A Brief Look at Source Criticism and the Pentateuch: With a Review of the Armstrongist Counterpoint

 

“Ezra Reads the Law” 

from the Third Century Dura-Europos synagogue (Fair Use)

A Brief Look at Source Criticism and the Pentateuch

With a Review of the Armstrongist Counterpoint

By Scout

“This book is not merely written for children. Adults by multiple thousands followed the installments avidly when they first appeared in "The Plain Truth". Adults will gain an understanding of the WHOLE BIBLE — of its continuous story thread — from this book.” – Herbert W. Armstrong, Introduction to Volume 1 of The Bible Story

When I was in college, one of the guys in the dorm got an anonymous poison pen letter from his hometown. There was no signature but he deduced who had sent it.  It was an old girlfriend with whom he had had a falling out.  The content could have come from a number of people but the language usage was a giveaway.  The letter contained locutions that only his old girlfriend was known to use.  And the current circumstance of their relationship made the letter a fit.  So, she had in effect signed the letter but didn’t know it. 

Analyzing ancient documents resembles the process my dorm buddy went through.  The Torah, for instance, is full of clues that can be mined for a fuller picture of its history.  Source Criticism capitalizes on this and unpacks the Torah in a disciplined way.  Everyone who reads the Bible seriously should know something about Source Criticism and its findings. 

Source Criticism in a Nutshell

Source criticism is an analytical methodology that advances the idea that the Hebrew scriptures are a discernable composite of texts from several different sources. The texts were under the curation of several different groups but in later history were edited to form the canon of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible).  It is thought by some that the editor was Ezra assisted by his scribes. This multi-source idea was made popular by a German Biblical scholar named Julius Wellhausen near the end of the Nineteenth Century.  It now exists in several updated versions.  I will refer here to the version developed by Jewish theologian Richard E. Friedman.

Friedman’s sources include the Yahwists (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P) and Deuteronomist (D).  He also identifies contributions to the composite scriptures by the Redactor (R).  It is important to recognize that Source Criticism is not the simplistic idea that different terms for God are used to hypothesize different contributors of texts to the scriptures.  It is far more complicated than that and is supported in a number of different ways, internal and external to the Tanakh, that verify each other.  I will not try to replicate the numerous arguments that support the methodology.  These are well documented and accessible.  I have included some works by Friedman in the References below.  And I assure you that Source Criticism is something you cannot easily dismiss.

As an example of why these sources are each cohesive, I will give a short profile of the Yahwist source. The Yahwist text in the Tanakh is the earliest prose writing (poetic writing has a longer history) made by mankind.  God is referred to as Yahweh.  The Yahwist writing dates to 950 BCE and is associated with the Davidic and Solomonic Monarchies. The Hebrew language used in the Yahwist passages pre-dates the language of the other sources. Yahwists bring certain accounts to the Bible that the other sources do not.  On the other hand, the Yahwist texts recount many events which will seem like redundancy to the reader because they are repeated by the later Elohist texts.  These repetitions are called “doublets.” Only the Yahwists use Yahweh in these doublets to refer to God rather than the Elohim of the Elohists.  Yawhists seem pre-occupied with dramatic story-telling, portraying God as anthropomorphic, dialogs between men and God, and the history and status of the Tribe of Judah. And further, there are other well-documented attributes of Yahwist writing that I will not attempt to characterize here. 

I am not asserting that Source Criticism perfectly explains everything we see in the Torah.  You can find passages that seem to defy classification.  Sometimes the term “Yahweh Elohim” is used.  These infrequent one-offs do not overturn the broad premise.  I do believe Source Criticism presents us with an accumulation of credible evidence that is persuasive. 

The Armstrongist View on the Authorship of the Torah

The Armstrongist view is that the five books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses.  This is a traditional view, also widely held among evangelicals.  Ronald L. Dart wrote an article, published by the Worldwide Church of God, titled “Who Wrote the Law?” that asserts that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.  The article was written in 1971 and is somewhat dated. It does not engage, for instance, the findings of Richard E. Friedman that support multiple sources.

Dart instead argues against conclusions on this topic drawn by scholars back in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.  Dart is concerned with countering the idea that the Torah was an evolutionary development and also pointing out that some scholars have incorrectly concluded that the Torah dates from the reign of Josiah simply because a copy of the Torah was discovered then.  Otherwise, Dart seems to argue plausibility.  Moses was literate and educated.  Why would we assume he could not write the Torah?   Finally, Dart states, “And so in conclusion, everything in the Pentateuch is as it should be for Moses to be the author.”  In fact, the arguments of Source Criticism show that everything is not as it should be for Moses to be the single author.  

Jesus as the Ultimate Source

If the Torah is a composite of texts from different sources, each with a separate curational history, how can it be trusted to be accurate?  The cleanest model, for those who idealize inerrancy, is Moses, acting as merely a bio-mechanical hand, writing the whole Torah at the inspiration of God. This is the best route to certainty (as opposed to faith).  

Dart writes, “Once we admit the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, it becomes impossible to deny the divine origin of the Law.”  Dart does not explain why single authorship is more likely to be inspired than multiple authorship.   A plausible observation is that single authorship would be appealing to those who support a hierarchical, autocratic form of church governance.  Single authorship beats the drum for the idea that God would always work through one chosen man who is the anointed leader.  A collegial approach would then be precluded. This political view overlooks the fact that the Tanakh as a whole is the collegial product of different authors in different time periods.

For most Christians, the need to have an unassailable version of the Torah is a non-issue because of Jesus.  When Jesus came to us, he did not start a project of purging the composite and humanly curated Tanakh.  He did not concern himself with who really killed Goliath or why light appeared before there were any celestial bodies.  As Miller Jones stated, “Christ did not dispute the understanding of the religious leaders of his day that Moses had authored the Torah, and that its terms were binding on humanity.” I don’t think Jesus gave the Torah a waiver because he believed it to be perfect.  Read Jeremiah 8:8 in some other translation besides the KJV. The KJV fumbles it. 

Jesus did observe the behavioral standards of the Torah perfectly. And he knew what constituted perfect law keeping because he inspired Version 1.0 of the Law and there was also an extant Temple in Jerusalem.   Jesus also noted that, “The Law and the Prophets were until John came”.  Thereafter, the era of the Gospel began.  And in this era, Jesus revealed himself as the Word of God.  His living example became our new behavioral standard.  Hence, the Old Testament, encrusted with human fingerprints, remained a valuable document.  But it had only a subordinate and contributory status when compared to the example of Christ.  So, in a sense, Jesus did rectify and purge the Torah.  But it was not a writing project with droves of scribes.  Jesus did it by the testimony of his personal spiritual walk under the New Covenant. 

Armstrongism and the Pitfall of a Non-wholistic View of Scripture

If you are not a cherry-picker of scriptures, the composite nature of the Old Testament will turn you into one if you are not careful.  Because the Torah is a compilation of texts from different sources, this pitfall for interpretation is present.  If one cites a passage that came, for instance from the Yahwists, that passage is going to reflect naturally the single view point associated with the Yahwists and not scripture as a whole necessarily. Even though the passage may be legitimate scripture, it may need to be tempered by other scriptures from other sources.  A case study of this problem is found in Basil Wolverton’s “The Bible Story.”

While I found Wolverton’s writing to be absorbing years ago, it was heavily skewed in the direction of what theologians call Deuteronomist History.  The Deuteronomists are only one of the sources for the Torah. I have listed below the content of Wolverton’s volumes and beneath that the books of the Deuteronomist History.  The correspondence is clear. 

 

Wolverton’s Bible Story:

 

Volume 1:  Genesis, Concerning Moses

Volume 2:  Concerning Moses

Volume 3:  Judges, Joshua

Volume 4:  Samuel

Volume 5:  Samuel, Kings, Chronicles

Volume 6:  Kings, Chronicles

 

Deuteronomist History:

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Samuel

Kings

 

Why does this make a difference? First, this is not a contrived collection of books from the Hebrew scriptures.  It follows the natural chronological order of Biblical events.  But it nevertheless represents the viewpoint of a single source.  The Deuteronomist History portrays God in a certain way. It supports transactional relationships, law and hierarchy. In particular, the Christian doctrine of grace has no place in this model (John 1:17, “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”).  To the point, the Deuteronomist History portrays a transactional God.  The transactional model follows the logic of “If X, then Y.”  The two principal transactions are: “If you obey the law, then you will be blessed” and “If you disobey the law, then you will be punished.” The Bible Story prominently portrayed this narrow theological view with its absence of grace. I doubt that the portrayal was calculated but was rather done with good intentions. The good intentions were just overtaken by the multi-source nature of the scripture. But Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) seemed to draft off of the Deuteronomist viewpoint, in my opinion as a former WCG lay-member, in his leadership style and in the formation of the denominational governance within the WCG.  

 

Friedman and other scholars believe that the Deuteronomists were Levites.  The Deuteronomist History seems to represent the interests of the Levitical Priesthood. Moses entrusted the book that he wrote to the Levites and told them to keep it with the Ark.  It is my personal belief that the book that Moses wrote was merged into the Pentateuch along with other source material by Jewish editors.  Moses’ book is embedded in the Pentateuch but does not constitute the whole of the five books.  This view accommodates the verifiable presence of discrete sources in the Pentateuch and also the “book” mentioned in Deuteronomy 31:24-26.

 

The problem is that the Deuteronomist History gives an incomplete picture of God and his relationships with people.  It must be completed and tempered by other books of the Tanakh and the New Testament. For instance, in the Book of Job you will find a contention over whether or not God is merely transactional.  Job’s “friends” expressed the Deuteronomist viewpoint.  Their repeated and lengthy assertion was that Job must be suffering because he had been disobedient.  This view is purely Deuteronomist. Job’s persistent counterpoint was that he had not been disobedient.  In the end, God said of Job’s Deuteronomist friends, “After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: ‘My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.’”  At this point, the Deuteronomist view as the sole model of God collapses.  

 

The publication by the WCG of Wolverton’s Bible Story was much more than a retelling of some events from the Bible as juvenile literature in service to church families.  It resulted in the implantation in the minds of readers of a particular viewpoint that also formed a leitmotif in Armstrongism.  Whether planned or unintentional, it came about from basing a view of God on passages that came from a single ancient source.  It is like the lesson of the blind men who feel different parts of the elephant and come away with widely varying descriptions.  The Bible must be considered as a whole with the Gospel at the center.  This is the over-arching hermeneutic. In the book “Four Views of Hell”, Robin Parry stated, “Is there a guide to help us interpret in theologically sensitive ways?  Yes.  The church has always recognized that the gospel narrative of the triune God manifest in Christ’s incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and return must be at the core of the interpretation of scripture.”

 

HWA was always an advocate of collecting all the scriptures together on a given topic in order to understand the topic.  It is ironic that the WCG fell victim to the pitfall of being non-wholistic through focusing on texts from a single underlying source in The Bible Story.

 

Summary Argument

 

Source Criticism leads to the understanding that the Pentateuch is a composite of texts from many different ancient sources.  Jewish scribes redacted these sources to form the canonical books.  For those who believe for some reason that single authorship equates to inspiration, this collegial approach is an issue. It was not an issue for Jesus.  Jesus did not launch a literary revision of the Tanakh to remove its unevenness during his earthly ministry.  Instead, he cured the problem in that he himself was the Word of God among us in living action (Hebrews 1:1-2). He did not edit; he exemplified in both word and deed.  And what he exemplified was what Paul called the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). The Law of Christ stands on the shoulders of the Torah but is a new rendition – with a better covenant and better promises (Hebrews 8:6).

 

References

If you resonate with this topic, a good place to get a better introduction is to listen to the Peter Enns interview with Richard E. Friedman cited below.  For a useful overview, Wikipedia contains a number of articles related to Source Criticism that I have not cited here.

Dart, Ronald L.  “Who Wrote the Law?” in Tomorrow’s World magazine, January, 1971.

Friedman, Richard E.  “The Bible with Sources Revealed,” HarperOne, 2005. 

Friedman, Richard E.  “Who Wrote the Bible,” Simon and Schuster, 2019.

Friedman, Richard E. “Who Wrote the Pentateuch?” an interview on The Bible for Normal People podcast, Peter Enns Interviewer.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQpJI1gr3ww

Jones, Miller.  “The Authorship of the Torah and Its Implications for the Work of Jesus Christ,” from the “God Cannot be Contained!” website. 

 

Dave Pack and Restored Church of God: Nothing but financial, mental and emotional vampires that suck the life out of people

 

It is fascinating watching the complete meltdown of one of the more aberrant splinter cults of Armstrongism.

Life So Much Better After Leaving Restored Church of God:
July 20, 2025
I left the doomsday cult RCG over 4 years ago. My life is so much better than it ever was in that poisonous organization. Same as an article in your website, nothing was “FREE.” I figured after about 10 years of tithing (nowhere in NT church doctrine) and offerings, the “FREE” cost me also about $60,000. The ministers had the worst attitudes, not all, but enough of them. Such “lords of the Gentiles.” The selfish Christianity the cults practice is repulsive. No help to the people outside of their cult, some individuals do as I was aware of, but collectively, no. And they think they will rule the world? Tremendous arrogance! Nothing but financial, mental and emotional vampires that suck the life out of people to become a drone and a clone of the cult to continue its toxic existence. I am free and independent and life is incomparably better now! –Former RCG member

From Exit and Support Network  

Crackpot Prophet Does Not Like The Fact That "Christians-so-called" Mention Jesus In Their Hymns

 

In COGland, there's a stark contrast in how often Satan and Jesus are mentioned. Satan is portrayed as the all-powerful deity of the church, constantly referenced, while Jesus is rarely mentioned, typically only as "Jesus Christ." Using just "Jesus" is deemed too "Protestant" for these self-proclaimed true Christians. Moreover, Jesus is depicted as perpetually angry, eager to return and annihilate two-thirds of humanity. However, his return is continually postponed by speculative leaders who keep messing up the date, like Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland, Bob Thiel, and Alton Billingsley. I can see why he is getting angry!

Jesus also frustrates Armstrongite legalists, who demand strict law-keeping and crave punishment for transgressors. These individuals, believing they perfectly uphold the law, aspire to become mini-gods to mete out divine justice. The graceful Jesus, who offers justification and sanctification, undermines their legalism, which they despise.

Even more offensive to these so-called Christians is singing about Jesus in hymns. Not the modern "Jesus is my boyfriend" worship songs, but classic 17th- and 18th-century hymns that convey the gospel message more effectively in a few verses than all COG leaders have since Armstrongism emerged in the 1930s.

No COG leader is more affronted by these hymns than the self-proclaimed Great Bwana Bob Mzungu Thiel. He insists the only acceptable hymns are Dwight Armstrong’s metrical psalters, adaptations of Psalms often found in 17th- and 18th-century Bibles. Apparently, true Christians only sing these, finding lyrics about smashing heads or crushing enemies more fitting than a wretch overwhelmed by being saved by grace.

In the COG, it seems like a lot of people look at Dwight Armstrong's hymns as sacred, sitting on the shelf right next to the Bible,  Mystery of the Ages, and the Missing Dimension in Sex.

This has led out Great Bwana to lash out again about hymns and boasting about his church’s perfection in singing Dwight Armstrong’s compositions or Psalm-based metrical psalters. He’s still riled up over an article in The Journal: News of the Churches of God that criticized the church for not having hymns focused upon Jesus Christ and what he accomplished:

Bwana Bob writes:

While Roman Catholics and Protestants tended to sing songs that had religious messages, the old Worldwide Church of God (WCG) mainly sung hymns which were extracted from the Psalms in the Bible. Most of those of us in groups with ties to the old WCG still do. 

 

And we even have been criticized for that by who who used to sing them. The January 31, 2003, issue of old The Journal: News of the Churches of God, on page 22, contained a paid advertisement titled What Can We Learn From a Church Group’s Selection of Hymns? The ad glosses over certain key points that I would like to address.

After being critical of the Church of God practice to attempt to distance itself from the Protestant practice of having a significant portion of songs addressed to Jesus, the ad states:
 

Of the 114 special songs by Dwight Armstrong appearing in the 1974 Hymnal, how many do you think contain the name Christ or Jesus? Do you think most of them, say, about 100? Surely at least half, say 57? Would you be surprised to learn that of all 114 songs, not one contains the name of our Savior. 

 

There are two points glossed over here. The first is that in the entire Bible there are no songs/hymns/psalms that mention the name Jesus–thus I wonder if this ad intended that as a criticism of the Bible (it is clearly intended as a criticism of the Church of God practice of singing Bible-based songs). The second is that three of the songs Dwight Armstrong wrote, that are in the 1974 edition of The Bible Hymnal (otherwise referred to as the hymnal), do contain the term ‘Christ’ (see page numbers 54,120,121). Furthermore, terms such as “Lord” and specific teachings of Christ are included in many of the hymns. Additionally, the hymnal contained songs written by others that do mention the name Jesus. 

 

The ad asks:

How can a church be doing the work of God (according to John 6:29) if its very own 114 specially written hymns, hymns which are supposedly ‘more scriptural’ than the ones used by others, do not even contain the name Jesus Christ? 

He then writes this: pay particular attention to the first sentence:  

The author may wish to ask God why none of the psalmists, who wrote 150 psalms, were inspired to use the term ‘Jesus Christ’. Until that happens, I would suggest that the fact that ‘Jesus Christ’ is from Greek and the psalms were written in Hebrew would be one factor. Another fact is that the songs in the old WCG hymnal (which we in the Continuing Church of God sang from each week until getting a slightly updated/expanded replacement in late 2013) are more directly biblical than any hymnal from any non-Church of God group that I have ever seen. 

 

As usual, no one—absolutely NO ONE—on Earth is as perfect as the improperly named "Continuing" Church of God and its highly favored leader. There's not enough nonsense on the planet to match that level of absurdity he wrote above.

The Psalms were written over approximately 1,000 years, with the earliest possibly penned by Moses around 1400 BC and the latest composed after the Babylonian exile, around 450 BC. This period far predates Christ’s time. Jesus isn’t mentioned because He wasn’t on earth then. Apparently, Bwana Bob’s supposed education at Fuller and a diploma from a Trinitarian diploma mill in India failed to clarify this.

Here is more of his criticism of the article:

The ad asks the question:

What should be the focus and center of a Bible-led, Christian church?

The obvious answer is that the Bible, the word of God, should. So, let’s look at all the scriptures in the New Testament (NKJ) that use the term ‘sing’:

“And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy, as it is written: For this reason I will confess to You among the Gentiles, And sing to Your name’ ” (Romans 15:9).

This is a quote from Paul based on II Samuel 22:50; note that Paul is stating that Gentiles are to sing to God–Jesus’ name is not mentioned.

“What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding” (I Corinthians 14:15).

Again no mention of Jesus. The latter half of this scripture is a quote from Psalm 47:7.

“Saying: ‘I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You’ ” (Hebrews 2:12).

This is a quote from Paul of Psalm 22:22; it also does not mention Jesus’ name.

“Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms” (James 5:13).

Psalms are what approximately 90% of the songs the 1974 WWCG hymnal are based on.

“They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: ‘Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints! Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested’ ” (Revelation 15:3-4).

Note that the term ‘Jesus Christ’ is not mentioned in this particular song and the ‘song of Moses’ is believed to be from Exodus 15. Also, note that one song from D. Armstrong (on page 116 in the 1974 hymnal) is based on Exodus 15.

The Apostle Paul noted:

Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm (1 Corinthians 14:26).

Now who did Paul and Silas sing to? Acts 16:25 states,

  

“Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God.”

Colossians 3:16 does mention the term ‘Christ’ and singing in the same verse (and is the only place in the Bible where that occurs) as it states,

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

Note that this verse does not indicate that it is necessary to sing the term ‘Christ’.

Acts 13:33 is the only verse in the Bible that mentions the term ‘Jesus’ and ‘Psalm’–but they are two separate statements, neither of which suggest using the term ‘Jesus’ in any psalm.

There are also several other New Testament scriptures that mention songs, psalms, and/or hymns (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26; Luke 20:42;24:44; Acts 13:35; Ephesians 5:19; Revelation 5:9;14:3;15:3), but none of them mention the term ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ in any of them.

After complaining that none of the hymns in the 1974 edition contain the term ‘Jesus Christ’, the ad speculates:

Do we dare speculate? Could Herbert Armstrong’s WWCG have been doomed from the beginning?

The ad implies WWCG was doomed from the beginning because of its hymnal not using the term ‘Jesus Christ’ in any of the songs. The answer to that speculation is, no this did not doom WWCG. For if that speculation were true, then the Bible would also have been doomed from the beginning since it does not use the term ‘Jesus Christ’ in any song.

The ad concludes with:

Give the only name under heaven whereby we must be saved more focus in worship services by singing most, not necessarily all, of the hymns about our Rock and Savior, Jesus the Christ.

Then, in his typical sanctimonious self-serving glory, the Great Bwana writes:

The unnamed author of this ad is entitled to an opinion. But it is an opinion, and not a particularly biblically defensible one (perhaps it should be added that the term ‘Rock’ is applied to God or the Lord in the hymnal on pages 24,49,50,53,72,&117; and that “Lord” or “God” is used in almost every song). 

 

Everything Bwana Bob writes and preaches is merely opinion, and not particularly defensible ones. His so-called biblical education is grounded in Armstrongism, which doesn't make him an authority on anything biblical. 

Bwana Bob would do well to listen to some great church hymns; he would learn a lit that he never heard in Armstrongism or in his Indian diploma mill.

New Video: Early Cult Literature - Timeless Propaganda by Herbert W. Armstrong

 

Want to decode cult propaganda in real time? We’re cracking open Herbert W. Armstrong’s very first Plain Truth magazine (Feb 1934) to show how the founder of the Worldwide Church of God weaponized fear, racism, and end-times hype to build a religious empire. What you’ll learn in this episode: • Why the headline “Is a WORLD DICTATOR About to Appear?” primed readers for panic • How Armstrong named Stalin, Mussolini, and Roosevelt—yet omitted Hitler—to control the narrative • The bogus Tanaka Memorial and early anti-Japanese xenophobia • Proven cult tactics: isolation, apocalyptic urgency, selective scripture, and “secret knowledge” Whether you’re researching high-control groups, leaving the WCG/COG community, or just fascinated by 1930s propaganda, this deep-dive exposes the timeless playbook still used by modern fear-based movements. Our 6-part series on the life and times of our cult leader:    • Herbert W. Armstrong Timeline Series   👍 Like, Subscribe, & Hit the Bell to support our work! Join this channel to get access to perks like Behind-the-Scenes footage and :    / @apostatesisters   Support the Sisters’ work on Patreon: patreon.com/ApostateSisters 📢 Follow Us on Social Media: Instagram:   / apostatesisters   Tiktok:   / apostatesisters   Facebook:   / apostatesisters   BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/apostatesist...

UCG and Summer Camp Jesus

 

Sent by a reader here:

UCG posted this about their recent summer camp. Notice anything missing in what they taught their kids about Jesus?

One of our camp goals was to enrich the children’s lives by giving them opportunities to build relationships with other children who share common beliefs, deepen their relationship with God as well as experience a variety of challenging activities. Each morning the entire camp was in Christian living and music classes or adult staff Bible study. Classes emphasized our camp theme “Building Your Foundation of Jesus.” Campers learned about Jesus Christ being the “Word” (John 1:1) who was in the Beginning, was with God, and created all things (Genesis 1:1). 

 

The goal of our staff was to teach the children who Jesus Christ was—that He was the voice from the burning bush, and that He led the children through the Red Sea and wilderness for 40 years. He was there in the beginning—and then came, lived a perfect life, set us an example of how to live, and died for our sins. He will return and His Kingdom will come. He is the one they are to build their life on—the one who God the Father appointed to build His Church—and His love for them is everlasting.

Happy Birthday HWA!!!!

 

It's a day late and a dollar short, but yesterday, July 31, 2025, marked what would have been Herbert W. Armstrong's 133rd birthday. Little did he know the chaos that would follow, as unscrupulous individuals tried to imitate him, leading to the formation of numerous splinter groups. No one could have foreseen the rise of such incredible buffoons and great liars as we see today in figures like Gerald Flurry, Dave Pack, Bob Thiel, Alton Billingsley, and Ron Weinland.

UCG: Unaccountable Stewardship — The Structural Problems of Perpetual Operations Managers in the UCG

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, faced turmoil due to doctrinal shifts toward mainstream Christianity, coupled with accusations of hypocrisy and deception from its leadership. Disillusioned by these changes, a group of WCG ministers and elders, many of whom were department heads deeply embedded in the church’s operations, began meeting regularly at the SOG Apartments to plan a new organization. These men, having benefited from decades within the WCG’s hierarchical structure, were accustomed to its sometimes questionable stewardship practices.

In spring 1995, these dissenting ministers and members convened in Indianapolis, Indiana, to establish the United Church of God (UCG). Their goal was to create a church that preserved Armstrong’s teachings, including Sabbath-keeping, biblical holy days, and a non-Trinitarian theology, rooted in what they imagined were the practices of Jesus Christ and the first-century apostles. They formed a 12-person Council of Elders, elected by a General Conference of Elders (ordained ministers), to oversee budgets, strategic planning, and doctrine, with annual meetings held each May. David Hulme was chosen as the first president but was ousted in 1998 over disputes, including his refusal to move the church’s headquarters to Ohio. He was succeeded by Les McCullough (1998), Roy Holladay (2002), Clyde Kilough (2005), Dennis Luker (2010), Victor Kubik (2013), and Rick Shabi (2022)—all men deeply rooted in the WCG’s inner workings.

Despite the opportunity to reform, the UCG’s leadership carried over the WCG’s entrenched, sometimes unethical control tactics. As the UCG faced internal strife, splintered, and reemerged as a smaller entity, it had multiple chances to redefine itself. However, critics argue that the persistent influence of a “good old boys club” from the WCG’s Pasadena era stifled meaningful change. Nathan Albright, a UCG member and occasional critic, has written about the church’s structural issues, pointing to the repetitive appointment of the same leaders. Though titles may shift, the faces remain largely unchanged, perpetuating a cycle of stagnant leadership.

Albright writes:

This paper examines a governance weakness within the United Church of God (UCG): the absence of term limits or genuine accountability for Operations Managers, particularly those overseeing Ministerial and Member Services and Media and Communications Services. While the UCG was formed in response to prior authoritarian abuses within the Worldwide Church of God, its own governing structure has permitted long-term consolidation of administrative power. This paper demonstrates how this concentration of power in non-rotating managerial positions undermines transparency, spiritual health, and biblical principles of servant leadership, and it proposes structural reforms to restore accountability and prevent the calcification of authority.

This paragraph alone is a bold statement of the current unhealthy governance that undermines healthy leadership and meaningful change within the United Church of God.

Albright goes on to talk about how certain department heads seem immune to "broad accountability".

The United Church of God, established in 1995 as a biblically grounded, collegial alternative to hierarchically governed churches, sought to preserve doctrinal continuity while avoiding the centralization of power that had marked its predecessor. However, over time, the Church’s structure has allowed certain roles—especially Operations Managers over key departments like Ministerial and Member Services (MMS) and Media—to become semi-permanent and virtually immune to broad accountability. This paper explores the consequences of that entrenchment, critiques the constitutional and procedural design that permits it, and proposes reforms in alignment with biblical and organizational best practices.

He continues:

The UCG was formed following the doctrinal upheavals in the Worldwide Church of God. In an effort to prevent unchecked top-down authority, UCG established a Council of Elders elected by a General Conference of Elders (GCE), with a President appointed by the Council. However, the daily administration of the Church—particularly its ministry and public communications—is managed by Operations Managers. These men are appointed and reappointed internally, often from within a small leadership circle. Although their roles are administrative, they exercise disproportionate influence on the Church’s public image, ministerial culture, and internal communications. 

 

Over the past two decades, these managerial positions have become de facto long-term offices, resistant to scrutiny and insulated from meaningful challenge. This development threatens to replicate the very kind of power centralization UCG was created to prevent.

Resistance to scrutiny is a deeply rooted trait of Armstrongism. Ministers, believing they were divinely set apart, often viewed themselves as above questioning by members or outsiders. Those who dared challenge this authority were quickly labeled as rebels or dissidents and cast out from the congregation. Such accusations were easily wielded against members living in constant fear of losing their salvation.

The ministry's control held firm until the internet age disrupted their authority. Public questioning and criticism now spread rapidly online. While the United Church of God still expels dissenters, the damage is done—reasons for their removal circulate globally within hours, undermining the leadership’s ability to suppress scrutiny. 

Albright then goes on to describe the operations mangers' positions and the power they weld:

The Operations Manager for Ministerial and Member Services holds extraordinary sway over the spiritual climate of the Church. He supervises ministerial assignments, disciplinary procedures, credentialing, and field minister communication. This authority allows him to shape the doctrinal emphasis of the ministry and gatekeep the internal culture of the pastoral corps.

The Media and Communications Manager similarly holds the reins over UCG’s public image—producing Beyond Today, managing the Church’s digital and print presence, and directing responses to doctrinal controversies. This role, too, functions largely without structural oversight. The individual in this position can determine what the Church says, how it says it, and who gets to say it, all without input from the general membership or an independent editorial board.

Though these roles are administrative in theory, their impact is profoundly spiritual. They determine who is heard, who is promoted, and who is silenced.

V. Structural Weaknesses and Consequences

The consequences of having perpetual managers in such key positions are both organizational and spiritual:

No Term Limits: Without institutional rotation, Operations Managers can remain in place indefinitely. This fosters dependency, stifles innovation, and discourages emerging leaders from contributing new perspectives. Limited Accountability: There are no regular evaluations by the GCE. Council oversight is hampered by personal loyalties, lack of transparency, and reluctance to provoke internal conflict. Lack of Transparency: Operations Managers do not publicly report to the membership in a meaningful way. Their decisions are largely shielded from scrutiny unless a crisis prompts investigation. Conflict of Interest: Because many appointees come from within the same ministerial networks, a culture of mutual deference can prevent corrective action even when performance or decisions warrant review. Concentration of Influence: Media control means narrative control. Ministerial oversight means the shaping of theology and discipline. When combined in a handful of unchanging individuals, these powers make the church vulnerable to stagnation and groupthink. 

 

The Worldwide Church of God and its splinter groups, including the United Church of God, bear no resemblance to the first-century church’s operations. Their claims of promoting “proper church government” are a facade, used to subjugate and intimidate members rather than uphold doctrinal purity, revealing a structure rooted in control rather than authentic biblical practice.

So what happens if there is an ethical minister who speaks up? It is the same as when they were all in WCG.

Ministers who express dissenting views often find themselves reassigned, isolated, or quietly retired, even when they enjoy widespread respect. The Media Department has periodically downplayed theological issues or silenced voices that do not conform to the managerial narrative. Certain doctrinal initiatives, once launched by Operations Managers, have remained in place despite objections, indicating a top-down imposition inconsistent with the Church’s conciliar ideals. 

 

These patterns suggest not merely individual failings but a systemic flaw in governance design.

How many ministers do you remember from WCG days who were suddenly transferred, isolated or forced out when they decided to make a stand? I am not talking about the abusive men like David C Pack or Gerald Flurry, but regular ministers and elders.

What are some of the suggestions Albright recommends?

Other churches and nonprofits implement practices that balance stability with accountability: 

 

Rotational Leadership: Term limits ensure that no one holds too much long-term sway. 

 

Independent Oversight Committees: Reviews conducted by members outside the immediate administrative circle. 

 

Member Engagement: Allowing congregants to give formal input on leadership performance. 

 

Transparent Succession Planning: Open processes for identifying and training new leaders.

These practices—rotational leadership, independent oversight, and transparent succession—work well for many churches and organizations, fostering accountability and stability. However, “member engagement” is a non-starter for the United Church of God. Allowing members to have a voice in church operations or governance is treated as near-blasphemous, bordering upon committing the unpardonable sin, with the leadership viewing such input from “lowly” members as an affront to their authority.

Albright continues with more recommendations:

Amend the Bylaws to Impose Term Limits: Five-year renewable terms, with a mandatory sabbatical after ten years, would prevent undue entrenchment.

Establish Transparent Review Mechanisms: Annual reviews by the Council, informed by anonymous surveys of field ministers and relevant staff, should be codified.

Separate Spiritual and Administrative Oversight: The Council should more clearly distinguish between the strategic guidance of the Church and the day-to-day discretion of managers, reducing blurred lines of unchecked influence.

Foster a Culture of Servant Leadership: Leadership training should include explicit instruction on avoiding institutional idolatry and promoting transparency.

Introduce Broader Involvement in Appointment Processes: Involving more than the Council and President in appointments—such as advisory panels or confirmations from the GCE—would reduce the perception of backroom control.

Albright ends with this lofty goal, which sadly we will never see instituted in the UCG or any other Church of God, for that matter:

The United Church of God has noble origins in resisting ecclesiastical overreach. Yet without meaningful reform, it risks reproducing the very patterns it once rejected. Operations Managers must not become unaccountable power centers. Instead, the Church must reaffirm its commitment to transparency, biblical leadership, and shared responsibility—lest spiritual stewardship be replaced by bureaucratic permanence. 

 

The Church of God, across its various affiliations, has consistently been dominated by a small group of men. This top-heavy bureaucracy has fueled the decline of these churches. Even newer splinter groups led by figures like Bob Thiel, COGWA, and Sheldon Monson cling to this model, where power flows from the top down. Members endure this control until the church implodes or they reach their breaking point and leave.

You can read the complete article here: White Paper: Unaccountable Stewardship — The Structural Problems of Perpetual Operations Managers in the United Church of God