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"...

First Case: The "Restored" Church of God - David C Pack

The first case study is interesting in the sense that they themselves claim to be different from all the other COGs - source: http://www.thercg.org/sep/articles/sep_htrcgd.html.

When you check out their "Splinter Explanation Packet" page [source: http://www.thercg.org/sep/home.html] it quickly becomes clear that the ONLY answer to critics they want to give is the claim that since Jesus promised followers would be persecuted, then the very fact that people speak out against the RCG would somehow be an approval of the RCG.


This would be like claiming that if your husband was a shitty driver, and someone pointed that out, then it would be "persecution" - even though the facts showed you had numerous cars towed away to the scrapyard... :-)

In the middle of the page you will see numerous videos, and the last one should probably be viewed first. "Should Accusers Be Answered - Do You Believe Obvious Lies?" is the obvious excuse, once again, for continuing the authoritarian government while claiming this should somehow be "the government of God". Saddam Hussein also claimed he was a man of God - even though that was an arab version of that same type of government.

Much abuse has been going on in the COGs through the years, but what really hurts them - also in the other Armstrongism groups - is that ministers can no longer hide the facts as they could when they simply disfellowshipped people, and then "faithful" members would stay away from these people. Freedom has come from the internet because now people can check up on these matters on the internet themselves.

Of course, people such as David Pack, Roderick Meredith, Gerald Flurry and many other "leading ministers" will speak out against this - and have done so - but this was only to "protect the flock" as they will claim. Would anyone ever suspect them of being self-serving? Probably not within the COGs, but people who have exited know better, because one must be very isolationist to believe these explanations from so-called ministers.

Armstrongism is cultic and isolationist, and these mini case studies should serve to enlighten you on the various groups, and offers a good opportunity for people who exited each group to offer comments on the particular group being reviewed.

Feel free to comment.