A church-wide message was distributed across all congregations, framed around the theme of trusting God. While the primary message appeared routine and uncontroversial, the inclusion of offhand remarks about trusting authority figures, regarding them as reliable sources of information, and mistrusting artificial intelligence (AI) has puzzled many members. This paper examines the likely purposes behind such a coordinated message, the possible institutional concerns it signals, and the range of congregational responses to its delivery.
Albright continues:
The subtle encouragement to “trust authority” suggests an institutional aim beyond spiritual exhortation. Such phrasing may be an attempt to counteract growing skepticism of leadership or outside information sources. In a time when many members receive news and perspectives from digital media—including AI-generated material—church leaders may feel the need to reestablish themselves as the authoritative interpreters of truth.
UCG's fear of AI is also interesting:
The warning about AI indicates institutional anxiety about its influence. AI tools can produce sermons, generate theological interpretations, and aggregate information more quickly and diversely than traditional church channels. By framing AI as untrustworthy, leadership may be attempting to limit competing sources of authority, guarding against members substituting algorithmic outputs for pastoral or organizational guidance.
It is pretty telling that members can search AI for all kinds of religious perspectives, and it generally lays out a lot of good information that many times refutes the Old Covenant ways of UCG—and THAT is something they cannot stand.
Albright also questions if this might be a preemptive strike about upcoming issues the church may be facing.
A preemptive, broad message might also be designed to manage potential crises. If there are internal disputes, rumors, or controversies circulating—perhaps amplified online—the uniform call to “trust” leadership and dismiss external information channels functions as a stabilizing signal. It tells members where loyalty and interpretive reliance should lie.
Albright lists these congregational responses:
3. Likely Range of Congregational Responses
3.1 Acceptance
Some members will take the message at face value, finding it a harmless or helpful reminder about trust in God. The comments on authority may blend seamlessly into their preexisting trust in church leadership.
3.2 Confusion
A significant group, as you noted, is puzzled. They may interpret the authority and AI comments as tangential, odd, or unnecessary, and question why this was considered important enough to broadcast universally.
3.3 Suspicion
Some may interpret the message as a defensive maneuver—signaling insecurity within leadership or anticipating a challenge to authority. To them, the remarks may seem like a subtle attempt at conditioning or controlling interpretation.
3.4 Resistance
A minority may respond critically, resisting what they perceive as overreach. They may reject the implied directive to mistrust AI or may bristle at the suggestion that leadership should be automatically trusted without accountability.
Albright ends with this:
4. Implications for Institutional-Individual Dynamics
The message highlights a tension common in religious organizations:
Institutional need: Leaders seek loyalty, cohesion, and protection against external interpretive rivals. Individual perception: Members expect clear spiritual nourishment and may resist or resent what feels like manipulation or unnecessary control.
When side comments appear to carry hidden motives, trust can be undermined rather than strengthened. Ironically, a message about trust risks producing doubt if its purpose seems less about God and more about protecting institutional authority.
5. Conclusion
The coordinated message serves as both a spiritual exhortation and an institutional signal. While its declared theme—trusting God—is broadly accepted, its subtext—trusting authority and mistrusting AI—reveals leadership concerns about maintaining interpretive control in a rapidly shifting information environment. Congregational responses range from acceptance to suspicion, with puzzlement being the most common. For long-term stability, leadership must balance the need to reinforce authority with transparency and genuine spiritual teaching, lest attempts at message control backfire and erode the very trust they seek to build.
Read the entire article here: White Paper: Institutional Messaging, Trust, and Congregational Response
ht: Lee Walker
17 comments:
WCG/splinter history shows that whenever the leaders ramp up their "trust the leaders" rhetoric, it's a sign that within the leadership there are new factions that don't trust each other. So, watch for more drama unfolding in UCG!
Nathan is mistaken in asking his members to trust the church's "authority figures, regarding them as reliable sources of information." Neither do they have the right to maintain "interpretive control." Refusing to define interpretive control gives them an escape hatch to accusations of lording it over members faith. In Acts 17:11 the Bereans didn't blindly believe or trust the Apostle Paul. Rather, they gave themselves the right to interpretive control. Likewise in verse Acts 17:17, Paul reasoned in the synagogue rather than pulling rank and demanding blind trust.
Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17:17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.
Btw, why should members trust an organization that taught 1975. And the last time I checked, the UCG has reframed following Christ as preaching the gospel with no mention that Christ leads every member individually. Eg, He leads members to a potential mate. UCG ministers lust Christ's role.
"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." - I Corinthians 11:1.
End of paper.
Trust is very thin on the ground in today's world. Trust is no lower than in religious organisations these days.
I don't even trust the narrative of Nathan Albright being this 'man of the members', emerging on the scene with his stream of never ending white papers, questioning everything and being allowed to do so, his papers even being put on this blog, as soon as their written.
The fall of GTA and fall of WCG in 95/96 ushered in a new era for Churches of God organisations. A lack of trust in ministry from the membership. Well justified with the grotesque behaviour of GTA and the deceit of Thachites, but it's effect still goes on decades later.
Rick Shabi represented an unexpected turn around, to regaining immense trust and agape love for the leadership, with his Pastoring expertise and his love for scripture and warning message, he bucked the trend. His sudden illness and death is a major hit to UCG and on the leadership trust issue again.
For with Shabi died alot of hope and trust for UCG leadership, it is clear from social media the UCG brethren are still mourning their exPresident Rick Shabi and his death has shook UCG to it's core, it is still to be seen the path UCG now emerges on.
Living "under" an "authority" figure is a problem in many churches today. I agree with the comments above and will add this:
Mathew 20: 25-28
25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles domineer over them, and those in high position exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wants to become [q]prominent among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever desires to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” - and
1 Peter 5:1-3
“To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
Alarm bells should be ringing aloud at this.
Good points raised by anon @ 12:53:01.
We should be running a country mile from any minister from the Armstrong fold. I have more faith in what comes out of the mouth of my local weather forecasters. Their accuracy is decidedly better than the multiple prophets and dictators that inhabit Armstrongism.
Nathan did not ask members to trust the church as ""authority figures, regarding them as reliable sources of information." This is something that the church believes. He points out in his article that many members do NOT believe this.
Watching how they treated Mr Shabi, I have lost all trust in UCG leadership.
What the heck is a "white" paper???????????
TLDR
I trust an ACOG minister about the same way I trust a skunk! Same kind of stuff comes out of both.
Also, I do not trust AI. Now, if we could get AI to list the source of the information via footnotes, you might have something.
In most cases, I just don't trust other people, but I would like to have Margo Martindale over for some Key Lime Pie!
BB
Regarding Nathan Albright personally, I have corresponded with him, both on the blog, and off extensively for the past couple months or so, until fairly recently when I concluded it was no longer fruitful. I’m one who has often informed this blog of his posts, including this one.
I’ve said something like this before, but his mindset is a combination of romantic denial (remember my workup of the Pam Tillis song) and a vision of reform. His mother, who is practically the only other person to reply on his blog, is much more classic in her perception of their religion. And she will desperately defend the person of Armstrong HW. She can’t seem to put together that Nathan’s reform ideas as expressed are the antithesis in many ways of Armstrong — the “founder” (his word) of his church tradition.
I have heard snippets of Nathan’s sermons. He sounds exactly as you would expect a (relatively — in his 40s and baptized in 2000) young semi-idealistic reformer who looks like him to sound.
He will answer some questions, but after tangling with me, he seems to have learned to stay silent on questions that hurt the Armstrongist narrative. He does that, claiming it is simply my attitude. Perhaps others will have more success if they try very nicely.
Taking him at his word, there is a chance he will eventually accept the foundational flaw of traditional Armstrongism. I believe a lot of his problem is that his biggest memories are of Tkach WCG and UCG. He is a lead-in to a “generation that knew not Worldwide.” He doesn’t know the “heritage” he wants to celebrate, and his mother is apparently too starry-eyed about it to put two and two together. This recent development he wrote about might help that, but I doubt it will be the kill shot. Though I hope I am wrong.
12:53 "Christ leads every member individually" So correct, as we individually are each the temple of God through the Holy Spirit. The church is not the temple, but individually we have to keep that lamp burning, as Christ is our High Priest in our temple.
Tank
Mimic is the word there, not follow. Paul is talking to new believers.
It is an apostle to babes in Christ relationship.
If you are a babe in Christ and believe the ministers are equivalent to the apostle Paul, then knock yourself out.
I don’t see any apostles around and I’m not new to the faith. I’ll follow Christ.
Trusting authority figures just because they are in that position of power is falling for the fallacy of appealing to authority.
The message from UCG states within its conclusions
''For long-term stability, leadership must balance the need to reinforce authority with transparency and genuine spiritual teaching, lest attempts at message control backfire and erode the very trust they seek to build''.
Unfortunately because UCG seeks to duplicate the doctrines of Herbert Armstrong it becomes next to impossible to offer members the genuine spiritual teachings that it is wanting to provide..
I am thinking as an example Armstrong's gospel wherein much effort is expended to make it not about Christ, rather it is turned into a prophetic interpretation. Thus one of the most important spiritual teachings of the new testament becomes greatly diminished.
There are many other deviations that preclude genuine spiritual teaching in my view.
"He leads members to a potential mate" that is highly debatable and that flawed teaching has been open to much manipulation by the selfish godless ministry, who seek to control others through the absolute lie that "you must marry another believer", whilst ignoring the biblical teaching of santification in marriage. I Corinithians 7:14.
Always beware the control freaks !
Post a Comment