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
52 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 !
For Ai footnotes you click on the icon blue symbol (eternal loop symbol) that is displayed at the end of it's highlighted points.
Although I find it will quote the Quran in lists about specific scripture.
Irony of all ironies "Lee Walker". I wouldn't trust a word you type. For your fake persona is a farce in my opinion.
Looks like Albright has been recruited to pursue specific objectives. Perhaps test the water. He's all of a sudden throwing white papers galore out there. Albright is well known in UCG and has been for years.
This brings to mind the 1991 TV series Dinosaurs with it's ongoing gag of the its "We Say So" corporation. They are always right and know what's best because they say so. The label wasn't pulled out of thin air. What they depicted is common in society.
Trust authority. Trust the science. Everything else is misinformation and conspiracy theory.
Yeah, that's the official narrative of those operating under this corrupt world system!
There are any number of scriptures and admonitions to "trust" but trusting other humans is not one of them. The UCG and all the splinter ministry are not theologically or historically educated enough to trust on getting the actual NT message correct, if there is such a correctness as even that seems capable to being twisted and turned to one's advantage. Many, if not most, COG ministry have yet to discover the actual NT Gospel message.
This "middlemen" and "salesmen" for God and Jesus is, always has been and always will be, a major problem.
Bit rich coming from a self proclaimed fossil athiest.
I know, they think the gospel message is mainly Matthew 24, that's it.
Lee Walker - I’m curious to know in your opinion what is the foundational flaw of Amstromgism?
Like you I don’t think that UCG members will anymore get genuine spiritual teachings that its members want. They’ve showed their hand numerous times recently on what their true intentions are and it has nothing to do with what membership wants or what’s best for them.
The bigger issue and one that’s stated in the paper (and is a total lie) is them wanting transparency or worried about that. All actions from UCG leadership show otherwise. Transparency is the last thing they truly want because with that all the darkness will be exposed to the light.
I asked Google AI the question, “Is the Old Testament still in force for Christians?”
This is what the algorithms said:
“No, the ceremonial and civil laws of the Old Testament are generally not considered in force for Christians, as these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and specific to the ancient Israelite covenant. However, Christians still hold the Old Testament as authoritative, reading it for its moral teachings that reveal God's character, historical accounts that point to Jesus, and wisdom for Christian living, often interpreted through the lens of the New Covenant and the principles of love and grace.”
I asked the question, “Is British-Israelism true?” The response:
“No, British Israelism is not considered true by modern academic and historical standards; it is a discredited doctrine asserting that people of Western European descent, particularly the British, are descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, which has been refuted by genetics, archaeology, and linguistics. The belief system is based on speculative interpretations of scripture and amateur research, and it is largely viewed as an unsubstantiated theory rooted in ideological factors like pride in Western imperialism and a desire for a glorious ancient past.”
You can see that this is a problem for Armstrongism. But it should be a problem for all of us. I happen to believe that both the quoted statements above are accurate. Uncanny. But what about those responses that AI gives that I don’t agree with – where I have contravening facts. AI is biased. It parses and integrates data but it uses rules defined by humans – humans with viewpoints. Armstrongism has been avid in implementing information management like any organization with a need to control in order to survive. But AI is also an information manager.
This all finds root in George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984 where Winston Smith spent his dreary days re-writing history to match the current political winds. Against this backdrop, Jesus said something striking. He said to his followers (not everyone), “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Knowing the actual truth, if you ever encounter it, is a freeing experience. And, of course, the rest of his words tell you what this is all about.
Scout
Something that pre-dates modern racial thinking:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-paper
Armstrongism’s problem is that “authority” they talk about. It’s what holds members — the “True Church” ordinational succession. That is Armstrongism’s foundational flaw. People can have all sorts of beliefs you don’t like. It’s the fact that so many of the members feel obligated to hold those leaves because they were told by the ministry to hold them, going back to Herbie himself, that hurts them. Demonstrate that authority to be wrong, and then you can have discussions over what you talk about.
Let's have some fun and ask Google AI some questions from the perspective of living in future, prophetic real time.
1) Who are these 2 individuals (Revelation 11:3-6) that are causing havoc and wrecking our world system with their destructive plagues?
AI response: The Beast and the false prophet.
2) Who is the personage that killed them, and now sits in the Temple of God proclaiming himself to be God (Revelation 11, 2 Thess.2)?
AI response: GOD!
Hey, this could happen and most would believe it.
6:45 AM I don’t think he will answer anonymous questions. He thinks he’s too good to do that. Just make up a name.
I agree, Scout. I've found over the years that many amongst us find a citable authority to be very desirable as a go to resource to use in manipulating or controlling others. There is a vast difference between researching facts for personal edification, guidance, protection, or possibly to help friends and family, and using facts to accumulate an exploitable collective, suppressing independent thought in the process. Great difference, but also a fine line. This is one of the great paradoxes or conundrums faced by all humans, and it presents enormous challenges for even the strong and gifted to sort out.
I fully expect AI to become politicized. In the present, it appears to offer concensus of the best knowledge which humanity has to offer. People with agendas will ultimately seek to control the content of AI, and to apply labels, such as "conservative AI", or "liberal, mainstream AI". It may ultimately prove be just as subject to manipulation, bias, (and censorship!) as surveys.
If we study long wave economic theory, we find that "Kondratiev Winters" (euphemism for a financial depression) are generally accompanied by revolutionary advances in technology. We are already witnessing job loss amongst highly educated, highly compensated people whose skill sets are easily supplantable with AI. Also, did we really think that Waymo driverless technology would stop with the Taxi industry? It is a subject of experimentation in the trucking industry as well, an industry which was revolutionized by computerized "black boxes" decades ago. How many auto owners realize the extent to which the family car tells "the watchers" about each of our personal driving habits, what we say in our "hands off" telephone conversations, our listening habits on the radio, or the words we use to express our displeasure with discourteous drivers? People are still amazed when I go to Maintenance Mode in their industrial machinery, and can recite to them the facts which have been accumulated in memory detailing numbers of cycles, and time in use, pinpointing errors or jams, and that is actually just a smattering of the information to which the engineers have access. I know this, because I have downloaded this information on storage devices and have forwarded it to the engineers!
When I go to QT in the AM to get a large cup of coffee specifically brewed to suit my tastes, for the oast several months I have been able to observe a robotic floor cleaner accomplish in minutes what an employee took hours to achieve. Hourly mopping of the floor! Who knows what information that robotic device might be collecting?
I can't anticipate Armstrongism dealing with this any better than they have dealt with the many other advances in technology we've experienced since the death of HWA. I see a protracted battle for control by the ministry, and attempts on the part of members to obtain progressively more effective blinders which allow them to continue in their beliefs. Heh! Condoms, if you will, for the mind!
BB
No they don't. Tkatchites familiar lies.
Hey Scout,
I wonder if AI corroborates with your knowledge of DNA and their groupings?
Byker 9:21
Interesting observations. I think it is an easy step for a cult to go from discouraging members from reading outside information to asserting that only they know the truth about current events, history, genetics, politics - you name it.
As the information against Armstrongists beliefs and interpretation become more widespread and persuasive, Armstrongism will to into redoubt in order to shield the beliefs of followers. They haven't done it probably because they do not see it as a sufficient threat yet.
Scout
Anonymous 10:30 wrote, "I wonder if AI corroborates with your knowledge of DNA and their groupings?"
I asked Google AI if the British people and the Jewish people were the same genetically. This is the response:
"No, British and Jewish people are not the same genetically; British people have a diverse, complex ancestry rooted in Neolithic Europe and Indo-European migrations, while Jewish people have a distinct, shared Middle Eastern ancestry originating from the ancient Levant, with unique genetic markers and regional admixtures from their various migrations. While there are shared genetic elements among all humans due to a common ancestor, and the British Jewish population includes individuals with various Jewish backgrounds and converts, these groups are not genetically identical."
That's what I have been saying. This is my major theme. And "my knowledge" is actually nothing other than the standard findings of Genetics. I don't have some kind of a personal theory that differs from science.
Scout
AI is not some super-intelligent sentient being. It's just a giant data base with the Garbage-In, Garbage-Out principle applying. It's not a short cut to truth.
@Anonymous 3:35PM
You said you’ve lost all trust in UCG leadership. Do you still go there?
@Lee Walker
Thanks for your reply and explanation. I attend UCG and actually agree with you here. UCG leadership has a desperate need for authority which I’ve seen firsthand and has become incompatible for me to follow Gods word. So, won’t be attending there for too much longer based on the fruit of their actions they’ve shown recently.
Scout,
I asked AI if a Pastor who shuns children is wrong and AI reply was " Based on Christian teachings a Pastor who shuns children is engaging in malpractice and should face investigation and discipline from their church leadership."
But of course DNA debating is make or break for peoples character.
PP, I hope you will check out this post on here based on a post on my own blog explaining more fully what I said about the historical “True Church” Succession claim of the Armstrong faith tradition. The information impacted my own departure from UCG in 2000.
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2025/05/is-armstrongism-defined-by-its-identity.html?m=1
The original post, with a great deal more discussion added, is linked to below. It leads with contact info and a few links to a couple of old Herbert Armstrong articles that might relate to your thinking here, a topical study of biblical Civic Duty (differing from UCG’s), and a parody which you may or may not be interested in. Just scroll past if you’re not interested in those.
https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1
I do wish you the best in your spiritual journey.
You must be new here, 6:45. Lee may or may not respond to Anonymous, but he has oft cited the bogus succession theory, i.e., the idea that there is an endless chain of laying on of hands extending from HWA, back to Jesus Christ as being the quintessential foundational flaw of Armstrongism.
Scout:
Regarding the future of Armstrongism, I replied to something Nathan Albright posted, where I suggested that would be two forms develop: An Armstrong-is-Elijah total devotion to him version, because he’s the only authority to back up their claim; and a reformed version, with an à la cart holding of traditional Armstrong teachings, but with some holding to Sabbatarian exclusivism, and some not.
I can’t reproduce my entire reply here. It would probably run into three parts. But you can see it and comment on it here: https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2025/07/29/white-paper-the-inevitability-of-tradition-in-longstanding-institutions/
Does anyone have a reference to the original source UCG letter that is the topic of discussion? I haven't seen it, and can't track it down. Nathan Albright is sufficiently vague. Come on, please do good journalism, and cite and/or quote sources.
Correct, thank you Scout, "standard findings of Genetics."
Exactly I wondered exactly the same thing.
I discussed before having talked with Nathan Albright. That connection kind of ended. Something about him liking talking to me to “casting pearls before swine.” However, if one of you goes to his blog, and politely asks for the message from UCG, and mentioning 1Pet 3:15, he might provide a link or copy.
I already know that one idiot is going to claim I’m trying to pull somebody out from behind their anonymity. But hey, I’ve had some effect inside. It’s for one of you cowards to do the same.
Seems to me that when an Armstrongite minister exhorts his peeps to trust, he doesn't want to leave the discerning part of that up to them. We humans use a lifetime of experience as a basis to intuit who we can trust. The ministers don't like that. It just doesn't assure the outcome they are looking for.
BB
No matter the Shakespearian lengths of fictional writing skills you go to build these blog characters, somehow the nasty trait you have of insulting others for no reason shines through, exposing your true self again and again. Do you get no honest advice from your inner circle? Could God himself be allowing you to expose yourself? One wonders.
Why doesn't Albright defend himself on this blog. I'm sure he's reading every. single. comment.
Hey, 4:07. Help us out here. What characters do you believe to be fictional? Someone who posts as "Anonymous" seems to see nastiness in almost every comment here, to have an exaggerated sensitivity to words. I don't know if it is the same individual, but one poster seems to feel that "sabbath Christians" are persecuted. Perhaps the same, perhaps another, believes that a minister or ministers from one of the ACOGs runs this blog so that he can talk from both sides of his mouth, expressing what he really feels, but cannot say in his sermons if he wants to keep collecting his paycheck. That is not only completely untrue, it also borders on paranoia.
I thought that the purpose of this blog was to expose the wacky world of Armstrongism. In doing that, things that are not so nice need to be said. Dead people are shamed and ridiculed. People who insist on defending and promoting Armstrongism are attacked. It's all part of a process that is supposed to assist people, who have been spiritually and financially ripped off, recover and return to normalcy. People sacrifice a great deal of time to write incisive articles presenting facts which counter and refute Armstrongism. You will not find any such articles anywhere else. It's the crown jewel of this site.
If you are one, or all of the commenters I mentioned in paragraph 1, grow some thicker skin. Put on your big boy pants. If a site causes you paranoia, perhaps its best to visit elsewhere. Those of us who have been here long term have already seen many critics come and go, never changing a single thing about this blog. You won't either.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
Anon 4:07 comment made no mention of the accusations you mention 8:44. If any comment is showing paranoia it is only yours.
And it is clear to see 4:07 comment was addressing Lee Walker comment @ 4:44.
Discernment can also be a gift from God. I would encourage any mere members to ask God for discernment in their prayers.
Post a Comment