UPDATED: Is The Wedding Of The Century Over? Flurry Clan Kicks Vicki To The Curb

 

Gerald Flurry's wedding announcement October 30, 2020:

Special announcement

Dear brethren: I have been meeting with Vicki Barreiro for one year. It all started with ministerial counseling. We both developed feelings for each other in that process. We have been dating exclusively for the last four months. We plan to marry in a private wedding with only our immediate families on November 16.

—Pastor General Gerald Flurry. 

See: The Wedding Of The Century! King Gerald Flurry Is Getting Married!

Now, jump to 2025, and the wedding bliss is no longer blissful. Vicki woke up from her blindness and set herself free, with a little help from the vindictive Flurry family. Try and find a photo of King Gerry and Vicki together; it is next to impossible. PCG has scrubbed her photo from their sites.

From Exit and Support Network 

UPDATED Vicki Barreiro Has Left Her Husband:

November 2, 2025

It was announced yesterday that Vikki Flurry has left her husband, Gerald Flurry.

The sermon was by Stephen Flurry, and included long clips by Herbert Armstrong, and Gerald Flurry, haranguing about supporting “God’s true church,” and then horrible Laodiceans. Much yelling–which I could hear from the other room. It was entitled: “Fight, Fight, Fight.”

I hate gossip, as I have been a victim of it’s abuse, and I try to stay far away, but it is the truth and people should be warned. Also, those who still have family in the gulags of the PCG need to know what is happening to our loved ones.

The only way I can see my way clear of this mess is to accept the grace of Christ, and pray, and read the Bible without their booklets.

By the way, there is another revised version of the Key of David book, which I cannot read. It sickens me greatly (an understatement, to say the least) to read or hear them. –[name withheld]

UPDATED: No Queen at PCG Headquarters? 

November 3, 2025

This is just me speculating, but I am guessing Vicki bailed when she realized she wasn’t going to be queen after all. What a shame.

But honestly. Can you just imagine marrying Gerald Flurry in his current condition and trying to become one with that? Clearly Satan has deceived him into believing he is a king to God. Imagine his nutso-mindset attacking her every minute of every day with wackadoodle nonsense. Poor thing. She clearly didn’t think the results of her marriage-decision through.

No wonder Stephen is upset. His hands are always full inheriting and explaining his dad’s mess. –[name withheld]

And then this:

Vicki Evidently Pushed Out When She Could No Longer Be Controlled:
November 3, 2025 

 

I have a bit of a different take on the situation with Vicki Flurry. 

 

If you’ll remember, it all started when GF was counseling her about her husband. She was told to divorce him! Not precisely sure how long the “counseling” went on for but it would be more accurately described as transference in the psychology world. (“Transference is a psychological phenomenon where a patient unconsciously redirects feelings, desires, and expectations onto their therapist.”) He took advantage of her very fragile state! [Note by ESN: Read: Special Announcement where GF tells about that ministerial counseling with Vicki.] 

 

She no doubt thought she was entering into a safe, peaceful, righteous and God-fearing family. She was totally deceived. Behind closed doors that family is just as full with back stabbing, bickering, jealousy, jockeying and manipulation like any others. What a shock it must have been for her to see their true colors slowly seep out. 

 

With GF’s health deteriorating rapidly, the awareness of a very flawed and fake family, and waking up every morning to a gross, old, failing mean old man, carrying on everyday as his caretaker/maid, would quickly pull the blinders off allowing someone to process the situation for what it is–a fraud.
No doubt, knowing their Dad is nearing death, the “kids” watched her every move and attitude and when they noticed she was no longer blinded to their facade, they began to push her out! Same MO they use on members whom they can longer control. They likely made her life miserable until she couldn’t take it anymore. Because one thing is for certain, Stephen, Laura and families aren’t about to give up one penny of GF’s inheritance to that woman! 

 

I hope one day she’ll reach out to ESN and tell her side of the story and heal from the awful situation she was apart of. I can only imagine the stories she has to tell and the abuses she witnessed. –Former PCG member [name withheld]

Dave Pack: It is IMPOSSIBLE We Are Wrong...Oh, wait, we were! So, let me set another unequivocally CORRECT date...

 

Pinocchio learned a valuable lesson to not lie. Dave, not so much.

An Open Letter to Bill Watson: (As usual, a rebellious splinter leader thinks he was better than everyone else)

 

This entire saga with Bill Watson starting his new group in a fit of rebellion is just like Bob Thiel's rebellious upstart. Two self-serving narcissistic men who think they know better than anyone else.

Courtesy of Lonnie Hendrix

An Open Letter to Bill Watson

Dear Bill:

I heard the announcement you made in Medina this past Sabbath (11/1/2025) regarding your decision to depart ways with the Church of God International and starting a new organization. In your announcement, you made some comments on some of the reasons for the decision. Since your statements were public, I’m making this an open response. It has already come to our attention that some of the church members appear to be quite concerned after hearing you say that the CGI Board of Directors issued three “ultimatums” to you and the Medina church. I want to take a few moments to address this.

The letter wherein the three options were mentioned was written by me and sent to other members of the Board of Directors the same day I sent it to you (August 6, 2025). So they did not read what I wrote regarding the three options before you did. And since I wrote it, I can tell you for certain that it never occurred to me that the three options I mentioned might have even remotely resembled “ultimatums.”

Bill, I was merely bringing up the options you already had. Those were options available to you whether I mentioned them or not. I was certainly not issuing ultimatums or mandates or demands of any kind; I was merely stating what was! I even began my statement with “It seems to me….” That’s just not the way one issues an ultimatum!

Ultimatum is defined as “a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.”

With that definition in mind, let’s look at what I said. Here’s the paragraph mentioning the three options:

It seems to me that if our policies mean anything at all, you have three paths you could take: 1) You could do what any CGI elder “in good standing” is expected to do—abide by the policies for elders and chartered churches. 2) You could request of the MC to reclassify you and the Medina congregation as an “independent affiliate.” 3) You could simply declare your independence and go your way. [Emphasis added.]

I was referring to the fact that you are presently operating outside the parameters of the policies set forth for chartered churches in our Manual for Field Churches. Since you are not in compliance with these policies, you automatically (not by “decree” from me or the Board) have the option of bringing yourself into compliance—i.e., correcting the situation. But you can, if you so choose, declare your independence from the Church of God International. That’s another option you already had before I mentioned it. And finally, should your choice be independence from the Church of God International, you have the option of requesting that the Ministerial Council give you the “independent affiliate” classification. Again, all those options were already there before I made mention of them. They were not ultimatums!

You will note that I said, “It seems to me….” I put it like that because there may be other options, but as best I can tell (i.e., “It seems to me”) the only viable ones are the three mentioned here. Again, neither I, as Chairman of the Board, nor the Board of Directors collectively were giving you or establishing options; I was merely stating that these are options you have.

You will recall that in the email I sent to you on July 8, 2025, I asked you to clarify for me your intentions. This is what the options are about. I was asking you for clarity on what you wanted to do. We exchanged emails and letters, but you never answered the question. Finally you sent an email stating you would give me an answer after the Feast. About two weeks after the Feast, you gave me only a partial answer. You said that the Medina Board agreed to change the name. I then told you that this presumably means that option #1 was ruled out. I then asked you if the Board expressed a preference for one of the other two options, and you never answered…until you announced it last Sabbath.

You also stated in your announcement that “the Medina Board had been led to believe…that our name, Church of God International, Medina, could be used in perpetuity. That is, without expiration nor any stipulations. However, the Texas Board made it clear to us the last few months…that this was not true, despite their written statement of affirmation awarding Medina to use their name.”

This is another misunderstanding. Here is the written statement of affirmation I sent to you on July 1, 2024:

This is to affirm that the Board of Directors of the Church of God International has, for the sole purpose of the purchase of a building, approved the use of the name “Church of God International, Medina” by the Medina, Ohio congregation of the Church of God International. [Emphasis added.]

You can see that the affirmation I sent to you was not unconditional. As I explained to you in an email (around August 20, 2025), the part in bold allows us to withdraw approval should the Medina church go independent. Of course it goes without saying that as long as you’re officially a Church of God International congregation, we not only approve your use of the name, we prefer and encourage it. The name-change requirement applies only if you decide you want to operate independently of the Church of God International. That seems like a reasonable requirement to me. It also seems to me that any group parting ways with an organization would want a different name so as to avoid confusion. However, I must add that if the Medina Board had not agreed to the name change, we would have just left it alone. It’s not something worth arguing over.

You also stated that there had been “years of…growing tensions between the boards of Texas and Medina.” I was completely unaware of any kind of “growing tensions” between these two boards; this is news to me. The tensions I am aware of have been between you and the Board and/or home office and have concerned primarily organizational and procedural matters. In more recent times, the tensions have revolved around your non-compliance with the policies established by the organization that issued your credentials and paid your salary and expenses, though you once endorsed and upheld these policies. I’ve gone over the specifics with you, and will not repeat them here. In the end, we were unable to come to agreement on the matters I brought up to you, and your recollection of history as it pertains to these matters is quite different from my recollection or that of the Board of Directors or home-office personnel.

Nevertheless, I would like to apologize to you on one point—something I mentioned in my letter to you but would later realize was inaccurate. You briefly mentioned it in your announcement but did not elaborate. I had stated in my letter to you that your policy violations included soliciting donations from outside your area by posting a “donation tab” on your previous website. I had my “facts” wrong. It was not a donation tab (like the one on your new website); it was this:

Our address for written correspondence and donations:

Church of God Intl, Medina
PO Box 1162
Medina, Ohio 44258
Please specify on check where you would like the donation to go.
Example: Helping Hands, Tithe, Etc.

I would call the above (which was posted on the front page of your old website) a policy violation, but I was in error when I referred to it as a “donation tab.” So I apologize for that.

My initial email to you was for the purpose of getting clarity on where you stood with us and what your intentions were going forward. Follow up communications were for the same purpose and to openly and honestly set before you the issues and concerns that have contributed to the tensions between us and led us to the present situation. I initially believed the best option for you would have been the first one of the three, but because of our inability to come to terms on the issues and the history surrounding them, I have to say, sadly, that your decision to part ways was probably best for all parties concerned.

I wish you and the Medina brethren the best.

Sincerely,

Vance A. Stinson

The Conundrum of Revelation: Where Armstrongism Joins the Consensus

 

The icon of Saint John discovered in the catacombs of Saint Tecla (ca. Late 4^th Century)

(Vatican’s Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology)

 

The Conundrum of Revelation

Where Armstrongism Joins the Consensus

By Scout

“The time has come for God's servants to open up to YOU — to lay bare before your startled eyes — these tremendous prophecies of the Book of REVELATION!” – Herbert W. Armstrong, 1972

"The art of prophecy is very difficult, especially with respect to the future" – Mark Twain

I have heartburn over the Book of Revelation.  I’ll be honest about it. I find it to be a very difficult read. It is not one of those books where you just need to read it carefully with the help of a bunch of reference works to figure it out.  The more I read it, the less certain its meaning becomes.  And there are many interpretations of Revelation.  Oddly, the Armstrongist interpretation of Revelation comports well with the most popular view found in the Christian movement.  This may be the largest piece of common ground between Christianity and Armstrongism.  I can think of no other. 

The history of how Revelation entered the canon is checkered. I will not go into the detail but suffice it to say that it barely made it into the canon against a fairly healthy opposition viewpoint.  Of course, Montanus gave it some bad press. The church back then was split fifty-fifty over whether it was actually scripture. I think it should be in the canon but I also think it is the problem child in the canon family.  It is an open door to misinterpretation.  I have dealt with it by adopting a popular but minority view on Revelation called preterism.  But I sit uncomfortably in the preterist chair and I will tell you why.  

The Chronological Bracketing of Revelation

The chronological setting of Revelation is stated explicitly in its text.  Dennis Diehl has pointed this out several times.  (Atheists notice things that Bible proponents sometimes simply read over.) The text is chronologically bracketed. The opening bracket is formed by two verses in the first chapter of Revelation.

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.” (NRSV, Rev 1:1)

“Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.” (NRSV, Rev 1:7)

In verse 1, we have an explicit statement that the events of the book “must soon take place.” Verse 7 supports this chronology in verse 1.  This statement has a chronological hook.  The coming of Christ will happen at a time when “those who pierced him” are still alive. This no doubt has some reference to the Roman soldiers who were ordered to carry out the physical act of the Crucifixion but it refers principally to the Jews who rejected Christ. Scripture states that they bear the weight of responsibility for the Crucifixion (Matt 21:33-43, Luke 9:22).  Verse 7 connects the events of Revelation solidly to the First Century.  

Further, verse 7 projects an interesting imagery.  It portrays a special condition where Christ is “coming with the clouds.”  I believe this to be a departure from what we understand the Parousia to be – Christ’s literal return as a geopolitical event affecting the entirety of humankind.   This cloud imagery is found paralleled in Isaiah 19 where the prophet states: 

“See, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.” (NRSV, Isaiah 19:1)

This cloud-judgment imagery indicates that First Century life is about to be interdicted by the powerful intervention of Jesus.  Jesus told the High Priest that he would personally witness in his lifetime Jesus coming with this cloud-judgment (Matthew 26:64).  This interpretation fits with the 70 AD context much better than seeing in these words the Parousia in the Eschaton.  

The closing bracket of the chronology is the following:

“And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” (NRSV, Rev 22:10)

This bracketing ties the events described in the written “words” of the book of Revelation principally to the First Century. I believe this is a rational, exegetical approach.   But I also believe that John of Patmos digressed at some points and referred to the future.  Particularly in the last two chapters of the book where he describes the New Heavens and New Earth.  

There is a scholastic distinction between those who believe that the events of Revelation took place entirely or mostly in the First Century and those that hold other views.   That brings us to the topic of preterism.  

Full and Partial Preterism

I will wear the label of partial preterism but not without some unsettled feelings.  Preterism comes from the Latin word “praeteritus” meaning “gone by.”  The preterist view of Revelation is that the majority of the prophecies of John of Patmos took place in the First Century soon after he actually wrote the text – just as the scripture says.  The Revelation events include the Fall of Jerusalem and the Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.  Some preterists advance the idea that the events also include the Fall of Rome in the Fifth Century. 

Full preterists believe that the entirety of Revelation has happened already.  Partial preterists, like myself, believe that the bulk of Revelation is done but there are, yet, references to the future among the prophecies. For instance, I believe the last two chapters of Revelation give us a preview of the future. Full preterists would likely say that these chapters are an allegory reflecting the coming of the New Testament.  The New Testament makes the heavens and the earth new.  Yet, I do not get the feeling I am reading poetry when I read these passages.  It is logistically far too detailed.  I feel like these scenarios are relating real world events.  But feelings don’t amount to a tight exegesis. 

Another concern that operates in conjunction with preterism is whether the events of Revelation happened in the mundane realm.  Preterists believe that all or some of the events are symbolic or happen in the spiritual realm.  I fall into this category of belief.  Further, preterism asserts the idea that there is evidence that Revelation was written by John before 70 AD.  This is controversial and most theologians believe that the book was written around 95 AD.  I side with the pre-70 AD minority faction and I think it is highly probable that Revelation was either written or dictated by John the Apostle.  Only in the writings of John (The Gospel of John, 1 John and Revelation) is Christ referred to as The Word. 

The Geographical Focus of Revelation

Preterism has a specific view on where the events of Revelation happen.  The dramatic and disconcerting afflictive agenda in Revelation was about the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Christ.  Revelation 1:7 is the keynote scripture for this theme.  Revelation is not about Gentile northwest Europeans and their many national sins. Gentiles have always been lowlifes from the Judaic perspective.  No surprise there. The prophecies of Matthew 24, which were also of the apocalyptic genre, were about the Roman destruction of the Temple, the Chosen people and the Promised Land and not global geopolitics and some jigging Gentiles in Ireland. Just reflect a moment on what actually happened in history.  You can read about it.

The Greek “tes ges” in Revelation (for instance Rev 1:7) refers to the “land” rather than to the “earth.”  The cataclysms of Revelation are Israel-centric and focused on the Promised Land.  The rest of the world is mentioned but in the context of how forces in the world impinge on the Promised Land and the Chosen people.  Translators scaled up the local Noachian Flood to a global event by translating the word in Hebrew for “homeland” as the “earth.”  In a similar manner, translators have scaled up the book of Revelation to focus on the globe rather than the Promised Land by translating the Greek word for land as the “earth.”  

Further, in Revelation 1:7, the Greek term for “tribes” is “phylai”.  This word may also mean “clan.”  So, instead of the scaled-up, global “tribes of the earth” we have the local “clans of the land” which semantically comports with the Matthew 24 context of 70 AD. 

I think the preterist view of the focus of Revelation makes sense. The storyline is about the Jews and the persecution of the early Church in Western Asia.   It centers on Palestine and does not have a global agenda as its principal concern.  

Armstrongism Takes the Popular View

Preterism is a minority interpretation of the Book of Revelation in Christianity.  The most popular view is called Classical Dispensationalism.  In this view there is a key verse that organizes Revelation into three time-segments.  The verse is Revelation 1:19 and it says, “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.”  If John was the author, and I believe he was, he is instructed to write about what he has seen based on his experience as a Disciple, and about those things “which are” and this refers to the messages to the extant churches and, finally, about the things which shall be hereafter, referring to the future.  The latter is basically chapter 4 through the end of the book.  

I believe Armstrongism follows this overall structure found in Classical Dispensationalism, if not always the details.  Armstrongism may tend to bunch the events up in the Eschaton.  And Armstrongism would, of course, factor in British-Israelism.  Otherwise, Armstrongism fairly much complies with the Christian consensus. The point is, Armstrongism has no magic powers to parse out the meaning of Revelation.   Armstrongists swim in the same murky, low visibility water as everyone else. 

The Chronological Conundrum for all Viewpoints

A simple, spare but basic hermeneutic for the Book of Revelation might look like this, “Whatever Revelation means, all the events took place shortly after it was written.”  A corollary would be, “The bulk of the Book of the Revelation is not for our time. It meant something to the church about 2,000 years ago.”  At the same time, I believe Revelation reflects principles, characteristics of salvation and intents of God that are for all times.  The last two chapters are clearly about the Eschaton.  But the sequential narrative events that form the “bulk” of Revelation are past. 

The problem for non-preterist viewpoints is that they generally see the events of Revelation playing out over history with still some events left to the distant future.   Or, perhaps, all the events are to take place in one generation at the Eschaton.  These views clearly violate the chronological bracketing discussed earlier in this essay.   

Yet, there is also a chronological issue concerning preterist views.  The fall of Rome usually is identified with the fall of Babylon in the Revelation text.  But Rome did not fall until the Fifth century.  That’s not” soon”.  So, this also violates the chronological bracketing.  This makes me think that partial preterism is a good interpretation but is not the actual interpretation.  My guess is that, maybe, the fall refers to not the great collapse of Rome but to the fall of Neronian Rome (Rome under Nero).  Rome did take off in a different direction after the demise of Nero.  

Conclusion

If the Book of Revelation is meant to reveal something about the geopolitical landscape, it wasn’t meant for us.  Because it is hardly a revealing from the modern perspective. It is instead a mystery.  The tenor of the book is that “you need to know this now because it is going to happen soon.”   It is not going happen over centuries.  It was going to start and run to completion “soon” after John of Patmos wrote it all down.  Armstrongism threw its hat into the ring but it does not interpret Revelation or abide by the chronological bracketing any better than anyone else.  Revelation can only be viewed through a glass darkly.  Paul didn’t know how bad things could get. 

Reference

A good overall view of preterism can be found in “Four Views on the Book of Revelation,” Zondervan Academic, 1998.  It contains a chapter on preterism by Kenneth L. Gentry.