|
Home
VPA letters
| |
Era
of the Baby Boomer 1948 - present
July 2007
The following is a rewrite of the former Boomer
page and brings with it the result of more research. The trigger for doing this
work now was precipitated by a member of Kingdom Christian Ministries who
claimed inaccuracies in the first version. As explained in more detail at the
end of the article, he was correct on some points. As far as we know, everything
here is factual and it should be obvious where we have entered our own opinions
and interpretations. We know that much more could be written here, but we have
tried to stick with the important nuggets. Many of you would write this story
with a different emphasis. We would encourage you to write your own story about
these events. To any of you reading this who are new Christians, we would
encourage you to join a church where you do not need to do surgery with the
church s belief system in order for it to make sense.
It was a cold and snowy day on March 6, 1948, when the body of Frank Sandford
was carried up the hill and down through the woods west of his home in Hobart,
New York. He had made this his home since the Scattering in 1920. Sandford had
died two days earlier and Frank Murray, his biographer, remembered the trek to
the little cemetery hidden in the woods as nothing but glory . In a way his
reaction was curious, but it was typical of the way tragedy was faced in the
Kingdom. Put the best face possible on terrible reversals, move on, never
question, and do not look back. Sandford passed away in this house tucked away
in a remote corner of the Catskills with only a small group of the faithful
present. They included the sects three most prominent young leaders, Victor
Abram, Frank Murray, and Herman Anderson. These men and others would carry the
torch after Sandford s passing.
There are three events that happened just prior to Sandford s death that bear
mentioning, before moving on, for they give a glimpse into the thought process
behind the rationalizing Sandford s successors went through to maintain focus on
and belief in his extraordinary claims, and further help to explain the future
as it unfolded. These are all mentioned briefly in Frank Murray s book
Sublimity of Faith.
Two years earlier in 1946 when Sandford was 84, a major overhaul of the
Kingdom s yacht, Coronet was ordered with the installation of engines and a
deck- house. Why would they do all this work when Coronet had rarely been sailed
on the open seas since 1911? The answer was tied up in Sandford and his
prophesies. One of the most important prophesies that Sandford made was that he
and one of his followers, Charles Holland, were the two witnesses spoken of in
Revelation and that they would fulfill a Revelation prophesy by traveling to
Jerusalem and dying there. Never mind that Holland, who Sandford had earlier
prophesied to be Moses, had already died of natural causes. One was not to
question such irregularities of prophesy. At any rate, Sandford s followers knew
he was elderly and they felt they needed to help the prophesy along by finding a
way to get him to Jerusalem. Apparently, a steamship with the comforts of
staterooms and speed never entered into their picture. A martyr could only
travel on a historic holy vessel to get to his meeting with destiny. For them
the only reasonable way to get him to Jerusalem was to send him on Coronet and
Coronet needed a deckhouse and engines to make it suitable for the elderly
Sandford to make the trip. Whether or not Sandford ordered the work done on
Coronet is not clear, but we know he did not move to stop it. This event is
important to note because it shows how important Sandford s prophetic role still
was to his followers even at this late date in his life. When he died in New
York instead of on the streets of Jerusalem his claims to prophet-hood should
have evaporated in the minds of his followers, but in this case, those who were
left were hardcore followers and the event seems not to have precipitated any
massive departure. We have seen this same scenario played out in other
organizations whose leaders have prophesied the date of Christ s return only to
find out that it did not happen as prophesied. Some leave in disillusionment
while many loyal followers stay even though the proof of false teaching is
staring them in the face.
The second event, minor in one way yet indicative of the pretzel logic so
rampant in Kingdom policy, occurred in 1947 when Sandford returned to Maine for,
as Murray wrote, a sentimental journey . One would think that Sandford would
first visit Shiloh, which he had not seen in many years and which represented
his greatest successes, but he bypassed Shiloh and visited earlier haunts.
During this journey, the location of his baptism in Denham Brook in Bowdoinham
was of great significance to him. Why was this event significant? Well,
certainly it had a lot to do with the importance of baptism in his life. What
did not seem to be significant to him was that he was baptized by a Free Baptist
minister and not by one of his own followers. Normally this would not be a
problem, except that He preached that if a person was not baptized under his
baptism that person would not be accepted in heaven and in addition, no baptism
before his restored version was acceptable, except in the time of the
apostles. That same teaching carried on into the 1990's and was the cause of
much conflict within the Kingdom. Proposed new members of the church were
required to be re-baptized before they were fully accepted into fellowship. It
is curious that Murray and the leaders who followed did not see this
inconsistency, but Sandford was not known for his logic and Murray especially
was not known for wondering why things did not add up. The desire by Sandford s
followers to believe, and the fear of God s wrath for questioning were
formidable.
The third event happened only a few days before Sandford died. A rock solid
tenet of the Kingdom from the start was the belief in faith-healing, and a
negative view of doctors and medicine of any kind. The use of doctors or
medicine was considered a sign of incomplete faith for healing and nothing but
total faith would do the job. For many years after Sandford s death even aspirin
for a headache was not allowed. In February 1948, it was obvious to those
present that Sandford was declining rapidly and those around him started
considering the possibility of getting a doctor. This was strange because as
Murray says in Sublimity of Faith, God alone had been his (Sandford s)
physician and had seen him victoriously through the long years of retirement.
Now, however, the situation was approaching an emergency; some doctor must
observe this patient before he grew any worse. Huh? Because Sandford was
failing rapidly God was not able to heal and he needed the help of a physician?
How easily we forget about all the people in his organization who had been in a
similar condition through the years and never had the opportunity for a doctor
to look at them because of Sandford s teachings against doctors and medicine. At
any rate, Sandford got his doctor and his medicine and the doctor got Sandford s
blessing. Over and over the standards for acceptable living or what might be
called legalisms in the Kingdom, which caused so much mental anguish to the rank
and file, evaporated when the leaders decided the standards were hitting too
close to home.
What ties the three events together and relates them to the logic of
perpetuating Sandfordism after his passing? The answer is inconsistency. The
inconsistency and illogic of sending a dying man to Jerusalem to fulfill a
prophecy, the inconsistency and illogic of taking a sentimental journey to your
baptism site that according to your own teachings was not acceptable, and the
inconsistency and illogic of procuring a doctor for a dying man who denied his
followers the same luxury. How about the inconsistency and illogic of seeing
nothing but glory burying a prophet none of who s prophecies ever came to
fruition?
Nationally, change was in the air in religious circles. Sandford rose from the
holiness movement, which was widespread in the late 1800s. Pentacostalism and
other smaller sects also came out of that same stirring. Now the crusade style
of evangelism was breaking out. Billy Graham suddenly rose to prominence at an
evangelistic campaign in Los Angeles in 1949. His campaigns became crusades and
mainline churches wanted to be part of the action. Books and radio and the
dominance of television also starting in the 1950s filled an obvious need by the
populace. What was Sandford s church to make of this? In two words, not much.
Sandford s church and the new open way of evangelism was like oil and water. The
two movements were not compatible.
After Sandford s death the leadership of the Kingdom fell to Victor Abram. Frank
Murray was already President of the Corporation, which covered legal and
financial matters, and apparently there was some speculation that he would take
over the top spiritual position as well. It is not clear if there was any battle
between Murray and Abram over the top job, but certainly we know there was not
enough conflict present to rise to the level of a public battle. In any case,
for whatever reason, Sandford appointed no one to succeed him and Abram took
charge at 39 years of age. At this juncture, the Kingdom owned property at
Shiloh and the Wolfe Place retirement home in Maine, the Chestnut Hill farm,
known also in Kingdom speak as Oak Hill in New Hampshire, Elim in Boston, the
Hills in New York, and the farm called Goshen in Pennsylvannia. Small groups of
Kingdom families met in various homes around the country and in Canada, but
those homes were not under Kingdom ownership. It was typical for Kingdom leaders
to make the rounds to all of these small gatherings of people at least once a
year. In probably all cases, the people in these outlying areas paid ten percent
of their earnings (tithes) into the Kingdom treasury whether there was a local
Kingdom church to attend or not. Most of these people, or at least the men,
would make their way to the Kingdom headquarters for at least one of the Kingdom
feasts or gatherings each year to fulfill the obligation in the Old Testament
for the men to appear at the feasts. The most important feast to attend was the
feast of Harvest in the fall that always ended on Sandford s birthday. Summer
get-togethers for children became an annual event subsequent to Sandford s
death. A small Bible school had been maintained at Chestnut Hill since
Sandford s son David had acquired the property. The Bible School was mainly for
the children of members who had completed High School and it would become an
important influence on these young idealistic minds. It was probably the single
biggest reason that the church was able to maintain itself and keep as many
loyal members as it did for so many years. This school is ongoing under the
auspices of Kingdom Christian Ministries.
From 1902 until 1949, any new candidate for baptism wishing to become a member
of the Kingdom was interviewed and asked whether they accepted Frank Sandford s
claims as the Restorer, the prophet Elijah of Malachi 4:5. An answer in the
affirmative would determine whether the baptism would take place or not. This
practice continued until July 3, 1949. Mr. Floyd Hastings, attending a young
peoples retreat at that time, was also slated to be baptized. Floyd s father was
a long time loyal member and believer in the Prophet. His mother, however, had
held a seriously opposing opinion, and because of this had been disenfranchised
and labeled a backslider. As a result, she lived separately from her husband and
son. In those days, in order to attend the young peoples retreat one had to be a
baptized member of the Kingdom. In front of the assembled youth convention,
Victor Abram asked Floyd, Do you believe Frank W. Sandford was Elijah the
Prophet? Quoting from Mr. Hastings memoirs,
When I think now of the answer I gave it surely was impetuous of me, to say the
least! I said that I didn t know what to believe altogether, but that I had my
own ideas about it all! In other words, I had heard the pros and cons and was
inclined to keep my own counsel. So the idea seemed to be, at least as far as
Mr. Abram was concerned, that as long as I liked what he had to say and approved
of him, then that would carry the day just fine. In fact, I remember him saying,
You believe in me, don t you? I said that I did (whatever that meant). I m
sure my meaning was that I believed that he was a very sincere and caring person
and that he had conveyed those qualities to me personally. I am not sure that
older church members would have thought that was enough but perhaps. A few
years ago, one of the Kingdom ministers (who, by the way, was there as a 12 or13
year old) said that my baptism was a watershed. In other words, it was a
dividing line between the days when baptismal candidates who had to voice their
belief that Mr. Sandford was Elijah, and now, when I was not required to say I
believed in Mr. Sandford . Beginning with my baptism and continuing to this
day, a vocal assent to the belief in Mr. Sandford as Elijah the Prophet is no
longer required in order for a person to receive baptism in the movement known
as the Kingdom .
Lately the argument has been put forth that in his last days, Mr. Sandford had
mellowed and many of his former attitudes and opinions were mollified. From the
above it can be deduced that, at the least, at the time of his death in 1948,
one year prior to Hasting s baptism, candidates were still required to declare
their allegiance to the Prophet.
As it moved into the 1950's, the Kingdom settled into a quiet routine.
Membership roles were if kept were never published, so only a guess can be made
as to numbers. The unofficial number has ranged from 500 to 1500, but using
church income figures as a guide, the adult population is estimated to have been
between 500 and 600. It is also likely that the membership stayed fairly
constant from 1900 to the split in 1998. There was no exponential church growth
as would be expected from normal member family birth rates. Many if not most
children of member families left the organization as they became adults, and it
is no wonder. Many left with a desire to see what the world had to offer outside
the walls of the Kingdom. Those families that left concerned that their children
were not having sufficient contact with other Christian children in Sunday
School or in youth activities, would be branded as a quitter, one who had not
caught the vision of Sandford as the prophet Elijah and his role as the one
who had come to restore the Christian world before Christ s return. A quitter s
degree of fear of Sandford s vision and how displeased God would be with them
pretty much decided their fate as to whether or not they would stay. Those who
decided to stay had always to be careful not to question, not to analyze and to
keep their curiosity from what might be behind the proverbial Wizard of Oz
curtain
Church activity during these years revolved around the so-called Centers or
church communes (called local churches in this review) where church workers
lived and were supported. Members who did not live in those centers supplied the
needed money to run them, through tithes. The members who supplied the bulk of
the income essentially had no say in how the church finances were spent.
Financial decisions were made by a small group of men, the Directors, most of
whom lived in the Centers. If it was decided to build in a certain area of the
country because church membership had grown, a house was built for a center
worker to live in. A church might come later, but in the mean time, members were
expected to meet in the church home.
Behind the scenes, Abram in particular was at work sanitizing some of Sandford s
writings. There was some interest by the members to see some of Sandford s old
papers republished for the sake of the children of current members who had not
known Sandford. This was part of an effort to make sure the memory of Sandford
did not die out. As Abram prepared these papers, in particular The Art of War
and Seven Years With God , he began to delete portions that people might not
understand . An examination of Sandford s writings reveals a strange dichotomy
between his highly spiritual and worshipful description of everything Godly and
then the injection of himself into that same scene. It was also clear that he
felt that anyone who did not agree with his teachings was in trouble with God.
Abram went about trying to soften this harshness together with Sandford s focus
on himself without denying his claims.
By the middle 1950's, at least three of the leaders in ministry were rumored to
be involved in some kind of affair outside of marriage, among these it would
later be revealed was the affair concerning Victor Abram, and would become a
pivotal catalyst after his death in 1977. Was Abram s philandering a learned
behavior? It was remarkable that the affairs of three men in leadership were
kept bottled up for as long as they were. In some ways these affairs are
understandable where so many people lived so close together in the Centers and
where male leaders took such a dominating position over the women. Single women
living in the Centers were called Whither-so-evers and did the cleaning,
cooking, and nursing of the elderly, and were dispatched from Center to Center
depending on need. Since the male leaders made all the staffing decisions, it
presented a situation ripe for abuse. And all the while these policies were in
practice, many sermon topics focused like a laser beam on sexual purity in
action and thought. During the 80 s and throughout the 90 s as the sexual
wanderings of the leaders, in particular Abram, became known, it affected many
women the hardest, after having to deal with not only the control issues already
described, but with further excessive restrictions regarding dress, appearance,
and restricted activities. All these policies, or Standards as they were known
within the Kingdom, were most heavy handed toward the women, again because the
rules were decided on and handed down almost exclusively by men. So, it is not a
surprise that when it was found out that these men had been preaching one life
while living another, the women of the church had the strongest negative
reaction.
By and large though, these early years after Sandford s death were quiet, with a
desire by the leaders to continue on in the Sandford mode. Since Sandford s
retirement in 1920, little emphasis had been placed on outreach evangelism.
Instead there was a desire to keep the Centers going, depending in large part on
the various Center s farming activities and tending out on scattered families
with historic roots in the Kingdom. Evangelism in the classic sense had ceased
with the tent meetings and state campaigns in the early 1900s. During the period
of years between 1894 and 1902 the evangelism focus shifted from the local tent
meetings to regional crusades to worldwide influence through acquisitions in
England and Israel, attempting ostensibly on a global scale to preach the
gospel. This came to a halt largely at the time of Sandford s incarceration, and
was not refocused until Sandford s son John carried out his own personal
evangelistic crusades from the 20's through the 50's. Little was done on a
church wide basis again along these lines until the mid-sixties, when a van
(dubbed appropriately the gospel van ) was purchased for outreach use and
received church-wide support. A small group traveled around the country to local
Kingdom churches giving support to them and conducting outreach services in
those local areas. Even this did not involve the general church membership in a
way that matched the early work. To explain this seeming lack to carry out the
Great Commission, the Kingdom would rationalize it by saying it was a praying
church. This stemmed from Sandford s belief born out of his first trip around
the world in 1892 as a Baptist minister, that bringing the gospel of Christ to
the world was too big a job for missionaries alone. Only prayer in the spiritual
realm would do the job, and later demonstrated by the 1907 circumnavigation of
the forty on the Coronet, where prayer was the primary tool of outreach
rather than personal contact ministry. Some could see this concept of
non-contact evangelism as a cop-out, but whether it was or not, it resulted in a
very low-key level of evangelistic activity from 1911 on. No doubt, Sandford s
incarceration and the retirement paranoia that followed further fed this
rationale. As a result of not reaching out to the local communities and not
sending out missionaries, the focus was turned inward to the spiritual
development of the individual and the movement.
Abram s years from 1948 on were characterized by maintaining strong control over
the members and a slow but steady construction program. Sandford had pretty much
gone underground in 1920 with little growth in buildings. Abram spread out with
property purchases in New Hampshire (Fairwood), Florida, Massachusetts, and
California and new buildings were constructed in these areas. These buildings
were built primarily with money raised from campaigns where members were
expected to give over and above their normal 10% tithing. Labor came from men
and boys living within the church communal network and from volunteers within
the membership. New buildings and property gave at least the appearance that
something progressive was happening, in spite of minimal if any increase in
church population. However, new property ended up being located out of the way,
partly because property was cheaper there than in developed areas, but it also
kept the movement out of the public eye. The primary motivation to build on
these properties was to serve current members in those areas. Outreach to
non-Kingdom people in those areas was always preached as important, but the
reality of keeping separate from the world in the minds of both leaders and
members typically outweighed the focus of the great commission. The primary
exception would be the establishing of a Kingdom church property in Essex,
Massachusetts through the drive and efforts of Frank S. Murray. It is safe to
say, though, that holding the current fellowship together was the primary motive
for new church development.
At Abram s death in 1977, a vacuum occurred in the leadership. Joseph Wakeman,
Abram s son-in-law, became the overall leader in the minds of most of the
congregation, but he called himself and thought of himself as more of a
caretaker. Wakeman had been in charge of the convention center at Fairwood for a
number of years leading up to Abram s death and Abram came to depend on him more
and more as his health failed. Abram did not technically give Wakeman the mantle
of overall leader, but it was clear to the rest of the leadership and the
congregation as a whole that it was to be Wakeman s job. Wakeman did not seem to
enjoy the kind of attention that the Abram style encouraged. Abram s highly
controlling style of leadership, carrying with it the aura of special Divine
Authority was contrary to Wakeman s personality. In addition, Wakeman wanted to
connect with the rest of the conservative evangelical Christian world. As time
went on, Wakeman began to use the phrase, not to question and not to be bound
to express his view of how this change in focus could be done. In other words,
he felt there was nothing to be gained nor was anyone capable of figuring out
the history of Sandford and his actions, nor should the church be locked in to
Sandford s teachings for determining every action taken by the church in the
future. So, instead of dropping much of the Sandford baggage or doctrine and
making a clean break, he chose to try to move ahead with the baggage in tow. To
those in the leadership who wanted to hold rigidly to the Sandford doctrine,
Wakeman was not fully trusted. Wakeman s preferred role as a more democratic
chairman became a weakness that the Sandford fundamentalists would exploit. The
next twenty-one years would turn out to be a hard grind for Wakeman.
The year 1978 was significant because it was the start of the book years. Up
until this time, the only publications put forth by the Kingdom were Sandford s.
There were pamphlets and small papers such as The Standard written and edited by
members, but nothing that could be called a book. In 1978, William Hiss wrote a
relatively comprehensive history of The Kingdom for his doctoral dissertation
titled Shiloh: Frank W. Sandford and the Kingdom: 1893-1948 . While he was not
a member of The Kingdom and the dissertation was not published by The Kingdom,
it received a behind the scenes stamp of approval. Frank Murray supplied Hiss
with much of the material used in the writing of the book, and on the whole,
Murray seems to have been satisfied with it. In the beginning, there were only a
few copies of it that were circulated amongst the leaders and some who were
considered safe . For those who did read it and were not previously familiar
with early Kingdom history, it filled in a great deal of blank space. Also, the
treatise began to get the label that it was balanced and mostly accurate. If
this was the case, why was it kept mostly under wraps? For one, the leadership
did not have total control over the contents of it, and the work revealed a
different history than the carefully crafted history most of the membership was
familiar with. Knowledge fuels questions and the leadership hated questions. On
occasion in the early days, members were told to cut off your head which meant
not to question what you are told. With questions, manipulation by the
leadership became more difficult. Since Hiss s work only had minimal circulation
amongst the membership, it is not clear that it had much affect on what was to
come, until later.
The second major work to arrive on the scene was The Almighty and Us written by
Arnold White in 1979. This was a self-published book that received less
circulation amongst the members than Hiss s work. The primary reason was that
White was a former member who grew up in the Shiloh commune in the early part of
the century but later left the Kingdom. Because White had, with time, become an
atheist, his opinions and insights were not readily accepted or approved. A
branded man by the faithful, his book was a no holds barred story of the early
years with an interesting perspective from the vantage point of someone who grew
up in it.
Concurrent with the two works above mentioned, Frank Murray had been at work on
his own book, Sublimity of Faith, for over 20 years, which was finally
published by The Kingdom in 1981. This book carried the full stamp of approval
by the leadership. While many people embraced and loved it, others thought it
dripped with a little too much goo. Murray was unabashedly a head-over-heals
Sandford man, so in a way he could not help himself if it came out too
one-sided. But, because of this, a great deal of information was left out that
would have painted a different picture of Sandford while much of what was in the
book was heavily slanted to make Sandford look good. Murray was clearly aware
that how the history of Sandford was presented was extremely important to
keeping the church going. He was also well aware of all the disturbing things
Sandford did and said and how those things would affect the average reader. He
himself had had doubts about Sandford early on. Murray struggled with them, felt
God gave him direction to believe in Sandford, then did not look back. What he
failed to understand was the fact that each generation needs to do their own
struggling without those who came before rigging the history.
The fourth book to come out that had the most impact for change in The Kingdom
was Fair Clear and Terrible by Shirley Nelson. Nelson s book was published in
1989 by British American Publishing and received national circulation. Because
her father was Arnold White, Nelson was in possession of a great number of
historical documents. Nelson pulled no punches and wrote the book as she saw it
without influence from the leadership to tone it down. In The Kingdom, there was
an understanding that this book should not be read, (her father s reputation
preceded her) but the fact that it could be easily purchased meant that it would
be. It provided a sort of the rest of the story look at the history of The
Kingdom that had been so carefully hidden for at least 40 years. For the
Sandford faithful it was a biased slam at Sandford and The Kingdom, but for
others it was a revelation, filling in many of the spaces that Murray had
skipped or glossed over, and a feeling that the membership had been duped.
Needless to say, it was an awakening for many.
Shortly after the appearance of Fair Clear and Terrible, the Public Broadcasting
System (PBS) decided to make a documentary of Sandford and The Kingdom, and
aired it for the first time in late 1991. Needless to say, not all the
leadership was happy about this, due to their uninterrupted distrust of the
press and media. Not only could it portray the church in a distasteful light, at
the very least it would bring them into the limelight once more. There was
disagreement among the Kingdom leaders as to how best to cooperate with the
producers during the filming throughout the first half of the year. Due largely
to the efforts of the younger leaders born after Sandford s passing, the
paranoia of the past gave way, and several, including Frank Murray and Tad
Sandford, agreed to cooperate and even contribute interviews to the effort. The
documentary focused on Shiloh and The Kingdom s colorful past, as did most news
organizations through the years when some news event erupted that involved a
cult aspect similar to Shiloh s history. The film was completed and ran on PBS
stations in Maine. While there was no apparent upheaval in the local community
as a result of the show, it opened up the past and raised questions to many
within the Shiloh membership. A crack was developing, and the story described
next shook many to the core.
Simmering in the background during this same period, was the story that surfaced
in 1978 that Victor Abram, the successor to Sandford, had been involved in
extramarital affairs starting back in the 1950s. Those in ministry leadership
were notified of the allegations, with disbelief by some and acceptance by
others. A number of church members had seen things that were inappropriate
through the years, but their indoctrination to avoid analysis would allow them
to trust Abram in spite of what they saw. Abram was, after all, the leader with
Divine Authority, and had a hot-line to heaven that exempted him from the
problems of ordinary people, or so many thought. To the leaders, it was a hot
potato item. In the beginning the leaders reacted in a very human, natural way
as they were served with the terrible truth; they attacked the messengers of the
news. After psychologically beating up the messengers and doing their own
limited investigating, it finally sunk in that something terrible had happened.
But instead of acting in an open and honest manner with the fellowship, they
instead chose to selectively hide the story and in so doing, made a fatal
mistake. Instead of explaining what had happened to the entire membership, they
decided to only tell selected members, apparently thinking that would be the end
of it. But they also knew that a vibrant underground gossip system was well
entrenched in the church, and had been for years, so that this information would
slowly leak out over time. What was amazing was that it took so long to reach
some members. As it turned out, a number of members, particularly younger
couples with children, did not hear about it until the early 1990s and when they
did they felt betrayed by the fact that the leaders had tried to keep it a
secret. On December 5, 1993 the leaders were forced to publicly announce the
news of Abram s indiscretions. The shiny Divine Authority of the leadership was
looking very tarnished indeed. For many, this was a huge crack in the carefully
laid out and protected frame work that was The Kingdom. Shirley Nelson s book
opened up doubt in the historical underpinnings of The Kingdom, but the
unfaithfulness of the top leader and the subsequent cover-up by the remaining
leaders got many people thinking the unthinkable. While the younger members who
never knew Sandford were willing to accept the possibility that Sandford was the
prophet Elijah, but did not feel like they knew enough or felt a need to take a
stand on the subject, many were now entertaining the thought that Sandford was
not Elijah at all and the leaders were at best just ordinary people with no more
wisdom or authority than anyone else. Once Pandora s box was opened, the
possible avenues of questioning were endless. Eventually, many members came to
the conclusion that they needed more input on how things were run if there was
ever a chance of regaining trust in their church. It was no longer acceptable to
sit back and let these so called leaders run things any way they pleased, under
the guise of being led by the Spirit.
Differences of opinion on church policy within the pastors and ministers that
began to occur shortly after Wakeman took over from Abram continued and were
amplified by the recent embarrassing discoveries. It is probable that the
divisions were always there even under Abram, however, Abram s autocratic style
of leadership tended to suppress any tendencies for division, whereas, Wakeman s
more democratic lean toward leadership meant that the divisions could surface
without a reprimand. Wakeman continued on with primarily spiritual pick me up
type pastoral letters to the membership. These letters also carried directions
for proper spiritual living, as decided on by the Board of Ministers, to the
members. These directions were usually interpretations of some legalistic
doctrine known as standards originally set up by Sandford.. These legalisms
were the cause of a great deal of stress for some people, in particular families
with young children. For instance, what children, mainly girls, could wear to
school or what sports they could play, ie. no sports on the Sabbath from sundown
Friday to sundown Saturday was a source of much heartache in young households.
Society changed after the second world war and more so in the 70s and 80s by
becoming more open, and as such it became harder and harder to adhere to the
Standards. Because these Standards came directly from Sandford s teachings it
was very difficult for the strict fundamentalists in the leadership to allow
them to change. The first major change came in 1988 when the ministers approved
the use of health insurance by church members. The second came in 1993 when
women were allowed to wear pants. In both these cases, church members had
already started making the changes before the official policy came out, so the
ministers were essentially playing catch up by giving approval to something that
many members were already doing.
The next three years found The Kingdom and its leaders in turmoil. In February
1993 in an effort to calm the seas, Wakeman wrote two pastoral letters to the
membership on behalf of the leadership that those on both sides of the issue of
Sandford s claims should try to be tolerant of each other. In Wakeman s letter
of Feb 2, he affirms Sandford did receive God s call and did fulfill the role
God had planned for him as the prophet of the restoration. He further states he
is aware that there are those in the fellowship who feel that an inappropriate
application of scripture has resulted in the formation of policies that are not
clearly prescribed by the Bible, and attitudes and perspectives that may have
fostered spiritual pride and contributed to confusion and oppression. Also,
these applications did not fully reflect Christ s compassion and unconditional
love. He identifies the greatest source of problems in the ministry as the
incorrect use of Spiritual Authority. Wakeman expressed both regret and
repentance for actions or attitudes or policies which have not fully represented
the heart or God. He further assures the reader, we are in the process of
seeking to be fully adjusted to God s intentions for us .and I do have
confidence that the good Spirit of God will take us into and through the process
of adjustment that will build for the future. It is interesting that even at
this time Wakeman did not seem to be connecting Sandford with the lack of
accountability in leadership issue.
In his letter of February 21, 1993 Wakeman approached the thorny issue of
appropriate women s apparel. Wakeman attempted to ease the fellowship into a
more relaxed policy, stating that women can in good conscience now wear pants,
where appropriate . These concessions toward those who favored a more relevant
Kingdom ministry undoubtedly aggravated the Murray fundamentalist faction.
Wakeman stood in the middle of the road on a collision course with traffic
coming at him from both directions. The following month Wakeman s pastoral
letter recapped the recent Feast of Passover. At the end of the letter, Wakeman
returned to the previous subjects of leadership and direction,
pressing on with the call to teach and live scriptural, godly, holy lives
counting on the power of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to make us exactly
what we ought to be in God s estimation. Along with that we continue to honor
the Spirit of God to guide and empower us to fulfill the mission that he has for
us in the light of the special call to Mr. Frank W. Sandford, the founder of
this movement. Living out the Restoration through the conduct of our lives and
the exercise of our faith is both a challenge and a privilege.
By 1994 uneasiness had settled over the church. Questions over church structure,
finances, and vision were coming from many directions now including the
leadership itself. The leadership sent out a questionnaire to members asking
them to list their concerns and a meeting was held where members explained their
concerns to the leaders. The leadership gave no feedback to the members
regarding these concerns, but it was a sign the leaders knew something was awry
and it could not be ignored. At this point, the leaders had not been able to
face the possibility that they might have to consider giving up their up to now
total control of the church and as a result they appeared to be paralyzed by
indecision. In some ways, it can be understood by looking at the way things had
been run starting from Sandford s death in 1948. With only minor variations,
church structure was driven by the model developed by Sandford. The post 1977
Board of Ministers operating with a more open leader was different, but only in
a minor way. Sandford and the way he did things was always part of the thinking.
Flexibility had never been good and rigidity had always been best but the unrest
of the mid-nineties was a new dog with no prior Sandford management precedent to
fall back on.
Through the spring of 1995 the Board of Ministers struggled to put forth a
Vision Statement of sorts, and finally broke their impasse in the May pastoral
letter. Wakeman writes,
We want you to know that the Kingdom ministers do affirm together that the
Bible alone, as interpreted and applied by the Holy Spirit, is the basis for our
Christian teaching and for any church policy advocated or applied in our
respective pastoral ministries. No other oral or written material shall hold
weight or position equal to that of Scripture. If there is any question of
difference of opinion on church doctrine that arises among us, the Bible shall
be the final determining factor on any such matters.
Although at first glance this would seem to quell the hub-bub, the phrase , as
interpreted and applied by the Holy Spirit, did not appear in earlier drafts.
That phrase is the definitive element separating the Kingdom from other more
mainstream denominations. Instead of relying on proven accepted scriptural
interpretation, Sandford taught and subsequent leadership endorsed the personal
interpretation of scripture based on the leadings of the Holy Spirit. But what
if your leadings are different than mine? Needless to say, this affirmation did
not settle anything.
On June 3, 1995, the Kingdom turned over the yacht Coronet to the International
Yacht Restoration School, in Newport, Rhode Island. The school s goal is to
ultimately restore it and bring it back to original condition.
Also in 1995, the leadership tackled one of the biggest standards that
affected the church as a whole. That was Special or Prophet Restored baptism.
The Restored Baptism had stood the test of time in The Kingdom since Sandford
introduced it in the early part of the century. While it was a fairly standard
total immersion style baptism, what set it apart was the necessity to have it
done only by a Kingdom pastor or minister. Any other baptism would just not do.
In usual pretzel logic (deriving convoluted rationales to justify what you
wanted to do in the first place), the leaders explained that it did not mean
that someone else s baptism was no good in the eyes of God, the leaders just did
not think it was their place to make the decision as to whether or not someone s
earlier baptism took . Therefore, anyone who joined The Kingdom had to be
re-baptized by a Kingdom pastor or minister even if they had already been
baptized by someone else. As a practical matter, it meant that many people who
were wishing to join the church refused when they understood that they had to be
re-baptized after having what they felt was a Biblical Christian baptism. It
also made church members pause when it came to encouraging people they came in
contact with to join their church. Certainly pressure by members as well as some
pastors contributed to a rethinking of the baptism policy. A new twist was put
forth by the leadership that the Prophetic Restoration of true baptism
instituted by Sandford had taken hold around the world providing a covering of
acceptability for other baptisms. A few Sandford fundamentalists were able to
stomach the change by believing this theological kabuki dance. Additionally,
since the baptism policy was directly tied to the communion policy, the change
meant that people who were not baptized in The Kingdom were now full members and
could now take communion. But not all the fundamentalists could tolerate the
policy change, even with the pretzel logic proviso described above. A little
footnote to the policy appeared in early 1996 allowing people who were not
comfortable with the new policy to take part in a separate communion thereby
holding true to Sandford. Just as in the 100-fold life arrangement instituted
a hundred years earlier, a two tier holiness arrangement was made which
ultimately could only produce disunity. (The 100-fold life in the early part
of the century meant that only those living a life of faith in the centers
were 100-fold or living on the highest and holiest level God had for them, and
those working for a living supplying the finances for the 100 folders were on
a lower level. Of course it could be debated whether or not the person working
for a living needed more faith to survive than the one living in a center. The
term 100-fold derives from Matthew 13:23 among other places in the New
Testament where the story of the seed planted in the good soil produced crops
yielding 100, 60, or 30 times what was sown.)
A change in how the Kingdom was presented to the public had been going on for
years. There had been a slow decrease in the mention of Sandford and his claims
during public services and thus an increase in the emphasis on Christ. As the
number of people who actually knew Sandford passed on, it was natural that this
would happen. As the 90s opened up, the new books were read, the revelations of
Abram hit the member s consciousness, and a restlessness for change was in the
air. Added to this was greater openness in society and the numerous ways the
clich s were not so readily accepted by the members as they had been before. The
word Restoration slowly moved to the forefront as a way to identify the Kingdom.
Without using the name of Sandford with Restoration, it seemed to be more
acceptable. Those who had belonged to the organization for years knew that it
was synonymous with Sandford because they had been taught that Sandford was the
Restorer. An uninformed public, however, would not readily pick up on it.
Sandford as the Restorer comes from Acts 3:21 where it says, He (meaning Jesus)
shall remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he
promised long ago through his holy prophets . Sandford as the prophet Elijah
claimed that he was the one who would restore everything, thus he was the
Restorer. Others believe that verse refers to Jesus as the Restorer. In any
case, those who used the term Restoration in the Kingdom thought Sandford was
the one referred to in Acts. So, the feasts became the Restored feasts, and
baptism became the Restored baptism, and the Sabbath became the Restored
Sabbath.
During this period it became evident to the Board of Ministers that their
ability to make decisions was becoming more and more difficult. The Sandford
side was continuing to run most decisions through the Sandford screen to see if
it would pass muster and those who wanted to move on chafed at this. To attempt
to break the logjam, the Board of Ministers set up an Executive Committee
consisting of three ministers who would make final decisions if the Board could
not. It was assumed that three people could come to a conclusion easier than the
more numerous Board. This would prove to be true, however, the decisions of the
Executive Committee would come to be colored by the predisposition of the
majority of the Committee in their commitment to the Sandford baggage.
By 1996, Shiloh Chapel, Sandford s first permanent church and the one with the
largest membership of all the Kingdom churches, was in the middle of serious
introspection. There was a growing dissatisfaction with the central leadership
in regard to accountability and a growing feeling that the baggage of Sandford
was keeping the church from presenting the pure gospel. On July 29, 1996, Shiloh
had a Direction meeting to begin the process of coming to terms with what the
problems were and the best solutions to deal with those problems. As far as we
know, this had never been done in Kingdom history before. And as general church
history shows, such an action leads to a branding from which there can be no
turning back. This proved to be true. There was at this same time a move by the
central leadership to write a doctrinal or Vision Statement that would form a
basis for the Kingdom on which members could rally around. While no one had any
problem with a statement that was strictly Scripture based, a growing number of
people did not want the Sandford baggage as part of it, and a majority of Shiloh
members were part of that number. It became clear from this Shiloh meeting that
Shiloh wanted more independence.
By the time of the Meeting of Kingdom Ministers and Pastors on September 5 and
6, 1996, the matter of decentralization was front and center. Decentralization
meant allowing the different church centers to be more on their own in financial
and spiritual matters. This discussion inevitably led to where the church stood
in regard to Sandford and his authority. This prompted statements by some of
those present that those who did not believe in Sandford as Elijah should
leave the movement (church). Also, various versions of a doctrinal covenant or
charter were discussed. Wakeman also passed out a paper on Sandford s life at
this meeting. Before the meeting ended, the Board endorsed a six page document
entitled, Statement Regarding the Life and Work of Frank Weston Sandford . The
Reader s Digest version of Sandford s life was condensed onto the first page and
a half. The rest attempted to wrestle with what do we do with him today. The
document summarizes as follows:
Let us emphasize again that the purpose in this writing is to clarify where we
as leaders stand in regard to our relationship to the heritage of this movement.
Not everyone sees everything exactly the same. But we do need a general sense of
overall direction that we can rally to and promote. We all are called upon to do
some yielding of our own ideas and conclusions and join heart and soul in the
work of spreading the gospel and extending the Kingdom of Christ. We live in a
different world from that of 100 years ago and changes and adjustments are
necessary in order to keep pace with God s Spirit and be fruitful. With a good
measure of humility and faith we can find ourselves in God s will and fulfilling
His call.
This paper was a first because it questioned some claims made by Sandford during
his ministry and suggested that Sandford did not get everything right. While it
would seem logical to say that no one gets everything right, no one in a
leadership role had up to that time ever pointed to specific things that
Sandford got wrong. Frank Murray shared some of his thoughts during the meeting,
one of which was a warning that we should not accept or join in any negative
reviews of the life and work of Sandford. The lines were becoming clearer
between those who wanted to embrace Sandford and those who wanted to move on.
The October 7, 1996 pastoral letter notified the membership that the Directors
and Board of Ministers were working on a concept to allow local churches to
legally organize independently. The Board of Ministers were also working on a
covenant to be subscribed to by the local churches if they decided to change
their financial structure. However, things were quickly spinning out of central
control. The following pastoral letter of October 22, 1996 was accompanied with
the statement regarding Sandford s possible shortcomings mentioned above and
attempted to clarify some aspects of Sandford s past ministry. There is no
record of a universal outcry regarding this statement except it is safe to say
that those who believed in all of Sandford s claims were upset. During the
November 12 and 13, 1996, minister s meeting, it was decided that a single
covenant could not be agreed on by all ministers and the individual centers
should come up with their own covenant. It was also decided that the Board of
Ministers would no longer have the same regulatory role over the individual
pastor s ministry as it had in the past. Even then, apparently, some ministers
still had hope that a universally accepted covenant could be approved. It also
became apparent at this meeting that Frank Murray and some others did not want
to be part of the group approving the Statement Regarding the Life and Work of
Frank W. Sandford and expressed as much in a general letter to the church
members. It was clear that the pro Sandford faction would not be able to
compromise as suggested in Wakeman s pastoral letter of September.
At a corporation meeting on March 16, 1997, the members voted on a number of
radical by-law changes and motions centering on the realization that things were
coming apart. One by-law change dealt with the dissolution of the Corporation .
One motion authorized the Directors to disclose the total tithe income generated
by a local church to the local church. For those involved in mainline churches
this seems like a no-brainer, however, it came by means of a long fought battle.
Giving up control is hard. Another motion encouraged the Directors to consult
with a representative from the local church before determining how much tithes
to take from the local church. Up until this time, local control of finances and
even knowledge of where and how the finances were spent was minimal. These
motions were the result of growing distrust of the central leadership. Also, at
this meeting, it was moved to create a committee to come up with a five year
plan to make the local churches and other entities self-supporting. As it turned
out, five years was not needed.
Just as Sandford had not been able to pass on the role of leader to anyone when
he died, Victor Abram failed as well. Wakeman assumed control without the
authoritarian type leadership wielded by Sandford and Abram. Partly for this
reason, Wakeman could not control what was now happening. In a letter from the
Board of Ministers on March 26, 1997 to the members of the church, there was an
attempt to clarify Wakeman s position. In this letter the Board of Ministers
supported Wakeman as the overseer of the spiritual affairs of the Kingdom and
authorized the minister s Executive Committee to support him with the
understanding that Wakeman was to make final decisions where necessary. This
support would prove to be short-lived. At their meeting during May 6 & 7, 1997,
the ministers and pastors showed Wakeman they had no idea of continuing the
support they had given him in March. At this meeting, they established that no
Kingdom policy change could be made without the change submitted in writing to
the board at least 10 days prior to a scheduled meeting. If church policy was
spiritual, and Wakeman was the overseer, where did this leave Wakeman? At this
same meeting, Wakeman made his first shot across the bow. He made a proposal to
stop the policy of separate communions. This was certainly spiritual policy and
the policy was divisive, but the board tabled Wakeman s proposal meaning, for
all practical purposes, that it was dead. So what was Wakeman to make of this?
As the meeting went on, further discussion was made regarding church
decentralization with the weak conclusion that they had been successful in
turning the minds of church members away from a move toward more autonomy. This
conclusion we assume can only be attributed to their belief in their persuasive
power over the people. Nothing else comes to mind.
But, Wakeman was not done with the proposal he made regarding separate
communions. Wakeman wrote a letter to Kingdom leaders on May 14, 1997
questioning their decision regarding his proposal to drop the separate communion
policy. In that letter he questioned the leader s ability to accept his position
as spiritual overseer they gave him less than two months earlier. He said that
God is calling them to unite by supporting him and he would like a response from
them regarding this. For Wakeman this attempt to rally the leadership around him
at this late date proves to be too little, too late. One could argue that he
should have taken this position of authority when he took over from Abram. It
might have resulted in a different direction for the church if the leaders had
been able to accept him then as the spiritual leader, but that will never be
known now. Clearly, the minister s earlier support of Wakeman was merely for
show to the members.
The June 16, 1997 minister s meeting was chaotic as they debated Wakeman s role
and the direction of the church. Some felt that the distinctives of Restoration
ministry should be emphasized and others felt there was plenty to work with from
the Bible without pointedly including aspects of The Restoration. The question
was whether or not it was appropriate to teach things that were part of the
heritage, such as Restoration, that might not be relevant today. At this meeting
the words hopeless and break-up appeared for the first time. It was also
announced that tithe income was down and the financial situation was of
considerable concern. It was obvious that members were dissatisfied and were
withholding their support and some members were leaving. Since the members had
little input into the workings of the organization, their only sure way to
register their displeasure at the way things were being run was financial.
Another aspect that was troubling to at least some church members was the
seeming lack of understanding by the leaders that the members were not
completely in the dark about what was going on between the ministers and
pastors. News was leaking out about the minister s and pastor s meetings and how
they were in great disagreement and yet the ministers and pastors continued to
tell the members that they found great unity amongst themselves. The members
were not buying that and found it to be dishonest and outrageous.
June 28 - 29, 1997 saw a Centennial celebration at Shiloh that was attended by many in
the community that were interested in the history of the church. It is rather
ironic that shortly the church at Shiloh would become independent of the
Sandford culture and move on into the mainstream of Christianity. It is
remarkable that the ties with Sandford lasted as long as they did considering
how far Sandford wandered outside of mainstream Christianity and the fact that
he had been dead for almost 50 years. In spite of the actions of the leadership,
Shiloh was moving swiftly toward making the break.
On July 14, 1997 Rev. Frank Murray wrote a cover letter and included it with an
article he drafted during the last of May sending both to 50 selected members of
the fellowship, detailing Murray s intimate knowledge of and anecdotal events
about his mentor Frank Sandford. He wrote in that cover letter,
My sole purpose in this writing is to pass on, to those who care about it, my
experience with a modern prophet, and my conviction that his work is still very
much up to date. I am content to leave the rest with the Holy Spirit who always
used to be looked to as the Director of this movement.
He ended his 23 page manifesto with this heartwarming statement,
Finally, let me again remind the reader that our attitude toward God is
invariably measured by our attitude toward those sent by God. All who have had
access to the Elijah ministry are on trial.
A small group in Maine that had attended the church at Shiloh, but was unhappy
with the direction Shiloh was headed in, beat the Shiloh task force to the punch
by making a request to the Kingdom ministers for approval to meet as a separate
group and receive support from the Kingdom. The Kingdom Executive Committee
discussed their request at the committee s August 21, 1997 meeting. The
ministers decided not to endorse the group, but did decide to send ministerial
support to them, which essentially was a defacto endorsement of the group. This
small group was not happy with the move by Shiloh to drop Sandfordism from their
ministry.
The Kingdom leader s meetings of August 26 and 27, 1997 again took up the topic
of church direction with the result that they found that their divisions were
strong and deep. They could all agree on the standard themes of Christianity,
but the involvement of Sandford s teachings interwoven in those themes created
the stumbling block. Some wanted to take Sandford s part out and some wanted it
in. Those were the two visions. Wakeman wrote in their report, we must get
beyond accommodating a scenario that continually widens the gulf between two or
more visions in serious conflict if we are to function as we ought to function
as a healthy part of the Body of Christ .
At the Corporation meeting on September 28, 2007, the Directors presented
directions for the local churches to work towards more financial independence.
The Directors required each local church to agree to a Directors Covenant that
mandated 25% of the local revenues be sent to the central church. They also
suggested ways to move local church properties into local church ownership,
however, the Directors Covenant made it clear that all real assets are the
property of The Kingdom. The Directors were being pushed in this direction
primarily by the members at Shiloh who by now wanted to go independent but still
maintain some connection to the central church. The Corporation at this meeting
also authorized the Directors to take emergency measures to fix the financial
shortfall.
By this time in 1997 it was clear to everyone that two basic visions for The
Kingdom were challenging the fabric of the organization. A Special Assembly was
organized to be held at Fairwood on November 22, 1997 to address these
disparities of outlook. The focus of the assembly was the presentation of
visions for the church by four of the most vocal proponents of the different
sides. Unofficially, Joseph Wakeman and Ronald Parker represented the vision of
moving ahead without focusing on Sandford and Neil Sandford and Timothy Murray
represented the Sandford side. Parker in his presentation talked about being
troubled by Sandford s teachings that did not line up with Scripture and he was
bothered by the exclusivity brought about by the continued following of those
teachings. He said, Salvation is a work of grace, period . Wakeman said,
since Mr. Abram s death the issue of endorsement of Mr. Sandford as Elijah has
not been fully laid to rest . Wakeman also talked about not being bound by the
way Sandford operated. Murray was clearly on the other side of the issue. Murray
placed great emphasis on Restoration and Sandford s role as Elijah and the
Restorer. While Murray gave some opening to being led by the Spirit in the
present he then went on to emphasize that Sandford never changed the basic
teachings about his own mission. Neil Sandford joined Murray in emphasizing
Restoration and Frank Sandford as the Restorer. Neil asserted that the
present-day work of the Restorer (Frank Sandford) defines where Restoration is
most complete (in other words The Kingdom). As the following months show,
nothing was gained by this exercise except a better understanding by the members
why their church did finally split.
It is not clear and probably not fair to pick out one event that was a tipping
point in the final breakup particularly where it seems obvious that things
played out over a number of years. However, some events seem key, and this is
one. At the January 13 and 14, 1998 Kingdom pastor s meeting, the Sandford
stalwarts finally took control. They provided seven of the 10 men present. Mr.
Steve Demme attacked Pastor Ron Parker s presentation at the Special Assembly in
November to the point where Parker declared that he would not be attending
further Kingdom leader s meetings. When Wakeman asked for discussion on what
they thought of his stand on spiritual direction, the responses were negative
enough to cause him to tender his resignation from any special role in Kingdom
leadership. Finally, a committee was formed to prepare a new Vision Statement
confirming a belief in restoration principles. On the committee were Neil
Sandford, Steve Demme, and David Murray with help from Joe Brown, Jr. and David
Holscher. All were Restoration believers so there was no pretense of compromise
with other ideas. It is clear that Demme was a catalyst for this by virtue of
his verbosity and intensity, but there was a clear majority who were ready to
follow his lead. And so the slide toward break up was in place.
On January 19, 1998 Wakeman penned his final pastoral letter and announced to
the membership that he was relinquishing the leadership role he had held since
Abram s death. Also, he announced the development of the Vision Statement and
the intent that the present and future ministry of The Kingdom be fully
compatible with it. Since it was directed that the statement be prepared with
Restoration principles in mind, it meant that confrontation with the rest of the
membership who wanted to move away from the Restoration track would be
inevitable. It seemed obvious at the time that this would happen, but we do not
know if the Restoration leaders expected it, wanted it, or were just plain in La
La Land about it. The February 10 pastoral letter, written by David Murray,
stated,
On behalf of the whole Kingdom fellowship, we give our heartfelt thanks to
Joseph and Elinor Wakeman for all that they have done for us all. They have
carried a tremendous load for the Lord for which we owe them a debt of great
love. As Mr. Wakeman conveyed in the last pastoral letter, he did not feel it
appropriate to continue in an overall position of leadership since his approach
and thinking was not uniformly adopted by the other ministers and pastors, but
he is continuing to serve as an active pastor and member of the executive
committee.
This too would change in the very near future.
The new Vision Statement was sent to the membership on March 5, 1998. It was
like a bomb dropping on those who had hoped to move on without the Sandford
baggage because that is what it had plenty of - Sandford baggage. At this stage,
the ministers were presenting it without unanimous approval, in fact the
Executive Committee of Wakeman, David Murray, and Ralph Maxwell, Jr. were not
unanimous in their approval either. But, because the statement got a majority
vote from the executive committee, it moved forward. A formal presentation to
the membership was planned for March 20, 1998 and in the meantime there was a
great deal of discussion amongst the membership through conversation and email.
The presentation on March 20 was a chaotic meeting. Neil Sandford in a letter to
the Fairwood Church later called this the earthquake of March 20. The next day
on March 21, a Saturday, the ministers met again and after debate voted not to
approve the Vision Statement. Over night the restoration group spent time
maneuvering and convinced two of the three members of the Executive Committee to
vote in favor of the Vision Statement. The next morning at the beginning of the
church service, and without prior knowledge of the rest of the Kingdom ministers
group, David Murray stood and announced to the members present that the
Executive Committee had voted to approve the Vision Statement. In essence, David
Murray and Ralph Maxwell, Jr. had overturned a vote of the ministers creating a
stunning turn of events. The Restoration group had won, but at what cost. Many
of the Kingdom fellowship not already disgusted by the infighting and disunity
within the leadership found the final reason to look elsewhere for spiritual
guidance and fellowship. Any shred of Divine Authority that the leaders once
purported to have and use for controlling the members was now gone.
It is safe to say that in hind sight, many who left the Kingdom that day think
back on those events that spurred them and their families to join with other
solid vibrant healthy community churches and fellowships around the country as a
good thing. It provided as good an incentive to make a change as anyone could
get.
On April 5, 1998, the Kingdom Board of Directors approved the shift of full
financial responsibility of the Shiloh fellowship to the newly formed Shiloh
Chapel Incorporated. As part of the agreement, Shiloh would send 10 percent of
its revenue to the central church. Shiloh still did not own its property and
that would prove to be a difficult battle. None of the other local churches had
started down the road to independence so Shiloh was plowing new ground.
The ministers continued to debate the Vision Statement in spite of the decision
by the Executive Committee and in the April 10, 1998 pastoral letter the
ministers announced that they could not come to agreement on an overall guiding
document. Local pastors and congregations must decide on their own direction.
The ministers were not suggesting that a dispersal of the Kingdom church should
occur, but clearly the Kingdom ministers and pastors had lost control and in the
sense of spiritual leadership, the boat was rudderless. The Kingdom Board of
Directors still maintained control of all the assets and property. The Board of
Ministers, though, was still not done with Pastor Ron Parker as we will see
below.
The May 4 and 5, 1998 Kingdom ministry leaders meeting might best be described
as a changing of the guard. There was a growing awareness that the Board of
Ministers was for all intents and purposes dissolved. Those ministers who held
to Sandford Restoration Theology were quick to fill in the void by taking charge
of the meeting and getting a framework approved that would establish them as the
ones in charge. Ron Parker was one of the minister/pastors with the most vocal
opposition to the Restoration cause and the Restoration camp evidently felt they
needed to kick him one last time to show him who was now in control. Ron was
scheduled to conduct the evening service at the Pentecost Feast (The Sandford
restored feast held each May). There was so much opposition to Ron conducting
that service that Ron withdrew and left after the meeting was done. Wakeman was
not sure he was eligible either, but he agreed to follow through on his
assignment at the feast. Paul Brown put forth a number of proposals that were
approved at this meeting. The strongest one was, Recognize that a group of
pastors and their churches who supported the Vision Statement (as indicated by
the meeting in Rhode Island) constituted the continuing entity of The Kingdom as
an incorporated organization.
It is interesting to see how easy it is to take over an organization that is
controlled by a few people at the top and much harder when key votes need to
come from the rank and file. As we read these leaders reports which were kept
secret from the rank and file members and see the decisions that were made
without the consent of the body of members, the need for accountability between
the leaders and the members of a church may be seen as crucial for a church to
remain healthy. Mainstream churches, put down for years by The Kingdom, know and
practice this. This May 4 and 5 meeting ended with a sensing that the Kingdom
fellowship was probably not recoverable.
David Murray in the May 26, 1998 pastoral letter announced a remaking process
under way. While he laid out the choices for people regarding how their local
church could or could not maintain an affiliation with The Kingdom, he failed to
mention that the leaders had already voted to allow only those churches who
voted to adopt the Vision Statement be affiliated with The Kingdom. Perhaps he
felt that was obvious.
In mid-July, 1998 Neil Sandford indicated he had received light from God and
along with his ministry team, joined Fairwood with four other local churches,
all supporters of the Vision Statement. This decision making process was in the
typical Frank Sandford mode, i.e., the Leader feels he gets light or a sensing
from God, then expects his subordinates around him to get on board, and the
general church population dutifully follows along.
On August 14, 1998 in an open letter, Neil Sandford wrote, I had indicated that
because the Vision Statement is so misunderstood that it is no longer a litmus
test for joining or affiliating . Within three months, the Restoration group who
had battled so hard for control of the content of a Vision Statement and in the
process had torn the church apart, did an about-face and tossed out the Vision
Statement as being any kind of guiding document. This was an interesting turn of
events, at the very least.
Is it fair to ask if the Vision Statement ultimately meant so little to them,
why did the Vision Statement group dig their heels in so hard? We believe the
most obvious answer is control. While the Vision Statement was dismissed as a
litmus test for the general membership, its main function evidently was to
provide a winnowing of the chaff from the new ministerial leadership group. But
by saying that the Vision Statement was no longer a litmus test for joining or
affiliating, they put themselves in apparent contradiction to the vote of the
Kingdom leadership in May that said that only those churches supporting the
Vision Statement could constitute The Kingdom. Pretzel logic at its best. In any
case, these five churches were feeling in control even if that control was not
quite accurate. The Frank Sandford Restoration camp now clearly in control would
soon re-incorporate The Kingdom as Kingdom Christian Ministries
In the mean time, Shiloh Chapel was moving toward ownership of the property the
church sat on, despite their opposition to the Vision Statement, but transfer of
ownership needed a positive vote by the Kingdom Corporation and Directors. There
were those still in The Kingdom membership who did not want Shiloh to get all
the property, but on September 27, 1998 Shiloh did finally receive approval for
a transfer of all the real assets in Durham, Maine with the exception of the
cemetery which was transferred later. The financial support issue of the
Fairwood church was also rendered moot. Shiloh Chapel in Maine became totally
independent, dropping the Sandford baggage by relying on accepted scripture
rather than spiritual revelation. Other Kingdom church centers proceeded to
follow Shiloh s lead over the next several years.
So what is now left of Frank Weston Sandford s, The Kingdom ? The core group
now incorporated as Kingdom Christian Ministries continued to redefine itself.
In 2002 a booklet was published and released entitled Thy Kingdom Come ,
defining themselves and including their Statement of Faith, Articles of Faith,
and Church Ordinances. The 124 page document, not counting the above, or its one
page introduction, describes in detail the tenets of their faith, with a
multitude of scriptural footnotes for each. The only mention of their founders
existence is a brief description given as an introduction to their statement of
faith. Now one could argue that if Sandford is finally relegated to obscurity,
what s the problem?
What is present in this document from cover to cover is Restoration Theology.
The legalistic practices of Frank W. Sandford are alive and well in the form of
Kingdom Christian Ministries. What legalism s one might ask? Well for starters
Sabbath keeping
Women s apparel and jewelry
Daily Bible Reading
Scriptural Baptism
Holy Communion worthiness
White Garments
Prophetic Prayer
Divine Healing
The Restored Feasts
Millennial Entity
All of these precepts, and in particular their application and interpretations
from the scripture, with dozens more not listed, are all rooted in Frank
Sandford Restoration Theology. The Kingdom Christian Ministries website states
in their Frequently Asked Questions* page, that KCM is not a fan club for Frank
Sandford, but an organization of sincere Christians, attempting to reach the
world for Christ. They say that Sandford s claims are not what matters to their
present ministry. They have evidently re-invented themselves, attempting to drop
(bury) the Sandford baggage without denying or repudiating any of it. By the end
of 1998 they successfully shed themselves of Sandford dissenters by force
feeding a Vision Statement the dissenters could not agree to, which left
themselves in the position of control. They subsequently ditched the Vision
Statement and at the same time, and ironically, sanitized the record from
Sandford references.
Dr. Phil McGraw is fond of telling those seeking his advice that you cannot
change what you do not acknowledge. It seems that KCM is now acknowledging they
cannot be effective in their Christian mission by associating themselves openly
with Frank Sandford. So they will dissociate themselves from his name but carry
on with his theology and management style under a different moniker. A rose by
any other name, my friend, is a rose.
During the winter of 2006-2007, Mr. Neil Sandford made contact with us and
queried why we would persist with this website. The re-write and update of this
Baby Boomer page, the first since 2002, is in part a response to his input,
where he suggested certain factual errors had been made. Indeed, as first
reported here, we had confused events of the March Feast of Passover with the
May Feast of Pentecost 1998, and we had cited Joseph Wakeman s departure from
leadership as the spring of 98 rather than the winter of 97-98. We apologize for
the oversight. We believe dates are important. But we also believe that facts
are important, and truth. The response to his input was given in a three page
letter, a portion of which is re-produced below.
You ask why there are no positive uplifting segments on the web site. The
Kingdom s spiritual high points are not the focus of the problems the Kingdom
experienced, and it s why they are not the focus of the web site, nor should
they be. Inspirational stories, testimonies and events in the Kingdom s past are
common threads with all who have found Christ at work in their lives, no matter
what their denomination. Christ was and is the source of the positive, not Frank
W. Sandford. My hope was and still is that our website warn the uninitiated that
power given to a few, or the one, without oversight is dangerous to all who are
lured into its pseudo-security. That same message is also apt for those who wish
to lead others in spiritual learning but are ignorant to the pitfalls of power
and wish to remain so. Leadership guided solely by believed revelatory insight
rather than reliance on accepted scripture is a model that history reveals again
and again as unacceptable. Not everybody gets burned or hurt, but too many fall
by the wayside while the preservation of the institution s image and its
leadership become paramount. For me, the message here is not to place your
soul s future in the hands of a man or an institution, nor to lend reverence to
where it doesn t belong.
As you state, it was and still is my desire, and believe it to be yours as well,
to have people come to know the love of Christ in their lives. It is my
understanding that the function of a church is to facilitate that goal. You are
either part of Tim s embryonic millennial entity or a church. You cannot be
both without bumping into the inevitable frustrations that plagued you before
and will plague you again, if not already. There was no equivocating with Tim s
vision, and I remain unconvinced that there isn t still some schizophrenia of
identity still floating around in the minds of Kingdom leaders. My wish for you
and what remains of the Kingdom under whatever name, is that the fellowship
understand the necessity to learn from its past, to honestly and openly discuss
the problems that existed in both those times and our times, how those problems
could still affect your organization, and, with the help of heaven, put in place
those measures necessary to insure they are never repeated. You cannot change
what you do not acknowledge.
The Editors
*See
http://www.kingdomchristianministries.org/churches/FAQ.htm
Go to Top of Page
|