Like normal in may COG's, the membership see what is going on and yet the leadership are so set on their agenda's that they ignore the debacles they have created. UCG has had to do a major amount of ordinations to replace the men who left with COGWA. It now looks like many of the men they have ordained are not qualified to be leading congregations. The members know this, but Cincinnati does not. And UCG wonders why members are leaving.
Comment from another thread:
UCG has not wholesale changed doctrine, but those of us here who watched the rush to ordain men to replace all the elders who left know that it just isn't right. We have people serving as elders and pastoring congregations now who many UCG members know have no business doing those things. There are still good, solid people in UCG, but the effect of Victor Kubik's leadership has set this organization on a bad course that probably cannot never be reversed or fixed.
16 comments:
I have no idea why Kubic and others are turning a blind eye to problems within the ministry. It's a grave mistake on Kubics behalf, especially when his own parents survived all odds against Nazi evil tyranny. It's been on his watch that tyranny has gone on.
They need to set up a strong deterant. The two yearly surveys are not enough. When the results of the surveys come out to the field ministry and their cronies all hell breaks lose. Hell has no fury than a UCG minister grassed up. The only winner from UCG turning a blind eye is COGWA.
The basic doctrines are what causes this problem to surface any time or anywhere they are implimented. Just as communism always produces certain symptoms, Armstrongism does as well.
BB
I was told that after the original UCG split, known bullies were ordained as elders. It sounds like the church wanted at least some goons to keep the members in line. I suspect that it's a unstated policy in all the splinters.
This is very telling about an awakening and a change in general awareness.
Years ago, in WCG, it was never questioned when someone was ordained. God ordained it, and it was. God, after all, had his reasons. That was the rationale. They were ordained by the laying on of hands under the blessing of HWA - and there was no questioning. At least, out loud, there was no questioning. No one really dared.
But now, we have this incredible comment that says some of the leaders have:
"no business doing these things".
I believe this is an extraordinarily significant comment. It shows:
1) That the general no-questions asked, leave-your-senses-at-the-door obedience is now giving way to common sense.
2) That members are awakening to the reality of what the COG's are: a human organization making human decisions, some decidedly stupid.
3) That there is significant evidence that the cults are rapidly losing their power of persuasion and, more importantly, trust.
What used to fuel the COG's is dry and empty - the spell-binding, high-intensity, never-questioned rhetoric of HWA. That tap that once blazed as fire hardly even has the energy to kindle a flame now. And now that the smoke is clearing, people are starting to wake up and see.
May the clouds part and the sun come out on those who still have smoke in their eyes.
Rubics Cube doesn't know how to run a church. Come what may, the ACOG cults will fade into oblivion in another decade or two.
I think to some degree or another, organizations promote people that are on their "side." I mean, I have worked at several places before and some people were promoted that shouldn't be and I mean, for real, not due to jealousy or something like that. It was often due to the fact that they suck up to the supervisor or does everything the supervisor wants or were on good terms with those higher up. It isn't exclusively religious organizations that does this. However, I do feel like most COG groups promote people who are either lickspittle or sincere, impressionable people who really looks up to the leadership and believe that they are doing the right thing. It really isn't a matter of character or knowledge or "God's will" or selection of such individual. Sad in all honesty.
A lot of ministers were strangely selected when they are in desperate financial strait as well. I can think of at least four ministers who were trained after a period of being jobless. I guess it is easier to control people who need a paycheck and these are also people who don't have high education qualifications. Let me be clear, a person should not be define by their career or education level but I find it all too much of a coincidence that many of them were jobless and had previously held jobs like customer sales representative. I knew one guy in Kingston Ontario who they kept wanting to promote to being a minister but he was a professor and so, I think he declined it because he enjoys his job more than being a minister.
Of course, Jimmy, got his calling from "God" after the 2008 recession and became a minister.....yeah.....sure.
And as you can see from the other tread they can’t give any specific examples. Just mindless and empty criticism. There!s no integrity or manliness making empty chargers.
Peter Principle?
he Peter principle states that a person who is competent at their job will earn promotion to a more senior position which requires different skills. If the promoted person lacks the skills required for their new role, then they will be incompetent at their new level, and so they will not be promoted again. But if they are competent at their new role, then they will be promoted again, and they will continue to be promoted until they eventually reach a level at which they are incompetent. Being incompetent, they do not qualify to be promoted again, and so remain stuck at that final level for the rest of their career (termed "Final Placement" or "Peter's Plateau"). This outcome is inevitable, given enough time and assuming that there are enough positions in the hierarchy to promote competent employees to.[2] The "Peter Principle" is therefore expressed as: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."[3] This leads to Peter's Corollary: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties."[4] Hull calls the study of how hierarchies work "hierarchiology."[
Anything fascist turns out this way. Christianity started out as a mirror of fascist Rome. Protestants mitigated it from time to time but never totally abandoned it. Armstrongism is basically Catholicism reinstated. Even the name they chose late in the twentieth century was basically a synonym for "Catholic.'
Greg Redlarczyk,
There has been many examples given numerous times of specific examples and people. You are either selectively reading what you want to read or blocking it out on purpose. I have listed very specific examples in the past in regards to name, people, dates, times, events, etc. I guess I will have to copy all of them to repost when people like you write what you write.
It does not mean everything written or said here is true but the same is true within your congregations, amongst your leadership and the ACOG groups in general.
I can write down those four ministers names and where they pastor specifically (congregations, education level, where they currently live and family members and former careers, etc) but there is a point where I wonder if it is a good thing for me to do and it isn't because I care what you think or anyone else. Its simply that doing or saying certain things can have repercussions. If I make it a habit to write bad things about people, in some ways, I become no different than Gerald Putin himself who always uses examples of people in his sermons but never names them but if you know the congregation well and the people in it well, you know who Vladimir Weston is talking about.
Also, your charges are just as empty as you claim others are because you cannot back up your claim that there are no specifics. You can say that those specifics examples are lies but you cannot say that there are no post that has no specifics.
Also, your free to not read or be here to begin with in all honesty. It is a free country, for now at least. As far as my understanding of Church's definition of gossip, it isn't just those who are spreading them but those who listen as well. The fact that you are here and reading these things would implicate you as being part of the problem as far as many of the ministers in the ACOG groups would be concern because reading these things are akin to "spiritual porn" according to ministers like Gerald Weston and Rod King in Living Church of God.
Most who are here who still defends the COG groups that they attend only want information about things going on in the Churches that they cannot get a straight answer from the ministers (so, hypocrites much?) or they are troll. However, your time would be better spent calling brethren, visiting the sick, doing local work at the communities, etc or even praying than being a troll. The fact of the matter is that this blogspot isn't going away anytime soon and even if it did, someone else will probably create another one. Also, with or without this blogspot, I have been around many COG groups before to know that people talk about these things with their "trusted" friends within same groups. So, your comment is ultimately pointless, although I support your right to say it. Conversely, most people, like me, making these comments knows that we are only preaching to the choir for the most part. People believe what they want to believe. Your comment is just as pointless as you claim other people's comment are if you really want to boil it down.
Grammar? Spelling?
Why is it that most of the people who vigorously defend Armstrongism come off as being dumb as a rock?
BB
I haven't read the topic but the acog's keep very detailed records of their members so if someone gets specific all an acog has 2 do is pull up the name of the one in powers notes on said event or pointed out person/event see who was there & compair the lists of suspects then cross reference "doubters" & they would find them guilty no matter what happens to that person or their family
Were Jesus's first disciples "qualified" to go out two by two and do miracles?
By our modern way of thinking, probably not. Yet they went, and God blessed them.
How may of the grumblers about today's UCG ministers are taking time to pray for them - that they might grow into their positions, as first-century church leaders did?
Anon 12:52 If it was planned to keep the members in line then it's back fired on them big time.
How could they ever expect bullying to work. Ucg from 2011-2017 was horrific. How can they claw all those years back by being nice now ?
Grow into their positions? How about not openly sinning. That might be a move in the right direction. No way can you compare the young diciples to the men UCG rushed to ordain. No way.
Aren’t they required to ignore problems and to pretend that these little groups that they call “God’s Church” and the people they call “God’s ministers” are perfect? I mean how could you trust their prophecies and doctrinal approach were that not so?
The Armstrong scam relies heavily on using illusion, and yet Armstrongites aren’t even Guns & Roses fans. Imagine that!
BB
Post a Comment