from culpability for starting some of these fires, or fanning the flames. As James observed in verse 2, "For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body." Undoubtedly, the vast majority of interpersonal hurts we have experienced-times when we have been "burned," as we say—have sprung from sparks off the tongue.

On the positive side, though, in the long run burned forests can grow again and return to an even healthier condition. This rebirth is accelerated when people work together to work the soil, replant the trees and nurture their growth. Reforestation is hard work, however, requiring difficult, back-bending effort. But it is worth the labor to see seeds take root and the land begin to recover. And in the long run, through the same kind of spiritual reforestation, the Church can grow back as well.

We have all grown weary in the last decade of having to fight fires within the Church. That is why it was especially enjoyable and positive to be able to come together in Memphis, Tennessee, as brethren of two groups to begin a small, but positive, constructive effort of "reforestation" rather than fighting fires.

The efforts will continue when the task forces meet for the second time in Sacramento, California, November 19-21. These talks will pick up where they left off, primarily focusing on specific ways the two groups can work together more effectively and implement the proposals approved by the respective councils. Continuing education on the biblical principles and dynamics of reconciliation is a priority, as well as how to promote awareness about the doctrines, administrations and practices of each group.

The initial discussions in August laid a solid foundation upon which we believe a positive relationship can continue to be built. Of greatest significance at that time was the conclusion that the two churches are virtually identical in doctrinal understanding, and very similar in organizational structure and administration. Without doctrinal agreement there would be little basis for continuing any work toward unity. But also of great importance were the frank discussions about various perceptions and concerns each group has held about the other. In that arena began a healing of some of the emotional and subjective breaches that have divided us, but much work lies yet ahead.

Doctrinal Agreement

Reaching the first conclusion about doctrinal agreement came through a painstaking process of thoroughly answering many questions submitted before the meetings by members of both groups. Although specific questions were directed to each group, the ensuing discussions invariably led to mutual explanations of each church's position on the matter.

It is not the purpose of this article, nor does space permit a full report on the answers to everything discussed—we have entire booklets and study papers devoted to explaining some of the questions! However, here is a list of some of the issues that were covered to illustrate the breadth and scope of the dialogue.

We discussed our teachings on the modern identity of the house of Israel; mankind's ultimate destiny; tithing; the nature of God and the Holy Spirit, specifically, beliefs about the Trinity; the date to observe the Passover; the doctrine of "born again"; wearing crosses; military service and war; clean and unclean meats; and repentance.

We talked about the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God as a witness to all nations, including perceptions about what is "the work" of God today and future goals for preaching the gospel.

We looked at Church government, including ministerial ranks and offices; congregational versus hierarchical structure; congregational involvement in local church matters, ranging from financial management to determining ordinations.

We discussed what the "Body of Christ" is, and respective positions as to whether either group believes it is the "only Church of God."

Remember, these (and many others) were questions submitted by members from both groups all over the world. Not everyone, or even the majority, has the same question. Oftentimes, what is an important issue to one person may mean little to another. Nevertheless, the task forces respectfully addressed every question submitted because they considered it extremely important that every person's concerns be answered, if possible. Because of the period of doctrinal disintegration the Church experienced, many people are zealously on guard to insure doctrinal integrity.

Healing the Hurts

As one of the representatives from CGCF analyzed it, the two major categories where people seem to have concerns are personal hurts and doctrinal fears. The doctrinal fears are more easily addressed, in that each organization has its published set of official beliefs. Not so easily addressed are an individual's personal hurts and fears. In these personal areas lie the greater difficulties, due to the complexities that make up the relationships among humans.

Issues such as betraying and regaining trust, judging and/or labeling others, and dealing with past hurts (which may involve confrontation, acknowledgment, repentance and forgiveness) are always difficult to work through. It became very clear during the talks that the greatest challenge for unifying God's people lies in our ability to address and resolve past personal problems and hurts, and to replace suspicion with trust.

What are some of the areas of hurt and suspicion? Here are a few that are relative to the history of these two particular groups.

A general perception of many members and ministers in CGCF is that many ministers in UCG were "soft" on standing up for the truth when the doctrinal changes came in the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) in the early 1990s. Conversely, a common perception in the UCG is that many ministers in CGCF (or, in earlier days, the Global Church of God) left too early and abandoned their flocks instead of trying to resolve the doctrinal differences internally.

Whether true or not, one's perception becomes his reality. An immediate problem arises, though, in that generalizations and perceptions are often incomplete, and sometimes just plain wrong. It follows that any judgments based on generalizations and perceptions about what "the other guy" did, or should have done, are also often wrong. Another problem is that people often change, but other people's perceptions about them don't. Peace in the Body of Christ will depend greatly on our capacity for seeking the truth and changing perceptions when needed.

We found ourselves shifting perceptions at the task force meeting as we listened to each one tell his story about why he left WCG when he did, and why he went to either Global or United. We found ourselves increasing in understanding, and decreasing in judging another's actions too harshly. We found that each of us had differences in our knowledge, background, experiences, responsibilities, congregations, personal lives and relationships with other people. All these elements formed perceptions, and we all made judgments based on what we perceived to be God's will in our lives at the time. Yet, no one looked back and felt every decision he made was perfect. What we found as we related our experiences is likely true for most of God's people. Would not every one of us, if we had the chance to do it all again, do some things differently in our "fire-fighting" experiences in the last decade?

What about the cases where some (anyone, but especially ministers) may have been soft, or unclear, about where they stood on the doctrinal changes, especially if they supported wrong doctrines as they were introduced? It is understandable that some members may still wonder whether they are now on solid ground. That was a legitimate breach of trust, and it is logical and fair to question, "where are they now?" But it is also logical and fair to find out for sure. As we explained, that is one of the primary reasons we have a ministerial credentialing process in UCG. The only way to find out is through communication—directly, through personal contact, or indirectly, through the affirmation of someone else who knows for sure.

In that time of doctrinal confusion, some did stumble in certain areas as they wrestled with new ideas being introduced. Many have since expressed, publicly and/or privately, their regret and repentance over this, but perhaps not everyone has heard it. God honors repentance, and true repentance makes a person stronger. If anyone harbors concern, suspicion or hurt over the way doctrine was mishandled, the only way and the godly way to have that alleviated and a trusting relationship restored is to talk with one another as brothers and sisters. Continuing to live with suspicion and distrust is unhealthy for all concerned. It is a stumblingblock to godly unity and, if it is unjustified in the sight of God, it is indefensible.

Matters of another person's conscience are spiritually perilous for humans to judge, yet that has happened all too frequently and has fanned the flames of division. For example, many of those who left WCG as early as the late 1980s through 1994 believed they saw where the church was inevitably heading in doctrine, and they could not in good conscience abide in it any longer. Others waited until 1995 and beyond because they could not in good conscience leave it without resisting the changes until being forced to leave; they clung to the hope that an internal solution would be found, as had always happened before.

Most likely, the motives of some in either camp were sometimes not entirely pure, but we must exercise extreme caution when venturing into that area of judgment. God remains the only truly accurate judge of the heart. Just as likely is the fact that many people made different decisions, yet out of pure and honest motivation to do what they felt to be the right thing.

However, these differences often led to another common "thorn in the side"-the careless use of the tongue in labeling people. Many brethren and ministers later tagged one another with hurtful clichés such as liberal, heretic, Laodicean, enemies, too slow to come out, tainted, etc. The list is long. Labeling people can be very hurtful to the recipient, and subtly destructive to the one doing the labeling. It often springs from (or, can easily lead to) a judgmental and condemning attitude.

When tempted to paste a descriptive label on someone we need to first pass it through this mental filter: Can I be guaranteed that God would approve of my saying this of someone? And even if the label is accurate, what is the benefit in applying it? Will this hurt or heal? Is this edifying the Body of Christ in any way?

Yet another example of hurts came from neglect, or what some saw as hypocrisy. For example, in a number of instances, members who left the church in the early '90s were disfellowshipped by their pastor, only to see that pastor himself leave the church a few years later over similar issues. While the "ex-members" were glad to see the pastor leave for the truth, it hurt some, or at least seemed hypocritical, that he never apologized for disfellowshipping them. For some, being officially disfellowshipped meant little, nothing more than a nuisance formality required by organizational policy, but for others it was very gravely important, perhaps even humiliating and embarrassing. It scarred the relationship then and the nerves remain sensitive today.

Most ministers were in the heat of their own spiritual battles at the time and it probably never crossed their minds to contact past disfellowshipped members and retract their disfellowshipments. Furthermore, no one is a mind reader and ministers would likely not even know whether a former member was hurt over this matter.

So, can anything be done now to heal such silent scars? A willingness to go to your brother about your hurt, and a willingness to hear and acknowledge that hurt, is the beginning. If a loving desire to "gain our brother" (Matthew 18:15) is present with everyone, both appropriate explanations and apologies will be extended, and the stumblingblocks can be removed. Even if one is not hurting as badly now as at a previous time, if this presents a barrier to a right relationship, we must still seek godly reconciliation. Many times we say, "that doesn't really bother me anymore," when deep down inside it really does! Why? Because it is easier to sweep things under the carpet than to deal with the person and strive to restore relationships.

These are only a few examples, but they are sufficient to sense an emerging pattern. No matter what the offense may be, godly solutions are available, and need to be applied. The principle of Matthew 18:15, for example, not only demands going to your brother when there has been a trespass, but it emphasizes we must do it with the purpose of rebuilding the proper relationship—to "gain your brother." The principle of Matthew 5:23-24 tells us, on the other hand, to be aware of our relationships with others; when we remember a brother has something against us, we need to be reconciled first before we bring our gifts before God.

"Seek Peace, Pursue It Earnestly"

Such principles confirm the words of one of our old hymns, sung so often we know it by heart and can sing without thinking. However, we must take it to heart. Lifted from Psalm 34:14, the song powerfully emphasizes the fact that peace does not come easily or naturally to humans. "Depart from evil, do what is good; seek peace, pursue it earnestly." Each little phrase of that verse is worthy of our deep contemplation.

The path to peace is not a journey taken only by task forces, committees or church administrations. Every single member must join the process. The task forces are only the point of the effort, working to cut a path of understanding and peace.

"Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3) takes hard work, but it is worth every ounce of effort we can put into it. It is part of the spiritual "reforestation"—sowing the seeds of reconciliation so that the burned and scarred areas of God's Church may recover and be healthier than ever.