Anyone who has attended a COG for any extended period of time has come face to face with bully ministers, elders, deacons, deaconesses, ministers' wives, and regular members. There are several reasons for this appalling behavior.
- The corrupt teaching of church government, top-down control
- The complete lack of confidentiality when members counsel with ministers
- Ministers' wives who gossip about members' problems
- Ordaining incompetent and/or unworthy men
- That church members are somehow more special than the rest of humanity, especially other Christians
- The complete inability for restoration if a person had "sinned" due to gossip
I am sure many more reasons can also be listed here (add to comments).
I think the main problem arises from the "proper" church government that all of the splinter churches use as a distinctive mark for pretending they are practicing 1st-century Christianity- which, incidentally, is not a single COG group's practice. There has never been a COG that has practiced 1st-century Christianity. Not one single group, and especially those that crow that they do. They are liars to claim they do so.
It is easy to do research on 1st-century believers and how the church operated. While they were Christ followers, they were still Jewish. That is why so many COG groups pretend to be Jewish, in name only.
First-century Christianity, we are solemnly informed by various Armstrongist groups, has been faithfully restored. The Sabbath is kept. The holy days are observed. The "true gospel" of the coming Kingdom is preached. And, most importantly, the government of God is once again operating on earth through a single, specially chosen human channel at the top of a very tidy pyramid.
How convenient that the primitive church of Acts just happened to look like a mid-20th-century media ministry with headquarters, ranks, and an apostle who needed to be obeyed in matters ranging from makeup to medicine.
First-century Christianity emphasized local, relational communities with servant-oriented leadership, voluntary mutual care, and a restoration-focused process for discipline-not centralized control over members' personal lives.
Armstrongism claimed to restore "true" primitive Christianity through Sabbath-keeping, holy days, and other distinctive doctrines, but its top-down "government of God," extensive lifestyle rules, and fear-based discipline produced patterns of control that do not match the New Testament or earliest extra-biblical sources. This became fertile breeding ground for bullies.
In Jerusalem after Pentecost, believers shared possessions voluntarily so that there was not a needy person among them. Property remained theirs to keep or give; Ananias and Sapphira were judged for lying, not for failing to surrender everything. Deacons were appointed when widows were neglected. People ate together in homes. Later letters assume collections for the poor, not a mandatory multi-tithe system flowing upward to support an expanding headquarters and an apostle's lifestyle. The Didache told communities to appoint humble bishops and deacons who were "not lovers of money," to reconcile before gathering, and to test itinerant apostles: don't let them stay too long or solicit cash. When have you ever seen a humble COG leader?
Reproof was to be done "not in anger but in peace." Itinerant apostles and prophets were tested: they were not to stay long or solicit money. When have you ever seen correction or reproof done lovingly? Anger fills the hearts of the leaders and ministers who lash out at members for perceived faults. In Armstrongism, church leaders and most ministers are for life (though more and more tend to be retiring). The church leaders solicit money and remain in place until hell freezes over or they die.
Leadership in the New Testament was local and plural. Apostles appointed elders in churches. Those elders were to be gentle, hospitable, able to teach, not violent or greedy, and they were explicitly told not to lord it over the flock. By the time of 1 Clement, there is concern for orderly succession and not casually deposing appointed men, but nothing resembling one man in Pasadena (or Edmond, or Cincinnati, or Grover Beach, or Charlotte) directing every congregation's finances, dating rules, and medical decisions.
Jesus outlined a graduated process: private confrontation, then one or two witnesses, then the church; if unrepentant, treat the person as an outsider (Matthew 18:15-17). Paul applied this to grave, unrepentant immorality (1 Corinthians 5) and to factious people after two warnings (Titus 3:10). The stated goals were protection of the community, shame leading to repentance, and eventual restoration (2 Corinthians 2). Members were also told to test teachings (Acts 17:11) and to correct one another gently (Galatians 6:1). Excommunication existed, but it was not the first or default tool for disagreement with leaders.
The members' job is to submit to "the government of God" as represented by whoever currently occupies the top office. Humble service was apparently optional once the organizational chart was laminated. Once it was laminated, the bullies had a field day.
Armstrong taught that God governs the church through a pyramidal hierarchy. Armstrongism solved this inconvenience by discovering that God prefers a pyramid: Father → Christ → Apostle (Pastor General) → evangelists → pastors → elders → members.
Question the hierarchy, the extra-biblical distinctives, or the apostle's unique role, and the process often jumped straight to disfellowshipping. Discipline in the first century followed a process: private conversation, then witnesses, then the church. The goal was restoration. Grave unrepentant immorality or persistent divisiveness could lead to treating someone as an outsider, with the hope they would be ashamed and return. Members were also told to test teachings and correct one another gently. Home inspections, family authoritarianism modeled on church structure, and a climate of fear around being "put out" became familiar features in many accounts. Restoration took a back seat to protecting the organization.
After Armstrong's death in 1986, the main Worldwide Church of God (now Grace Communion International) publicly repudiated many of these practices, including British Israelism, legalism as a test of fellowship, and the most extreme forms of one-man rule; a small number of leaders issued apologies for spiritual abuse. Numerous splinter groups (United Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, Living Church of God, and others) retained core Armstrongist distinctives and hierarchical structures. Reports of high-control dynamics, financial pressure, and trauma among former members continue through support networks and published testimonies. The New Testament churches had real authority, moral standards, and expulsion for unrepentant sin. They did not, however, feature a single human leader claiming unique end-time apostolic restoration who regulated members' medical choices, family details, or private questioning under threat of being cut off from God. Early sources stress humility in leaders, voluntary generosity, local plurality of elders, and a process aimed at winning the person back. That combination is the clearest available picture of how first-century communities treated their members. Bullies did not exist.
Armstrongism's record of control is not an unfortunate implementation detail. It is the predictable result of grafting a top-down "government of God" onto a claim of primitive restoration. For those who still want to keep the Sabbath and holy days, those can be observed without turning the church into a pyramid with fear at the base and money flowing to the apex.
Bullies exist in Churches of God for a simple reason: the system was built to produce and protect them. Top-down "government of God" is not a minor administrative preference. It is the distinctive that many splinter groups still treat as proof they are practicing first-century Christianity. It is also the distinctive that no first-century church actually practiced. Once a man is placed above question because he occupies an office in a laminated pyramid, ordinary safeguards collapse. Confidentiality disappears. Ministers' wives and inner circles become rumor mills. Unworthy men get ordained because loyalty to headquarters matters more than character. Members are taught they are a special class, so outsiders-and even other Christians-do not count. Gossip then makes restoration almost impossible: the "sin" is no longer the original offense; it is the fact that everyone already knows the story.
That is not an accident. It is what happens when servant language is kept in the sermon and lordship is kept in the structure. The New Testament told elders not to lord it over the flock. Armstrongism told the flock that resisting the man at the top was resisting God. Reproof was supposed to be done not in anger but in peace. In practice, anger, public humiliation, and the threat of being put out became tools of control. First-century discipline had a process and a goal: win the person back. Armstrongist discipline too often had a different goal: protect the organization and the office. Question the hierarchy and the process skipped Matthew 18 and went straight to exile. Friends were told to shun. Leaving was sold as leaving God.
The New Covenant does not authorize this.
Christ is the head of the church-not an apostle in Pasadena, Grover Beach, Edmond, Charlotte, or anywhere else. There is one mediator between God and humanity. Every believer is a priest. The Spirit was poured out on all flesh, not reserved for a ministerial caste. Leaders exist to equip the saints, not to own their consciences, their doctors, their marriages, or their friendships. Jesus explicitly rejected the Gentile model of lording it over others and told His followers the greatest must be a servant of all. Paul told the Galatians to stand firm in the freedom for which Christ set them free and not submit again to a yoke of slavery. The Bereans were commended for checking even an apostle against Scripture. Galatians 6:1 says to restore the one caught in a trespass gently, watching yourselves. None of that describes a system in which a handful of men can end your fellowship, isolate you from friends, and call it the government of God.
Members have allowed this because the doctrine trained them to. Fear of being "put out" was made larger than fear of enabling harm. Tithes kept flowing because withholding them was framed as stealing from God rather than refusing to fund unaccountable power. Silence was called humility. Endurance of abuse was called loyalty. That bargain is not faithfulness to the New Covenant. It is surrender of the very freedom the New Covenant created.
No Church of God group today practices first-century Christianity. Keeping the Sabbath and the holy days does not require a pyramid, three tithes traveling upward, home inspections, medical control, or a climate of fear. Those are later Armstrongite inventions wearing primitive clothing. The earliest communities were local, relational, and restoration-minded. Their leaders were to be tested, humble, and not lovers of money. Their members were expected to examine teaching and correct one another without a headquarters veto.
Members no longer have to pretend otherwise. Stop treating office as immunity. Stop confusing one man's authority with Christ's. Stop letting gossip replace the Matthew 18 process. Stop funding structures that punish questions and then claim to be the church Jesus built. If a leader will not be accountable, he is not exercising New Covenant ministry; he is exercising control. The New Covenant already named the alternative: one Head, many priests, servant leadership, gentle restoration, and freedom that no bully is entitled to revoke.
Based upon this Exit and Support Network letter on COG bullies:
Beware of Anyone in Authority in These Offshoot Churches:
September 3, 2026
Deacons and deaconess were hypocrites in my church area. A new couple came to me complaining about our deaconess. She organized camping in a wilderness area and the couple found it hard to cope camping with five young children. When the mother told the deaconess about her difficulties, she replied, “You have to practice for the place of safety!” I realized then that she had an unhealthy obsession with the place of safety.
So I told the couple what happened to me about two years before the couple started to attending services. The deaconess had organized another camping trip to another wilderness area from Friday afternoon to Sunday afternoon. This particular spot was very popular with trail bikes so on Sabbath morning they roared up and down the steep hill next to the camping site. The deaconess was very unhappy with the “heathens” disturbing the peace on the Sabbath day. So I told that couple with the five children that the deaconess complained all weekend and they never went camping with her again. This happened 50 years ago so we are still waiting to go to the place of safety.
As time marches on, it shows what I believed in was all nonsense. From the first day I met her I always thought she was very strange. Many years later she had to be put in an intensive care facility because she had dementia.
My WCG church area had two deacons and both were proud bullies. I watched one deacon for years wash only the local ministers feet at Passover until that minister transferred to another area. Over the years I grew a healthy dislike for ordained people in my area.
One by one when each of them died I never went to their funerals and it was a great relief to never see them again.
If you are thinking of attending any of the WCG offshoot churches, beware of anyone who is in authority, they will make your life a misery. I still have trouble trusting other people because of my experience in WCG. –B. S.
17 comments:
Why, yes why. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing is very real. No one can come to the Son except that the Father call him, and no one can come to the Father except through the Son. I think that answers the question about those who abuse their authority. Were they called? I don't judge, I have my own very real flaws. But the scriptures are clear. The comments by the writer in Exit and Support Group were telling, and concerning. And to those who see abusive ministry in their congregations, that should be a sign to get out fast. Cheers.
Many years ago, in an AC dorm, one of my dorm mates asked me what classes I was taking. I mentioned one class, and the dorm mate replied that I'd probably really enjoy that class because Mr. ......., the teacher worked for Mr......., (one of the most beloved Evangelists) and acted just like him. My eyebrows raised, and the dorm mate explained that often, people acted like the person for whom they worked. In other words, personalities rubbed off. Made sense at the time.
Many years later, while avidly reading self-improvement books, I learned that this phenomenon is known as "acting in a stronger person's valence", as opposed to the more mature practice of developing one's own strong personality, which is a stronger and deeper root. The "actor" literally pictures himself as being his mentor as he goes through his daily routine. I caught myself doing that several times, and consciously made the decision to avoid that practice. It's something people notice, and it is taken by most as being bogus and insincere. I heard contemptuous remarks made about some to the effect that so and so had "cloned" himself. I thought back upon something that I had discovered as an AC student. The U.A.P. (Universal Ambassador Personality). I discovered it as I noticed incoming students subvert and change the perfectly acceptable personalities with which they had arrived, and either consciously or unconsciously adapted this U.A.P.
This stuff is difficult to shed. And, it doesn't only apply to people who embraced the Ambassador culture. I used to be embarrassed for people who took on Rush Limbaugh's personality, vocabulary, and mannerisms during the heyday of his popularity. They actually thought they were making themselves appear to be more intelligent, but, aha! They came off as being pretentious. They were acting in Rush's valence, and it was very detectable! Over the years, I've met the occasional ex-COG member who still acted in the valence of a WCG minister, years after the fact when even former WCG ministers had shed that dreadful demeanor in favor of more likable personalities!
Nobody likes to think they are carrying on a dialogue with Cal Culpepper, or some of the other similarly egregious examples of bullies! Those ministerial bullies are gutless. They take your salvation and use it as leverage to do their bullying. If you met them on the street, there is no way they would speak to you as they do without their artificial leverage. They can only do their work in a protective bubble. The problem is, so long as you put up with their false prophecies, their intrusion into what should be your space, your personal matters, your decisions, they will never let up. How cheap, how weak of them to exploit their role as a spiritual guide to leverage you to suit their own preferences. Once again, valence. To them, they are Moses, and you are Korah, Dathan, or Abiram. Another example demonstrating why grace-based behavior allows more room for one to grow and flourish. It's the real!
Men did not wash women's feet in biblical times! Mr Armstrong carried on the true position that men washed mens feet and women washed women's feet.
Bullheadedness is the most common condition of the human mind.
There must be something more than top down government stuff going on here. CGI and UCG, churches which operate on a more loosely defined structure, still have this bullying problem.
Look how many ministers tried to mimic Herbert. Dozens of them would yell and pound their fist.
"Ordaining incompetent and/or unworthy men"
Sometimes this is a calculated evil ploy. The church leadership use these unworthy men to shatter the personal boundaries and sense of normalcy of ordinary members. This increases the power the church has over its members.
Secret enforcers. I think you are right, 9:36. It's a deliberate cultic move with full complicity of the power structure.
First-century Christianity, we are solemnly informed by various Armstrongist groups, has been faithfully restored. The Sabbath is kept. The holy days are observed. The "true gospel" of the coming Kingdom is preached. And, most importantly, the government of God is once again operating on earth through a single, specially chosen human channel at the top of a very tidy pyramid>>
Their allegations as you describe are very far from the truth. “Church of God” does appear in Scripture, but it is never used as a denominational title or exclusive identity.
In the New Testament it is simply a descriptive phrase for local congregations (“the church of God in Corinth”), not the name of a single organisation. The earliest Christians didn’t operate under any denominational label at all; they called themselves “The Way,” a movement defined by discipleship, shared leadership, and freedom from Mosaic obligations.
Armstrongist groups treat “Church of God” as some alleged proof that their organisation is the restored first‑century church. Armstrong did not prefer the earliest Christian name because “The Way” did not enforce the Sabbath, did not impose Holy Days, and did not operate under a single authoritarian leader all being features central to his system. He appealed to Jewish customs to justify his structure, but the fact remains: the earliest Christian movement simply did not resemble the hierarchical, Torah‑selective organisation he built.
. His adoption of “Church of God” came from a modern Sabbatarian denomination he joined in the 1920s, not from the apostolic church. The result was a 20th‑century institution with none of the defining features of the first‑century community it claimed to restore.
In the end, the “restoration” narrative functioned as a persuasive organisational claim crafted by a remarkably street‑savvy religious entrepreneur , - one who saw fit to reward himself with a salary that would amount to over a million dollars in today’s terms - not a recovery of the early Christian movement known as The Way.
Based on sheer numbers there was far more nasties within the membership then the leadership. The reason it succeeded was the weird mean self righteous people that funded the thing. That was the members. The leaders became generally worse because power corrupts but the idea that the members werent atrocious themselves is laughable. Read this site on a daily basis as evidence
Mary Magdalene washed Jesus's feet, and He approved.
I believe that African Americans got the name right. .Church of God in Christ. Herbie went for a spiritual name with a physical modifier such as "Radio" or "Worldwide". Most of his disciples have followed that pattern. The only one who broke the pattern was Raymond Cole, who named his splinter "Church of God the Eternal" which kind of has a connotation of the law more than it does Jesus Christ.
Obviously, COGlodytes will point out that the Church of God in Christ is a "Pentecostal" church, and will tell you that the members roll around on the floor, foaming at the mouth, and speaking in glossolalia, but the fact is they do have a more precise name.
Church bullies is dead on accurate! My last four years in the Peoria, Il WCG was under the tyranny of Jess Ernest. The man was a screaming lunatic, who had all the first four traits mentioned at the begining of this article. He was a fanatic who showed no mercy to anyone who dated ask anything that would contradict the accepted narrative of what was going on in the church at that time. He was also merciless toward anyone with problems that contradicted the Ambassador quality image of the WCG. He nearly drove one poor woman to suicide because she had a hard time giving up smoking. Thank God he left the ministry in the late '90!
Spiritual abuse is much more present in Armstrongism but it is not exclusive to Armstrongism. I was attending a generic Christian community church after leaving the WCG. The top minister gave a sermon on tithing that sounded shockingly like a sermon you would hear in an Armstrongism church. One comment he made was, "your a Christian and you don't tithe?" Not long after that I quit attending that church and I no longer attend any church.
Anon, Monday, September 28, 2026 at 12:01:18 AM PDT, wrote:
First-century Christianity, we are solemnly informed by various Armstrongist groups, has been faithfully restored. The Sabbath is kept. The holy days are observed. The "true gospel" of the coming Kingdom is preached. And, most importantly, the government of God is once again operating on earth through a single, specially chosen human channel at the top of a very tidy pyramid>>
Their allegations as you describe are very far from the truth. “Church of God” does appear in Scripture, but it is never used as a denominational title or exclusive identity.
In the New Testament it is simply a descriptive phrase for local congregations (“the church of God in Corinth”), not the name of a single organisation. The earliest Christians didn’t operate under any denominational label at all; they called themselves “The Way,” a movement defined by discipleship, shared leadership, and freedom from Mosaic obligations.
Armstrongist groups treat “Church of God” as some alleged proof that their organisation is the restored first‑century church……a recovery of the early Christian movement known as The Way.
******
Anon, the phrase "Church of God", mentioned in your comment, reminded me of something.
For whatever reason HWA's WCG meant Worldwide Church of God. Similarly, UCG and ICG (to cite 2 examples of scattered split-off groups of the former WCG) mean: United Church of God and Intercontinental Church of God, respectively. Which one, if any of them, is God’s Church?
What's the most important portion of those phrases?
It's the adjectives Worldwide, United and Intercontinental.
What is the least important portion of those phrases?
God!
It's like viewing a moving train where the most important object is the engine (Church) doing "the work," while the caboose (God) at the end seems very insignificant.
But God, Jesus' God, is the Worker, and yes, Jesus does work also. They're the real workers.
"But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." John 5:17
All of the splinters, like the former WCG, put lots of focus on themSELVES, emphasizing the first word of the phrase to show how important they think they are as a professing "Church," especially when comparing themselves with the other competitors: more churches of God. There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of "church of god" groups, organizations out there. Just having the phrase Church of God does not make any of them God's Church.
Yet, they all think they represent "God's Church," where the major emphasis would be on God and not so much on the word Church. But they all can't be God's Church!
What if HWA had incorporated as simply God's Church? Or, even as God's Worldwide Church? God is the important One, and it sounds like something significant, something active, in existence, that would guide and direct His Church to do His Will on earth.
The phrase "Church of God" seems so passive, by comparison and again, there are 100(s), if not 1000(s) of churches of god in existence today. They seem like clones, or wannabees, phonies, or counterfeit versions of something real: God’s Church.
Scripture refers to God’s Church in the following way:
“But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.” Acts 28:22
So, does “this sect” still exist today?
Time will tell...
John
Anon, Sunday, September 27, 2026 at 6:21:08 PM PDT, wrote:
Men did not wash women's feet in biblical times! Mr Armstrong carried on the true position that men washed mens feet and women washed women's feet.
And Anon, Monday, September 28, 2026 at 5:47:05 AM PDT, wrote:
Mary Magdalene washed Jesus's feet, and He approved.
******
Anon 547 gave an excellent reply to Anon 621's comment regarding one HWA/WCG tradition.
I personally have attended Passover services over a number of years where men and women washed each other's feet. Feet are feet. For whatever reason, I find a woman's feet feel softer, but still, feet are feet. I think each foot contains about 26 bones in each one.
FWIIW, God is not into racism, or races. It's all one human family. God is not a respecter of persons.
John
This is a great post! Some of these church leaders either want you to either fear them or respect them. In the first century, the apostles were both, due to the amazing miracles that were being done and by the authority in which they spoke. It's not the same today.
Post a Comment