David Hulme's Disfellowship of Steve Andrews

Many old-timers will remember David Hulme from the World Tomorrow telecasts that WCG sponsored on numerous TV-stations. It recently came to my attention that David Hulme disfellowshipped Steve Andrews - source: http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue157/david-hulme-disfellowships-andrews-cgic-problems.html.

There are a few excerpts I would like to quote for those who haven't read the article, as they are interesting from a historical perspective:

There's something about David?
Mr. Andrews continued: "Too often, those in authority in the Church adopt the premise that there is something about them that actually qualifies them to govern others...
"When it becomes clear that they are no better at governing than any other human before them, they selectively misuse scripture in an effort to excuse their failings. This has been manifest in many, if not most, Church leaders in our age.
"Once in power, leaders seek to protect that power. Not surprisingly, by asserting their authority, based on their position, to do so. This kind of circular reasoning has been true even of Church leaders.
"What makes it worse when Church leaders behave in such a manner is that they misuse scripture to justify their acquisition, possession and retention of authority. That is precisely what you did in your sermon on government, gospel and godliness."
Mr. Andrews said the story of Adam and Eve and the two trees revealed mankind's inability to govern itself.
"Simply stated, Adam and Eve found themselves outside the garden because," he wrote, "they proved incapable of self-governance."

This has certainly been evident in virtually all offshoots from the WCG. People in authority ALWAYS claimed you were either in rebellion, demon-influenced or not converted if you failed to accept responses to serious questions at face value of the minister.

Here's another quote from the article:

Blessing of children
Then Mr. Andrews challenged Mr. Hulme:
"So please explain how your view of, and the actual exercise of, authority on your part is different than the abusive authority to which the Father's children have been subjected in the past."
Mr. Andrews addressed other concerns in his letter.
He mentioned an incident in which Mr. Hulme supported an elder who refused to bless a child at a CGIC service, because the family did not regularly attend the CGIC.

If you are suddenly reminded of double-standards stolen directly from Protestantism, it's no surprise. The blessing of children was a tradition which at least portrayed just a bit of empathy - if you disregard the fact that it was done to try to ensure that members' kids would stay in the claws of Armstrongism...

David Hulme seems a nice guy, but there's more to him than meets the eye - as close friends have apparently discovered in more ways than they could ever have anticipated. Best of luck to Steve in whatever he wants to do in the future.

His ability to think COULD drive him far - and far away from Armstrongism... :-)

Case Study: United Church of God - David Hulme et al

The history of the United Church of God, originally established by David Hulme, is one very different from other parts of Armstrongism in one key area. Where almost all splinters from the WCG had very strong leadership from the top down - in an effort to claim this should be "theocracy" - then the UCG tried to establish a form of democracy. This democracy was claimed to be in effect through the Council of Elders.

David Hulme was somewhat offended when he was removed from office of President as you can read in Ambassador Report, issue 68 from April 1998 in the article entitled "United Dethrones Hulme".

David Hulme went off to establish his new magazine Vision, and apparently has a teaching assignment as "lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Southern California" [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hulme]besides presiding over Church of God, an International Community.

Recent Events
When you read the paragraphs under the subheading "History" on Wikipedia, you get a feel for the fact that the people on the Council of Elders could need a course in communication.

All the leaders were instructed in the authoritarian leadership style so widespread in Armstrongism, and it is therefore no wonder that seniority and jealousy befall people who have been used to being tails that moved as the dog wanted. Now that each tail tries to wag the dog, confusion comes.

If these people had been trained in what many of them tried to identify as "servant leadership" they would have discussed the points instead of insisting on their own little petty points. In such an environment they could have cooperated instead of fighting against one another.

In Comes David Pack on the Scene
If you read the article "The Resurgence of (Herbert W.) Armstrongism" you can see that David Pack, in an effort to get more donors for his Restored Church of God, has started an offensive to get more members and donors.

It is rather logical - when seen from his Armstrongite perspective - that he now wants to claim that all would have been well if only they had chosen his "theocratic" form of government. His dedication to Armstrongism is so deep that he would never even consider if there was something wrong with humans trying to define what would be "the government of God" when all groups have been so big sources of disagreements, strife and envy.

The history of Armstrongism is filled with people being expelled/excommunicated/disfellowshipped for speaking their minds. Instead of carefully assessing whether there was validity behind the arguments laid forward, it was often called rebellion by leadership - and consequently the impression of many is that they should just "Shut up, pay and pray"...