Reeducation in the World Tomorrow?

Herbert Armstrong had a very low opinion of this world's education system, and the scholarly elite which it produced. In his book, Tomorrow - What It Will Be Like (Chapter 5: Education and Religion Tomorrow), he wrote: We covered a section on this world's paganized, agnostic, decadent education earlier in this book. The academic system was founded by the pagan philosopher Plato. It has always remained pagan. Injected into it, in more recent times, has been German rationalism and the atheistic theory of evolution. He continued: Modern education has been based on a false, erroneous, untrue foundation. The supposedly educated of this world, even the great minds, have absorbed false knowledge. They have been trained in a false approach to knowledge. Almost always, error is based on a false assumed premise or hypothesis, taken for granted, never questioned-and, of course, unproved. The "educated" minds have been filled with such false hypotheses. They have allowed a false sense of values to flood their minds. Armstrong reasoned that the whole concept of education had been perverted and twisted, and he concluded that a whole new system would have to be instituted when God's Kingdom was established on this earth!

Unfortunately, like many Fundamentalists and Literalists before him, Armstrong viewed the findings of science as an attack on God and religion. This caused him to reject any evidence which he felt contradicted the Bible or his belief system. In his mind, they simply had to be wrong! Armstrong reasoned that - if they were right, then he and God would be wrong - and that could NEVER be. If this reasoning is beginning to sound circular to you, then you may be on to something! For Herbert Armstrong and his followers, the Genesis account of creation explained the mechanics of how life in all of its varied forms came to exist on this planet. Instead of seeing those chapters as an emphatic statement about God's role as Creator, they see it as the ONLY valid scientific explanation of how the earth and universe began! In other words, they turn spiritual/supernatural revelation into a scientific text. In reality, the Theory of Evolution provides a well-documented explanation for the diversity of life that we see all around us. It is evidence-based, and it has absolutely NOTHING to say on the subject of God and/or "his" role in creation!

At any rate, all of his angst about the educated of this world served as the basis for Armstrong's speculation about education in "The World Tomorrow." Armstrong wrote: In God's millennial civilization, the basis of all knowledge dissemination will be revelation. Light will replace darkness-truth will replace error. Understanding will replace crass materialism. True knowledge will replace intellectual ignorance. (Tomorrow - What It Will Be Like) Likewise, Herbert reasoned that this world's educated elite would be the toughest nut to crack when Christ returns. He wrote: Yes, indeed, the educating and reeducating of the world will be one of the most important tasks the Kingdom of God will face, after Christ returns to rule. Today people follow the false and deceptive values. Their entire thinking will require a reorientation-a change of direction. Now, while Mr. Armstrong's reasoning appears reasonable and progressive at first glance, we can clearly discern that it is extra-biblical when we take a second look. Armstrong identified a problem (education and the educated of this world) and then reasoned that it will have to be resolved in "The World Tomorrow," without referencing any scriptures to back up his reasoning! Moreover, Armstrong then proceeded to offer what he felt would be a reasonable solution to the problem: Christ would use his (Armstrong's) folks to reeducate the world!

In support of this conclusion, Armstrong turned to one of his favorite passages about the future Kingdom. However, before we address his interpretation of the passage, I'd like to quote it for our readers without prejudice. In the fourth chapter of the prophet Micah, we read: It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and it shall be lifted up above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it, and many nations shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide disputes for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore... (Micah 4:1-3, ESV) Now, in response to this passage, Armstrong wrote: This knowledge-this teaching-and even knowledge of God's Law-shall go forth from the Church-and from Jerusalem, the new world capital. The problem, of course, is that this passage does NOT mention the Church anywhere - Armstrong injected this into the passage! Notice also that it is the nations themselves who will be seeking God's help - "that HE may teach us his ways." Notice too that there would not be any opportunities for them to learn about war anymore. In other words, Micah has absolutely NOTHING to say about ACOG folks reeducating the rest of the world!

Talk about a leap in logic. Herbert Armstrong went on to write: This Headquarters Church, at Christ's own world capital of Jerusalem, then, undoubtedly, will be given the administration of the world's new system of education. Did you notice that word "undoubtedly"? In other words, this is the only reasonable conclusion for us to reach! Is that, however, true? Even so, the speculation didn't stop there. Armstrong went on to conclude: Also, the indication is that the teaching of spiritual truth-of the true gospel, the spiritual conversion of the world-will be directed, worldwide, from this Headquarters Church, under Elijah and the overall direct supervision of Jesus Christ. Now, laying aside the fact that all of this is unsupported by scripture and is based entirely on Armstrong's reasoning out the "problem," how likely do you think that it would be for God to use a group of educators to retrain the world whose own teachings have been so thoroughly discredited by reputable sources? Indeed, Mr. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God doesn't even exist today - some forty years after the death of its founder!

At this point, I think that it would be appropriate to actually examine some of the appropriate prophetic scriptures dealing with the dissemination of spiritual knowledge in God's Kingdom. In the book of Jeremiah, we read: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34, ESV) Notice that God intends to put his law within them and write it on their hearts. Moreover, we are informed that it will no longer be necessary to instruct people to "Know the Lord, for they shall ALL know me." Finally, this passage seems to imply that spiritual knowledge is inextricably linked to forgiveness of sins! In other words, no teachers appear to be necessary in this passage!

Finally, there is that other Armstrong favorite passage from the book of Isaiah. Anyone with any background whatsoever in one of the ACOGs will remember the often-quoted passage from the eleventh chapter of Isaiah. After talking about the shoot which emerges from the stump of Jesse (Jesus Christ) and the nature of his person and reign (Isaiah 11:1-5), we are treated to a vision of his Kingdom. We read: The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious. (Isaiah 11:6-10, ESV) Once again, we notice that the nations will seek him. Also, we are told that "They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be FULL of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." Universal knowledge of God and "his" ways, but no mention of ACOG teachers reeducating people!

Bottom line - the world will be reeducated in a sense, but it won't be as Herbert Armstrong imagined it. Scripture indicates that it will be accomplished by a Divine miracle, and the willingness of the people of all nations to learn about God and his will for us. Moreover, as with our own experience, it appears that this will be accomplished by believing in Jesus Christ and accepting what he has done for us. In other words, no crash course in Torah will be necessary! What do you think?


by Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix

How to Get Into the Kingdom: Step 1 – Submit to Headquarters. Step 2 – There Is No Step 2

No one back in 1986, the moment Herbert W. Armstrong finally checked out, could have possibly predicted that the Church of God would one day turn into this flaming dumpster fire of theological insanity. Everyone was dead certain we’d already be in the Millennium by now, happily beating the survivors with iron rods while the elite taught classes at the Ambassador Colleges of the World Tomorrow. Herbert would’ve had the corner office right next to Jesus.

Instead, we got 2026 — and a parade of spectacularly unhinged men who make the old Worldwide Church of God look like a model of sanity.

There’s Bob Thiel, the human equivalent of beige wallpaper, who got shown the door by basically everyone and responded by declaring himself a prophet and starting his own little church in Africa like some kind of spiritual colonizer cosplay. Then there’s Dave Pack, who has spent years screaming that “Christ” is personally returning to Wadsworth, Ohio to walk the holy sidewalks for His third coming. Because of course He is.

And then, sitting at the very top of this pyramid of delusion, we have Gerald Flurry — self-appointed King of COGland, professional Irish dance enthusiast, and the man who has somehow convinced his followers that he and his headquarters now hold the actual keys to salvation.

Yes. You read that correctly. (posted as written)

What is the key of David? IT IS THE ROYAL GOSPEL VIEWED THROUGH THE EYES OF THE FATHER, AND THE HUSBAND, AND THE HEADQUARTERS BRIDE---the highest level of God's government through all eternity.that's right---the headquarters Bride. That Bride consists of those who will go no more out from God's Headquarters temple---those who will be ruling with Christ there in Jerusalem foreverv(verse 12). That is the highest calling for a body of God's people ever! That is the resplendent reward awaiting those who teach the key of David! They will be sitting on the Headquarters throne of David forever! So this is the gospel viewed through their eyes too.

Those during this Laodicean era who reject the key David will not have that reward. Fifty percent of them will repent and be in God's Family, but they will not be at Headquarters, because they reject rejected the key of David , the greatest vision of the Bible. Revelation 3 makes it clear that anyone who goes into the Tribulation will not be stationed at God's Headquarters. 

The very ELECT comprehend God's family government far better than most of God's people. 

 

The big question is this: Will you understand and submit to this government in the age of man's rule of man and act while there is time?

Consider this carefully: THE ROYAL KEY OF DAVID GOSOEL IS UNDERSTOOD NOW ONLY BY THE HEADQUARTERS KINGS AND PRIEST IN EMBRYO! If you fully understand and submit to this teaching now, you are going to reside in Jerusalem forever.

Only 5vpercent of God's own people in the Laodicean era have remained faithful to God---and only that 5 percent will qualify for that level of royalty in this end time. We can't drift into such an exalted position. We must work hard and fervently support God's Work toady.

In past ages, God has only prepared a small number of His people to rule from the Jerusalem Headquarters. 

It is hard to fathom the level of royalty God's Philadelphians truly are. God has given them knowledge He never gave to the other eras of His Church because He is specifically training His Headquarters personnel who will teach the key of David vision to the world. That is why God gives us that vision from the perspective of Headquarters in Jerusalem forever! He is revealing this vision with greater clarity all the time. Christ personally gives it to the Philadelphia era and to the Philadelphians in the Laodicean era. But only a small percentage of both eras qualify for Headquarters rule in Jerusalem. 

Armed with this key of David knowledge, we will be better able to support the prophets, apostles and leaders that God prepared in part ages."

According to the current PCG gospel, Jesus is apparently far too occupied trying to get back to Wadsworth and working with Bob Thiel preparing to flee to Petra, to bother with minor details like saving people. So Gerald and his loyal Headquarters staff have graciously stepped in to handle the whole “eternal life” thing themselves. If you don’t submit to their “royal government,” you’re apparently not getting in. The pearly gates now require a Headquarters stamp of approval.

This isn’t just weird. This isn’t just “different doctrine.”

This is straight-up, grade-A, gold-plated blasphemy.

This is the theological equivalent of saying the only way to get into the wedding feast is to have the right stamp from the right committee. It turns the gospel into a corporate loyalty program with eternal consequences. It takes the beautiful promise of Revelation 3:12 — “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God… and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God… and I will write upon him my new name” — and turns it into an exclusive club for those who stayed loyal to one particular splinter group’s leadership.

Herbert Armstrong had plenty of issues, but even he would have taken one look at this nonsense and thrown these people out so fast their heads would spin. He did not raise up a church so that some guy could later declare himself the new toll booth operator between humanity and God.

This is what happens when unchecked ego, narcissism, end-time obsession, mental illness, and a total lack of accountability are allowed to fester for decades. You don’t get stronger Christians. You get people who genuinely believe their salvation is tied to whether they recognize Gerald Flurry as the Royal Kingly Headquarters Representative of Jesus Christ.

The Facebook post quoted above is not some fringe comment from a confused member. It is the logical endpoint of everything that has gone wrong. It is the distilled essence of the very “quagmire of heretical stupidity” that represents Armstrongism today. Who could have imagined that the highest reward in eternity is not found in Christ Himself, but in proximity to “Headquarters.” We are told that the “Key of David” is not ultimately about Jesus, but about recognizing a physical organization and its leader as the pinnacle of God’s government. We are told that only a tiny elite — the self-described “Headquarters kings and priests in embryo” — will sit on the real thrones in Jerusalem, while everyone else who fails to submit to this system gets a lesser seat in the Kingdom.

This is not biblical Christianity. This is not even a creative misreading of Scripture. This is a man-centered, headquarters-centered religion that has quietly replaced Jesus Christ with an institution and one elderly man as the practical gatekeeper of salvation and glory.

Yet here we are in 2026. The same movement that once preached Christ as the Head of the Church now has influential voices teaching that only those who accept “Headquarters” as the highest expression of God’s government will receive the highest reward. The irony is almost too perfect: the very people who claim to be the most faithful to Herbert Armstrong’s legacy have created a system he would have found utterly intolerable.

This is what happens when the focus shifts from Jesus Christ to an organization, from the Head to the “headquarters,” and from grace to government. It doesn’t produce humility. It produces spiritual arrogance dressed in royal language. It doesn’t produce people who are desperate for Christ. It produces people who are desperate to be recognized by Headquarters.

How unimaginable this future would have seemed in 1986. The conclusion is even more sobering: not only did no one see this coming, but the very people who claim to be preserving the truth have managed to create something far more dangerous than simple error. They have created a system in which loyalty to men and institutions is presented as the highest form of faithfulness to God.

That is not the Church Jesus Christ is building.

That is something else entirely.

And the longer it continues, the clearer it becomes that the real tragedy is not just that these men exist — it is that so many sincere people have been convinced that submitting to them is the same thing as submitting to God.

Why Preach a Dead Christ Still On the Cross When You Can Restore 1,900 Years of Missed Truths Instead?

A Church of God member wrote recently:

The WWCG became the Laodicean Church. With out putting HWA on a pedestal, when you look at the Bible, God used HWA to restore many truths that went against the grain of mainstream Christianity. He was criticized because he didn’t initially preach Christ. However none can come to Christ lest God the Father calls. But the true Gospel begins with the Gospel of coming the Kingdom of God. Just the way John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles proclaimed it. Depending on how each person responds, God the Father calls those with a broken contrite heart to Christ to have their sins cleansed. But that is not where the Gospel ends. That is where mainstream Christianity ends-with a dead Christ hanging on a cross. The sacrifice of Christ is not enough. Christ said if a house is cleaned and swept and remains empty we come to a worse spiritual state. We are cleansed by Christ’s blood but we are saved by His life-Romans 5:10. The resurrected Christ imparts His Spirit to our cleansed spirit and begins transforming us-Romans 8:9. Christ fulfilling the Wave Sheaf Offering presents us to God the Father and then we also receive the Holy Spirit of God the Father joined to our cleansed spirit-Matthew 20:10. Fulfilling John 17:21. That is the full, complete Gospel.

Ah, the Armstrongite classic: "We didn't preach Christ at first because reasons... but look, we restored ALL the truths mainstream Christianity missed for 1,900 years!" This comment is textbook legalism dressed up as "deeper truth," and it perfectly illustrates why starting with anything but Christ as the blazing center leads to the fractured, authoritarian, prophecy-obsessed mess Armstrongism became.1. "HWA didn't initially preach Christ... but none can come to Christ lest the Father calls"Brilliant strategy! Don't lead with the actual Person the entire Bible revolves around. Instead, start with British-Israelism, end-times flow charts, "God's Law" (your selective version of it), and radio broadcasts hammering Saturday Sabbath and holy days. Christ can be an afterthought once the Father does the heavy lifting.  

How exactly are people supposed to respond to the Father's call if no one is proclaiming the One they're supposed to come to? Romans 10:14-15 has some awkward questions for this approach: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?... As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'"  

Apparently, those beautiful feet were too busy restoring "truths that went against the grain" to mention the Grain of Wheat, who actually died and rose. That's why Armstrongism is such a mess today — dozens of splinter groups all claiming to be the "true" continuation, still arguing over who keeps the law purest, still waiting for the same failed prophetic timelines. When your foundation isn't Christ the Rock (1 Corinthians 3:11), but a man's "restored package," it predictably crumbles into legalistic factions.2. "The true Gospel begins with the Gospel of the Kingdom of God... mainstream Christianity ends with a dead Christ hanging on a cross"Yes, because nothing screams "we have the full gospel" like accusing billions of Christians of worshipping a dead guy on a stake (God forbid if you call it a cross) while you have unlocked the real message: a future government you qualify for by keeping the right holy days. Newsflash from the actual New Testament: The gospel is about Christ. Mark 1:1 calls it "the gospel of Jesus Christ." Paul defines it as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). 

The Kingdom of God is real and glorious — but it's His Kingdom, brought by the crucified and risen King. Jesus didn't say "Preach the Kingdom... and oh yeah, me too if there's time." He is the Kingdom in person. 

The apostles didn't tiptoe around the cross to get to the future government; they led with "Christ crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2).  

Calling mainstream Christianity "ending with a dead Christ" is peak projection. We celebrate the empty tomb every single day! The living Lord is at the right hand of the Father right now. The comment's version reduces Christ to a ticket-taker for the coming Kingdom while you work on your law-keeping résumé.3. "The sacrifice of Christ is not enough... We are cleansed by Christ’s blood, but we are saved by His life... Wave Sheaf Offering... full complete Gospel"Here it is — the heart of the error. The cross is just the beginning of your spiritual house-cleaning. Now you have to keep it occupied with... what? Your obedience to Old Covenant shadows?  Hebrews 10:10-14 laughs at this: "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." One offering. Done. Perfected forever. Not "start with the blood, then add Sabbath-keeping and holy day observance to finish the job."  Romans 5:10 ("saved by his life") doesn't mean "the cross got you in the door, now keep the law to stay saved." It means the living, risen Christ continues the work He began — interceding, giving His Spirit, keeping you. The New Covenant doesn't pit the death against the resurrection; both are His finished work applied to us.  The Wave Sheaf Offering typology is cute. Christ fulfilled it perfectly as the firstfruits. We don't need to reenact the shadow to "present ourselves." That's the whole point of the New Covenant replacing the Old (Hebrews 8–10). The comment turns fulfillment into "now you do your part by keeping the feasts."4. It always boils down to enforcing the law over grace, justification, and sanctificationThis is the core rot. The comment admits the cross cleanses but insists it's "not enough." We still need the "resurrected Christ" plus (implied) law-keeping to complete the deal.  New Covenant reality check:

• Justification is by faith in Christ apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16). 
• Sanctification is the Spirit writing God's law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10) and producing fruit — not external observance of shadows (Colossians 2:16-17). 
• Adding Sabbath, holy days, or tithing as requirements for ongoing favor puts you back under the tutor that was meant to lead to Christ (Galatians 3:24-25). Paul is brutal in Galatians 5: "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

The "house swept clean but empty" warning (Matthew 12:43-45) is about the danger of not being filled with the Spirit — not a call to fill it with Old Covenant rituals. The New Covenant promise is precisely that the Spirit does come and transform us from the inside.

The comment tries to sound profound by saying "mainstream ends with the cross, but we have the full picture." In reality, it diminishes the cross, subordinates Christ to a coming government + law checklist, and justifies starting a "restoration" ministry without leading with the Restorer Himself.  That's why it produces spiritual pride ("we have the truth others missed"), division (endless splinters), and a focus on external observances rather than the indwelling Christ who is our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30).  The New Covenant doesn't say "Christ's blood gets you started — now keep the law to finish." It says Christ finished it. Preach Him — crucified, risen, reigning, and coming again. Everything else flows from there. Anything else is just rearranging Old Covenant furniture in a house Christ already tore down and rebuilt in Himself.  

Silent Pilgrim

The Transformation of Torahic Slavery: A Peripheral Issue in Armstrongism

 

Bronze Age Celts were Great Enslavers of Germanic, Iberian and Other Celtic People

The Transformation of Torahic Slavery

A Peripheral Issue in Armstrongism

Dedicated to Anne

By Scout

My Quaker ancestors manumitted their slaves as a moral stand in the 1700s.  I know the name of only one slave that my family owned and manumitted.  Her name was Anne.   Her last name was probably my last name. Later in American history, my Great-Great-Great Grandfather owned a farm in Indiana that operated as a waystation on the Underground Railroad. Abolition was a special interest of the Society of Friends.  Herbert W. Armstrong also came from a Quaker background and condemned both slavery and the Civil War but, based on a short search of Armstrongist literature, did not seem to write about the theological import of slavery with respect to the Torah.  Slavery, as it is described in the Torah, is a model of how some laws were not set aside by the New Testament but were transformed.  The management of the Israelite institution of slavery is detailed in the Old Testament but slavery also continues as a transformed Christian concept in the New Testament.  The line of reasoning begins with the Torah.

Torahic Slavery in the Old Testament 

Slavery was common in the Bronze Age world.  For instance, it was not only an institution among the Northwest Semitic peoples, it was common in the British Isles. The Celts were great slavers.  They enslaved Germanic, Iberian, and other Celtic people.  Slavery had deep roots in the social and economic structures of these societies.   Slavery is not just a phenomenon that affects African-Americans.  All of us are descended from slave owners or the enslaved – probably both.  Mark Twain stated, “The skin of every human being contains a slave."  So, due to its wide social scope, it is not surprising that the Torah, as the national constitution of the ancient Israelite state, would have something to say about slavery.  

The surprising issue is that slavery is not condemned in the Old Testament, whether the chattel sort forced on Gentiles by Israelites or the indentured type forced on Israelites by Israelites.  Slavery is instead regulated in the Old Testament.  If you think that the Israelite form of slavery was a kinder, gentler form of slavery, like some apologists have maintained, look at this case:

“When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property (Exodus 21). 

This does not specify whether the slave is Gentile or Hebrew.  Nor is it limited by gender. Nor is it related to the severity of what caused the slave to be beaten.  So, if your elderly female cook burns the supper, you can beat her nearly to death, and if she lives to the next day, nobody can punish you.  Your whole punishment is the loss of her services.  If you maintain that Israelite slave owners would not do such a disgusting thing, understand that this would be because of their own personal morality, not because they were afraid of the Torah, which is permissive in this situation.  The law supports a specific view of human dignity. 

Armstrongists believe that the Torah is written on their hearts.  This would include the laws concerning the regulation of slavery.  These laws do not belong to the category of things that are no longer to be followed, such as the ceremonies and rituals.  Armstrongists frequently deny parts of the Torah that they don’t want to obey by saying that the particular law is either a “ceremony” or a “ritual.”  And this is generally unchallengeable because Armstrongists have never done a systematic study of the Torah and its applicability.  In a sense, the laws, because they exist, advocate the institution of slavery and a certain view of humanity.  If one believes that the Torah is written on the heart, the slavery laws will be included.  But does the New Testament see slavery from the same perspective?

Transformed Slavery in the New Testament

Certain laws in the Torah exist in a transformed, spiritual version in the New Testament Law of Christ.   This includes circumcision, the Sabbath, the sacrifices, and slavery.   Technically speaking, they did not go away.  They were instead subsumed in Christ.   Their physical implementations are set aside as covenantal requirements, but their spiritual content persists in Christ. 

So, we find that slavery exists in the New Testament, but it is spiritual rather than physical.   Paul stated the following principle in 1 Corinthians 7:22:

“For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave (Greek, doulos) is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave (doulos) belonging to Christ.”

Jesus himself is our model as a slave.  In Philippians 2:7, we have the great Kenosis:

“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant (doulos), and was made in the likeness of men.”

Jesus elected to come to us in a diminished state as a slave.  And all Christians are slaves to Jesus Christ.  Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and John of Patmos all describe themselves as doulos. This category of spiritual slavery does not diminish human dignity as purely Torahic slavery did.  It is offset by the fact that Christians are also God’s children.  So, the concept of slavery is up close and personal for all of us.  Very likely, our ancestral lineages going way back included slaves.  And for those who walk in The Way, they are slaves of Christ. 

Slavery and the Personality of Armstrongism

A common sermon preached from the pulpits of the Confederacy was that African-Americans were descendants of Canaan and their being held in slavery was justified. This argument was referred to as the Biblical “Curse of Ham.” The Worldwide Church of God (WCG) was the only modern church that I know of that held to a very similar view. The same argument was made, but the conclusion was left unstated.  If there had been a stated conclusion in the WCG, I conjecture it would not have been that slavery was justified but, rather, explainable.  I never heard an official of the WCG say that slavery was justified from the pulpit.  

(Note: Genetic analysis indicates that Black Africans are not Canaanites.  They are y chromosome haplogroup E.  The modern-day Canaanites are the Lebanese.  They are y chromosome haplogroup J like many other peoples in the Middle East. The Lebanese are very closely related to the Jews. Herman Hoeh’s historical studies on this topic were clearly in error.  Hoeh did not have the science of genetics to aid him.)

But the pews formed a kind of notional understanding to fill the void. I had a deacon explain to me at the Feast of Tabernacles in Big Sandy back in the Seventies why African- Americans and Whites sat in separate sections.  He stated, “God’s church believes in segregation.”  I remember an article by Herman Hoeh in which he explained that people of different races should not socialize outside of church services.  If you search around in online Armstrongist archives, you won’t find much about the topic of slavery and its aftermath.  We are left with anecdotes for the most part.  These anecdotes form the personality of the WCG. 

Organizations have personalities.  And this is separate from their charters or other formal documents.  What the loyal organizational members write about the organization and what the organization’s personality actually is, may be two different things.  How the organization formally presents itself is found in carefully authored and redacted documents.  What it really is, is typically found in anecdote. The WCG projected, in my experience, a White Supremacist personality.  And this personality attracted a certain kind of membership.  I don’t know if this appeal was inadvertent or strategic. 

Conclusion

Slavery was not condemned in the Old Testament and was carried over into the New Testament in a different form.  This continuity has meaning.  The New Covenant is a covenant of better promises.  One place where this is clearly evident is in the case of the persisting but transformed institution of slavery.  The physical slavery of the Torah has given way to the spiritual slavery, an attitude of commitment and dedication, of the New Testament. Slavery is now a spiritual concept that pertains to everyone who walks in The Way.  Christians are slaves to God and Christ. 

 

 

The New Covenant’s Secret Ending: You Become a God and Help Run the Universe

[Those that follow what] Armstrong taught have joined the PCG. We are continuing to change and must change deeply. New truth is consistently revealed to us. What does it means when we say Christ is in us? It should mean the same thing that Christ meant when speaking of His Father. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works" (John 14:10). Jesus Christ was completely under His Father's authority. 

When we personally claim that Christ is in us, we are saying that we have unconditionally surrendered to Jesus Christ are His government. It means that He rules us totally. Having Christ rule our lives is the only way we can truly grow and make the necessary spiritual changes. We must know that our spiritual growth is not meant just for this time. Our spiritual changes now are leading to the ultimate change---from that of mortal man to becoming God---a son of God! This will be a universe-shaking change.

By Gerald Flurry

Nothing quite captures the spirit of the New Covenant like this quote from Gerald Flurry declaring that those who still follow Herbert W. Armstrong have found the one true home in the Philadelphia Church of God. In it, Flurry explains what it really means when we say “Christ is in us.” Spoiler: it apparently has very little to do with the actual New Covenant and everything to do with total surrender to the church’s government and, eventually, becoming God yourself. Because why settle for being saved when you can aim for cosmic promotion?

According to Flurry, the PCG is where the real action is because “new truth is consistently revealed to us.” How convenient. The Bible, apparently, was just the first edition. The real updates come through the current leader. It’s almost as if God realized He forgot a few crucial details back in the first century and has been drip-feeding them to a small group in Oklahoma ever since. Under the actual New Covenant, the revelation is finished. Jesus is the final Word (Hebrews 1:1-2). The faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The Holy Spirit illuminates what’s already written — He doesn’t run a monthly newsletter with bonus doctrines. But sure, let’s pretend the canon is open and the latest patch notes come from the leader’s desk. That’s definitely how the New Testament describes the church.

Flurry quotes Jesus: “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” (John 14:10) and then says this should mean the exact same thing when we claim Christ is in us.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Jesus was speaking about the eternal, ontological unity within the Trinity — the Father and Son sharing the same divine nature and works. Flurry takes that staggering statement and applies it to ordinary believers so he can conclude that having Christ in you means you’ve “unconditionally surrendered to Jesus Christ and His government.”

It’s a theological sleight of hand worthy of a magician who also sells used cars. The Trinity is not a template for church hierarchy. Jesus and the Father are one in essence. You and Christ are united by the Spirit through faith. One of those relationships involves two members of the Godhead. The other involves a forgiven sinner. Pretending they’re the same thing is not deep theology — it’s convenient for anyone who wants absolute authority dressed up as “Christ ruling through His government.”

Flurry continues: having Christ in you means He rules you totally through His government. In the New Covenant, Christ does indeed rule His people. But He does it directly, through the Spirit, and through the Word. Believers have direct access to God (Hebrews 4:16). There is one Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament never describes the Christian life as “submit to the organization and its leader, who speaks for Christ.”That model feels suspiciously like the Old Covenant with better branding. The New Covenant was supposed to write the law on hearts and give everyone direct knowledge of God (Jeremiah 31:33-34). Instead, we’re told the real meaning of Christ dwelling in us is total submission to an ecclesiastical chain of command. How very… efficient for maintaining control.

And then comes the mic-drop: all this spiritual change is leading to “the ultimate change — from that of mortal man to becoming God — a son of God! This will be a universe-shaking change.”There it is. The crown jewel of Armstrongist theology.

You don’t just get forgiven. You don’t just get adopted. You don’t just get glorified. No, no — you get to level up into actual deity. Move over, Trinity. There’s a new God Family in town, and apparently the application process involves tithing, keeping the holy days, and recognizing the current leader as God’s man on earth.

The New Testament does say believers will be “like Him” (1 John 3:2) and will reign with Christ. It never says we will become God. We remain creatures. We will be glorified humans, not additional members of the Godhead. The Creator-creature distinction doesn’t get retired at the resurrection. But why let minor details like monotheism get in the way of a really inspiring sales pitch?

Here’s what the New Covenant actually offers, according to the documents that were written before the “new truth” updates arrived:

• Forgiveness of sins through Christ’s finished work.
• The indwelling Holy Spirit who transforms us from the inside.
• Adoption as children of God — real, legal, relational sonship.
• Future glorification and eternal life with God.
• Direct access to the Father through the Son.

No secret decoder ring. No requirement to join the one organization that has the latest patch notes. No promise that you’ll eventually become a god and help run the universe. Just grace, from beginning to end.

Gerald Flurry’s version is certainly more exciting if you enjoy the idea of climbing the cosmic corporate ladder. It just has the unfortunate problem of not being what the New Testament actually teaches.

The New Covenant was never meant to turn forgiven sinners into gods. It was meant to turn rebels into children who finally know their Father. Anything beyond that is just made up cultish nonsense.

Work out your own salvation. We are all on different levels of growth, yet we are one spiritual organism.

Facebook groups are a fascinating place to discover Armstrongism. There are many COG groups on there; many are private, so you have to be screened before they let you in, and others are public. Many are innocuous, but others are at times batshit crazy. Some of those peopel are positive proof that Armstrongism is NOT normal.

The quote below is not one of the extreme posts, like those in the PCG post, but rather highlights how many in the church see themselves as a spiritual organism, a united body knit together as one, despite being in separate splinter groups.

This split had to happen, each having their own administrations, its easier to prevent corruption, as the churches of Asia Minor did, there were 7 churches in the beginning, they were separate, still many members, but one body, same what we have today. each church had its own name, "and to the church of Ephesus" ... we are still many members but one body. Each member is responsible for their own salvation, each having a separate relationship with God the Father asking him to direct each of us,what he allows.. God knows what we are dealing with. . Each on different levels of growth as we learn Gods ways, " there will be no divisions among you" as he tells us.

This statement is a masterpiece of biblical gymnastics — the kind where you twist Scripture into a pretzel, call it "truth,” and use it to paper over why Armstrongite groups keep fracturing like cheap drywall.   

"The split had to happen." This whole argument is the standard post-1986 Armstrongite coping mechanism. It’s a convenient way to avoid admitting that the heavy centralized model they inherited produced exactly the power struggles and fractures they now defend as “biblical.” Even Herbert Armstrong himself wrote against the idea of the Church having competing “branches.” Funny how that part gets memory-holed when it’s useful.

The 7 churches in Asia Minor weren’t the result of some noble “split that had to happen to prevent corruption.” There were seven literal congregations in different cities (Ephesus, Smyrna, etc.) that John wrote to in one single book. Same region, same basic faith, same apostolic oversight from John. They weren’t competing organizations with rival headquarters, different doctrines on British-Israelism, or separate tithe streams. They were local assemblies, not a biblical endorsement for modern schism factories. They are nowhere near today’s Armstrongite alphabet soup: UCG, LCG, RCG, CCOG, PCG, COGWA, etc.

“Each having their own administrations, it’s easier to prevent corruption” — ah yes, the classic “our little pope is less corrupt than their little pope” defense. The New Covenant church had structure (apostles, elders, deacons), but the head was always Christ, not a chain of command that keeps fracturing every time someone disagrees with the current guy in charge. History shows that when groups split to “avoid corruption,” they usually just create brand-new opportunities for it — plus endless arguments over who’s the real remnant this week.

"Each member is responsible for their own salvation," Armstrongism heavily promotes Philippians 2:12 to support its distinctive view that:

• Salvation is not a completed reality at conversion or justification. It is a process of “overcoming,” character development, and obedience (especially to Old Covenant laws like the Sabbath, holy days, tithing, and clean/unclean meats).

• Christians must “qualify” for the Kingdom through works and endurance. Most people are not being called/saved now; the Church is only the “firstfruits.” The vast majority will get their chance in the Millennium or the Great White Throne judgment later.

• They present “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” as proof that you are not already saved and must strive hard (with the implication that failure can disqualify you). This creates a legalistic, performance-based framework where grace is acknowledged in theory but human effort and law-keeping become central to “qualifying.” This directly contradicts the New Covenant emphasis on the finished work of Christ and the believer’s secure position in Him.

Armstrongism uses Philippians 2:12 and the flexibility of “aion” to shift the focus from Christ’s completed work and present grace (New Covenant) to human striving, law-keeping, and a future-oriented, staged salvation plan. This turns the New Testament’s call to live out salvation by the power of the indwelling Spirit into a works-based qualification process and redefines judgment language to fit their unique eschatology and denial of eternal conscious punishment.

The New Covenant reading keeps both the assurance of grace and the serious call to obedient living — without turning salvation into something we must earn or “qualify” for through performance.

Today's COG groups are not "spiritual organisms". They are all independent groups doing whatever they want.

Why Has the UCG Council of Elders Failed to Identify Personal Behaviors that Create Obstacles in the UCG?

A reader here brought back to my attention an article that was published in 2014. The Council of Elders, even in 2026, has never taken the advice that was given to them and still flounders around trying to capture their vision. In spit of new vision statements almost every year, they still cannt set a goal up for them to march towards.

They were given these words of advice that they have refused to follow:

Building credibility as the foundation of leadership “Leadership is a relationship,” Mr. Snyder said. Telling people to “do this” or “do that” is command and control. People find you much more credible if you give them ownership, energize them and we do it together. People march in step because they trust you, believe in you and you have a relationship with them.

The United Church of God has been limping along these past few years with one debacle after another.  From a major church split to failed publicity campaigns, its image is not the best in COGland.

UCG would do well to recall the minutes from its August 13, 1998, Council of Elders' Report, where it talks about how it brought in Mike Snyder to revamp its image.  Snyder has along history in the Church of God.  He worked in the WCG public relations department during the doctrinal and church changes and was instrumental in presenting the new face of the Trinity, bringing WCG to the world at large.  Snyder is now the Vice President of a major advertising company here in the US.

Vic Kubik renewed his relationship with Snyder years ago as he was trying to improve his own image in the UCG. 

 “He has given me several ideas and principles to better present both myself and the church in ways where people can quickly understand and appreciate what we do and who we are,” said Mr. Kubik. “Mike showed me how I could further improve on publicly discussing the church in a way that would generate genuine interest instead of controversy or suspicion.”

Apparently, Kubik failed to heed those words of advice because controversy and suspicion has plagued Kubik and the UCG for years.

Kubik states:

He stated that his presentation would not address theological issues, focus on personalities or “ancient history,” or indulge in “hand-wringing” over the past. Rather, he hoped his research, applied to our position today, could be very helpful for the Council in leading and responding to the needs of the Church. “This is a forward-looking presentation that is supposed to prompt and challenge you to develop the solutions to your communications issues.”

A thinking person would have thought that with all the stuff that went down during UCG's apostasy from the mother church, these men would have learned to communicate better with their members.  They all felt that the WCG was not communicating fully with them during that time.  These guys knew better but still did nothing, but that's another story.

Some of the things Snyder recommended that the United Church of God implement are:

The current state of affairs Mr. Snyder began by asking Council members to consider two quotes that portray a choice of perspectives. “For all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, `It might have been'” (Whittier), and “No person can lead other people except by showing them a future. A leader is a merchant of hope” (Napoleon). The first is one nobody wants to ever have to say; the second speaks to the role of church leaders in particular.

The Council, in order to improve communication and establish a strong church identity, needs to “identify organizational and personal behaviors that inadvertently create obstacles instead of opportunities, start a process of changing those identified behaviors, identify your strengths as an organization and start a process of maximizing those strengths.”

Imagine that...the UCG Council needs to improve its image!  Who knew!!!!!!  This has proven to be a rather difficult thing for these boastful, arrogant men to do when it came to recognizing personal behaviors that created obstacles.  Even worse, they were supposed to CHANGE those destructive behaviors!  Imagine that!

Next, Snyder told the UCG Council to STOP being so defensive when crises arise:

He encouraged the Council to not be too defensive in dealing with crises, which will inevitably arise. Defensive modes back people into corners so that any move that is made seems to make the matter worse. He also pointed out that in all aspects of society today, crises now are complicated because of the Internet, especially in the absence of good communication. “When people don’t trust what you are saying, and don’t think they are getting the information they need, what they will do is make it up, and they will put it out in any format they need,” he warned. “What do you have to do?” he asked. “You have to take control. You are the decision-making point of this whole organization you are the leadership.”

Being"defensive' has been one of UCG's biggest failures. Instead of talking things through and actually listening to people's concerns, they react in a knee-jerk fashion, creating huge turmoil where none would probably have existed if they had only listened.

When people don't trust what UCG is saying....they then write all kinds of things about it.....YEP!  We sure do! We all know the track record of the UCG.

Snyder went on to tell UCG the kind of people in their organization:

Most organizations, at any given time but especially during times of change, are made up of the following three categories of people, Mr. Snyder said: 

• The “Quitters”_20 per cent of the people who are “professional complainers” and do nothing but take pot shots (every decision is wrong, no matter what it is). They have a different agenda, may actually work against organization goals, are often highly de-energized and work actively to make other people that way.

• The “Campers”_60 per cent, people who started climbing the mountain of life and at some point they got burnt out or said `I’ve had enough adversity’ and they stop and “camp out.” They are moderately-to-neutrally energized, but are willing to be directed and follow leadership.

• The “Climbers”_20 per cent of the people who have faith in something bigger than themselves and even though they face adversity they keep going; they never stop their entire lives despite setbacks and discouragement.

Snyder encouraged the UCG to have a goal they were working towards and to be visionary in focus: 

He also urged the Council to watch for personal burn out and to be aware of the signs indicating tiredness, because that affects leadership capacity. Countering deceptive myths Next, Mr. Snyder reviewed one author’s listing of various myths that affect views of business, and identified how truly visionary leadership creates success. Visionary companies “are significantly less likely to have early success but, like the tortoise and the hare, win the long race often after a slow start.” They communicate a vision for big goals, consistently champion and live by right core values and do not change them (“When you start messing with the core values, you take away the very thing that made it successful,” he said).

In the old WCG, the "goal" always was...making it into the Kingdom. Now the predominant goal of most Churches of God is amassing as much wealth as possible, building campuses and auditoriums, and trying to outdo the other COGs.  UCG has been just as guilty of this as Pack, Flurry, and Meredith.

Snyder then told them to stop focusing on money and to build credibility in leadership.

Another business myth he noted is that one should focus primarily on beating the competition. In reality, healthy, visionary organizations focus primarily on beating themselves they never think they’ve done good enough and are always seeking to improve their own performance. Additionally, visionary organizations make some of their best moves not by brilliant and complex strategic planning, but by experimentation, trial and error, opportunism and sometimes by accident. “Visionary organizations do not brutalize themselves with `the tyranny of OR,'” he said. Rather, “They embrace `the genius of AND'” the view that allows them to pursue “A” and “B” at the same time. He offered, for a church example, various efforts to preach the gospel both locally and centrally. Successful businesses focus on clusters of objectives, rather than making money. Income is a by-product of achieving other fundamental objectives, such as exemplary service. In the contemporary church context where there are several organizations, he noted that people are still committed to tithing, but will send their tithes to where they believe there is value. If you are focused on the right objectives, people will want to support your efforts, he said. Building credibility as the foundation of leadership “Leadership is a relationship,” Mr. Snyder said. Telling people to “do this” or “do that” is command and control. People find you much more credible if you give them ownership, energize them and we do it together. People march in step because they trust you, believe in you and you have a relationship with them.

Imagine that the lay members are given ownership and energized in the structure of the Church of God! It's hard to imagine any COG giving its members a say in what happens in the church.  Almost every single COG is ruled by a cabal of men who wield power stronger than the Pope could ever hope for. Here it is quite apparent that UCG has failed in this area immensely!

Credibility is a huge issue in the UCG, as it is in all the other COG's.  Snyder goes on to state:

“If you have no credibility, you can only govern on the basis of fear,” he said. “The higher degree of credibility you have, the more you get done, the more you attract people. Your organization becomes a magnet, as opposed to a person.” Reasons for cynicism The book Credibility lists several reasons why people become cynical in business, Mr. Snyder said, and the same principles can apply to the church. One is scandal. Organizations cannot avoid scandals, because of the human element somebody will eventually do something scandalous so you just prepare for them. However, most people want to cover them up and they just become “skeletons in the closet.” From a scandal perspective, you beat cynicism by open acknowledgment, recognition of repentance, he advised.

Bravo to Snyder for making such a statement to the UCG hierarchy.  They have a horrendous track record of covering up scandals.  From rapes, to stalkings, to child abuse and much, much more, it's all been swept under the rug and kept from members.  I wonder how many UCG members know that the UCG paid money to cover up a stalking case in the Pacific Northwest some years ago in an attempt to brand the victim a liar?

Snyder next focused upon "betrayal." Though sadly, I have a feeling that most of the men listening to this feel they are martyrs in this regard.  They were betrayed by their mother church.  They ignore the fact that they betrayed the WCG by plotting behind the scenes for months to form UCG while still on the WCG payroll.  They betrayed friends and church members by causing huge divisions in the church.  Many of these martyrs only jumped ship for the steady income stream.  The list could go on and on.  Who betrayed whom?  Tkach betrayed all of these martyrs?  Did they betray the WCG?

Betrayal is another big producer of cynicism. “Everybody in this room has gone through emotional disconnects in the last decade,” Mr. Snyder pointed out. “You get cynical about it when betrayed by a leader.”

People then sometimes make judgments based on cynical feelings “I’m not going to join this group because everyone’s just as bad as the one I came out of.” Disillusionment brings on skepticism. People believe in something, give it a chance, and then it fails or doesn’t work to their expectation; distrust results. Another is suspicion of power the “who’s-really-in-charge?” cynicism. From cynicism to restored faith Several dynamics can begin to restore faith. Clear accountability is critical, the type where people know you are accountable to them, even if you are their leader. That feeling instills greater faith. Giving clear messages (not hazy sayings), creating organizational enthusiasm, living personal values that are consistent with organizational values, and fostering a sense of shared “ownership” (everyone feeling like they are an important part of things) are other very important factors. Some operate by the maxim, Mr. Snyder said, of, “Do what you say you will do.” This is the minimum standard but even that might not effectively build credibility. The better standard that does build credibility is, “Do what WE say WE will do. “Evaluating the tone of the messages in UCG publications His review of all the church communications brought to light several trends, Mr. Snyder observed. He advised the Council not to be too defensive or justifying in tone, nor to dwell much on past mistakes. Being defensive means you are not solution-oriented, and such tone saps peoples’ strength, he said. “You’re not supposed to be defensive, you are supposed to be [on the] offensive, the spearhead, showing the way to go by example.” Over time, the church’s key phrases (e.g., “spirit of Indianapolis,” “a Godly community”) have become diluted, are now irrelevant to the membership and have even been used as a club over others, he said.

Only if..............  When pigs fly....unfortunately.

Snyder then tells them to stop living in the past.  This has been a huge issue with all the COG's.  They all look back at the "glory days" of WCG with fondness and longing.  Not a single one of them will EVER be able to do that. Bitterness seems to still burn mightily in so many of these men and COG's. 

While we need to develop our own terminology, we should stay away from abstractions that anybody else in the world with any religious affiliation would also be comfortable using. To turn around these tendencies, he advised a three-part solution:

• Decide on the key messages that need to be communicated. This decision is clarified by asking, “What issues are most important to the UCG?” and “How can these issues be better expressed?”

• Be better aware of and consistently address two key issues: a lingering sense of betrayal and burnout

• Develop a new mindset that is truly forward-looking and de-emphasizes recent history (“You’re not selling ancient history,” he said. “Have you had anyone baptized in the last year? What do they care about 1986? Are they more into first love or digging up things to find out how bad it was?”)

UCG and all the COG's can think of nothing BUT 1986 and its previous years.  Is it any wonder why UCG is not growing?  No one CARES about 1986!  Get over it already!!!!

Snyder encourages UCG to acknowledge CONFLICT in the church.  That has been one bitter pill to swallow, and they are still trying to do it!  UCG has always presented itself as the most unified COG to ever exist. While its structure crumbles down around them.

Suggestions for improving communication After analyzing one example of communication to the church (the April 2, 1998 member letter), Mr. Snyder offered several observations for making improvements. First, he confirmed that it is usually constructive to acknowledge conflict. Such acknowledgment promotes open honesty, shows that the leadership is sensitive, listening and willing to act and is congruent with the stated UCG objective of defending the faith. Conflict, he pointed out, is not always bad and within a certain context it can indicate a healthy condition. For example, total lack of conflict indicates mind-control and/or a de-energized, non-thinking group.

Snyder's last comment rings so true about most of the larger COG's today.  They present the image that they are conflict-free and the most unified COG's to exist in 1,900 years.  They can only do this because their members have been "de-energized" and turned into non-thinking robots.

Snyder tells them in order to be visionary, they need to "look forward."

Second, develop a new view of success, he advised. “Look forward, not backward.” Historically, the Radio Church of God that formed out of the Church of God, 7th Day, was “a true splinter that made it” because it became a visionary organization. Next, identify your one key message and make sure it is embraced and cherished at all levels.

Most of the COG's should have actually named themselves, The Boo-Hoo Church of God.  They live in the past, glorifying dead leaders, dated literature, and failed prophecies.  "Look at us, we are the only true remnant holding on to the truth, and no one wants to join us, boo-hoo.  The WCG changed doctrines...boo-hoo.  They sold all the campuses...boo-hoo. Tkach told us to stop abusing members....boo-hoo."

Snyder then closed with this:

Finally, leaders must “over-communicate” in times of crises. To implement these points, it is important to “start at zero,” he said. That means looking in fresh ways at communication and asking, “because we communicated one way in the past, is it still the best way?” Talk to the individual, build the relationships between people. Defining your own “brand” Being proactive in leading and communicating is critically important, Mr. Snyder stressed, because of this rule: If you don’t manage your reputation, someone else will! To draw a parallel, he said that in business terminology the United Church of God is a “brand.” In other words, people identify certain things with UCG, as they do with other church organizations. Your “brand” is important because it identifies you or your group by defining a promise or perception of consistently fulfilled promises. We should ask ourselves, either as an individual or as a group, “What is it that my service does that is different? Why is it good? What am I known for? Whatever you answer, if the answer doesn’t grab you, you’ve got a big problem.”

Snyder is right in that NOTHING UCG has done lately has "grabbed anyone or caught their attention.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on failed advertising public campaigns, which have produced zilch. Incredibly BAD TV shows have not brought in members. Publishing booklets patterned on old WCG literature has also failed.

UCG had a chance 20 years ago to reinvent itself into something "good."  However, it preferred the old ways and clung bitterly to the past.  It kept the same abusive ministers in charge, and it kept the same abusive policies they claimed to have suffered under in WCG. All UCG could do was imitate its past, and it's been a massive failure.

It remains to be seen how visionary or forward-thinking they will become, because so far they have no vision.