Wednesday 12 January 2011

Whirled Wide

The Louisville lads have decided to confirm the name Church of God, a Worldwide Association. My question: A worldwide association of what?

Not congregations, after all there are no local boards - are there?

Not Christians, as the lay members have no representation, do they?

As far as I understand it, it's an association of ministers. But does an association of ministers make a church?

Of course, the same could be asked of the United Church of God, an International Association. No representation, just a bunch of elders - most hugely underqualified for the task - operating as a hierarchic-structured oligarchy.

Lads, lads, it's not the way of the future.

But these guys think in binary terms. Black/white, right/wrong, hierarchy/anarchy, episcopal/congregational.

Now that most of the control freaks have gone, maybe UCG can revisit their structure. Why not offer two levels of association, centralised and local? Why can't congregations like the Big Sandy church, for example, exist within the fold instead of having to peel off? You want to manage your own finances, fine! You want to elect your own board, great! Everyone has a code of ethics to adhere to, common management policies and a commitment to an agreed doctrinal statement. Fabulous, now go away and make yourselves useful! Maybe those congregations managed from the center would reap some advantages of their own too, especially those which don't have the financial grunt or people-skills needed. Everyone gets together every year or so at a fully representative conference, elders and lay people.

Who would choose which model to operate under? Who would choose their representatives? Why the local people themselves!

How hard could that be? Frankly, it's not rocket science. A couple of semi-intelligent COE members could draft something workable on the back of an envelope over a coffee inside thirty minutes - if they had the will to do so.

Maybe it's time for those remaining with UCG to take the lemons and make lemonade.


  1. Gavin,

    Great blog!

    "But does an association of ministers make a church?"

    Answer: When HWA says it does.

    Under HWA's 1985 government rule, it still does.

    In GCI it literally makes the church. When all else is stripped away, legally Tkach IS the naked government. The Tkach appointed, employed and controlled handful of men on the church's Elders Council legally forms the power centralized government he controls completely. All the rest is just public relations massage.

    Tkach Jr. ALONE rules for life according to 2011 GCI church association bylaws. Local members are not part of the church government association, only the elder(ly) males he personally appoints to both his council of elders Church association and California GCI corporate board (all elders continually subject to the favor of Tkach's continuing good graces). Maybe that's why it's now called Grace Communion international.

    Spanky, Flurry, Packatollah, and Hulmerous' governments are setup to be nearly identical copies to the one HWA exerted total control over the WCG with in 1985. It makes the government as large as possible; by comparison the lowly tithe-slaver on the bottom rung, as small and powerless as possible.

    "Why can't congregations like the Big Sandy church, for example, exist within the fold instead of having to peel off?"

    Touche, Gavin.

    Stan Gardner
    Ambassador Reports

  2. These are some good ideas, Gavin. Unfortunately, it would never fly as long as you have the two-headed monster continually around called 1)"ordained" 2) "minister", and as long as you still had "lay-people" around who believed that lie. Also, do you think that a congregation of sheep know how to discern ANYTHING? I saw a little bit of it in action when UCG was first hatched. It didn't work. As an example, the majority were in agreement to "ordain" deacons who turned out to be nincompoops, all of whom left shortly after. The same thing happened in Joey's WCG. The "minister" was having so much trouble with the "deacons" fighting about who was in charge, who were mass "ordained" by the "minister" before him, that he made an annoncement to the whole congregation that they were all de-deaconed. Every one of them left. I think you have some good ideas, but positions and titles will ruin it everytime.

  3. Forget it. The Armstrongists are bullies. Even the perceived "kinder, gentler" UCG has blood on its hands with the stalker incident or have we forgotten the fondling of teens by protected elders.

    There's no reforming venues which should never have existed in the first place. There's no real viable purpose for any of them to exist.

    As bullies there can never be any sharing of power. The people of the congregations lost their power the instant they left the original Church of God Seventh Day.

    Beside the bullies in power, it is also a Folie à deux wherein there's no real truth, only forcefully told heresies. You are correct when you say there are no Christians. It is the shared delusion of distorted perceptions.

    So instead of trying to create the fictional image of some association or other, why don't we all agree that there is no cooperative empowerment for those at the bottom of this Ponzi scheme and call it what it really is:

    Church of God, no association.

  4. Here's to the Ponzi Scheme Bullies,
    With heresies exceedingly odd,
    Where members can't speak with the ministers,
    And the ministers speak only to God.

  5. As for the UCG -- and you can look at the map for who's left -- it can now officially change its name to:

    Church of God, a Pacific Northwest Association.

  6. Too much autonomy frightens too many of them.

  7. Wow, Douglas, you hit the nail right on the head! I agree with you 100%!

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.