Will UCG Have The Courage To Remove Kubik From Office This Spring?

UCG has the chance this spring to change the face of its organization with new blood and new ideas.  The past several years have been a complete disaster under Vic Kubik's reign.  From the COGWA defections with 1/2 of the ministers and over half of their members, epic media failures from hiding their beliefs on their web site to the recent personal campaigns that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and garnered one new church attendee, UCG's relevance has been shattered.

UCG has been operated by the same men who ran WCG before they conspired while on WCG payroll to form a new splinter group.  They carried the same old business model of the WCG over to their new incarnation where the corruption continues.  Its ht same old men doing the same abusive things they did while still in WCG.

Its 2016 in the 21st century.  New ideas, new methods of advertising, and new ways of communication are changing the world we live in daily.  UCG still seems to be in the 1986 mode that died with Herbert Armstrong.  Will UCG finally pay attention to the younger men in the ranks?  They have dumped millions of dollars into training these men and can't find much use for them so far.

With declining income and membership someone had better wake up to the sinking ship they are in right now.

UCG has kept it low profile, but remember that Victor Kubik’s 3-year term expires this spring. The COE should soon be voting to reelect him to an additional 3-year term (or to a shorter term); or begin a search for a new President.  

It appears Victor Kubik feels confident enough that he will be reelected that he is already scheduling himself to give the national feast sermon as President this fall.

UCG members are getting tired of Kubik's "holier than thou" attitude that the UCG cannot operate without him in control.  The problem is that with the defection of COGWA ministers his opposition has basically been eliminated.  Its the good old boys who could care less what the membership thinks.

Personally, I hadn’t forgotten that his 3-year term expires this spring, and like you, I figured that it meant very little – both based on the things he’s been saying that indicate that he sees himself as a fixture, as well as the fact that their jettison of the COGWAN ministry 5 years ago makes it very unlikely that this bunch will be voted from power anytime soon – because they eliminated most political opposition and most of the ministers they’ve installed are obligated to them. 

Ian Boyne Responds and Apologizes

Below is a letter I received from Ian Boyne that he asked to be published here.  I also told him I look forward to hearing about his interpretation of Reformed Armstrongism and why it still maintains meaning for him today.

I apologize unreservedly if any offense was taken to my  comments made in the Journal. None was  ever meant. I specifically said  SOME of those who  posted  on this blog can be crude, callous and cryptic—NOT all. (Had to use my Armstrongite trademark of the caps!) I said that  because  I have read  highly insensitive, distasteful  and, indeed, crude and callous comments made about  people  who had just  died , with family and friends still in grief. My comments  concerning the reaction to Ron Dart  were  to stress that his life was so impactful and impressive, especially in an environment and context where decency, compassion and respectfulness were in very short supply, that even an anti-Church of God blog like this spared him the vitriol. I never meant to convey that all who participate  on this blog make crude and callous comments. That would be a total misrepresentation on  my part.   

My reference to “scruples” related to those who were prone to make crude statements, not to everyone here. My  overarching  point was that the respect and honor shown to Dart in his death was not due to any  tradition of not speaking evil of the dead, for I have seen that violated here, but due to genuine high regard for Dart and his non-authoritarian, non-cultic behavior and ministry.  I  check  this blog literally every day and  find many of  your comments useful and poignant. l  have written in the Journal, for example,  about my respect for Byker Bob’s insightfulness and incisiveness. I always look forward  to his contributions. He has a fine, sharp mind, with formidable analytical skills.  

You, too, Gary, are obviously a  very reflective and thoughtful person, whose stand against abuse, authoritarianism and autocracy must be commended.  As a minister in the Armstrong movement  I, naturally, disagree with  much  of what is said here, but  I do  log on every day  to see what you guys are saying and what the crazies in the movement are up to.  I am sorry that because of my busy professional and pastoral life (and heavy reading schedule—which I guess is a shock. LOL), I don’t have much time to engage.  

But I confess to being  tempted to write a piece showing why a cerebral person like me still finds some value in what I call  Reformed Armstrongism.  Perhaps  one day soon  I  might yield. In the meantime I stay tuned to your site. Thanks for  giving  me a voice and again  no offense meant.  

Ian Boyne