Thoughts on David Hulme

Normally those of us who had renounced Armstrongism do not tend to talk about David Hulme's church. However recently word has leaked out that there seems to be severe dissension within Hulme's church. This has prompted much discussion of Hulme's church which normally succeeded in not getting noticed. (I have no doubt in my mind that Hulme liked his church not being noticed.)

Hulme's church has a reputation of being particularly secretive about itself. Hardly anyone talked about. I read that PCG and COG-AIC were the most secretive and reclusive of the major COGs.

David Hulme was an Evangelist in WCG, he was one of three presenters chosen to replace HWA after his death in 1986, and he was elected the first president of UCG after its split in 1995. But after a power struggle in 1998 he left and started his own church and promptly disappeared into obscurity.

Over the years since then he has tried to portray himself as some sort of expert on the Middle East and he has been very reluctant to talk about his church.

His recent promotion of neuroplasticity has prompted some observers to wonder if he no longer believes Armstrongism and is simply pretending to believe it in order to get his followers tithes and use this income to present himself as a respectable scholar.

Looking at how Hulme and his church conducted themselves since 1998 I am persuaded that Hulme no longer believes in Armstrongism (or is at least very lukewarm about it) and is simply living off of the sacrifices of his followers. 

I find it disgusting that he chose to opportunistically exploit his followers and then decided to be ashamed of them and hide them. He is not proud of being the leader of COG-AIC, he seems to only see it as a job to get income from them.

Personally I think persuading a large number of people to trust you enough to follow your church instead of UCG to be quite an achievement. It baffles me that he seems to have no gratitude to them and simply tries to hide them.

It is my understanding that Hulme claimed he would preach Armstrongism better then the leaders of UCG and this was one reason he was able to persuade thousands of UCG members to leave for him. However in the fourteen years since his group has been very inactive in spreading Armstrongism. Hardly anyone within the COGs pay any attention to his splinter group.

Unlike UCG's leaders, COGWA's leaders, Meredith, Flurry and Pack, Hulme appears to be totally ashamed of his religion and is simply milking his followers to gain income and provide financial resources for various projects to make him appear to be a respectable scholar. From what I have seen of his conduct since 1998 I can come to no other conclusion. He seems to think being the leader of a church is disreputable and he is ashamed. As hopelessly ineffective as the other prominent COGs are in gaining new converts at least they are trying. Hulme has just quietly placed his followers away from peoples' attention and hoped no one noticed it.

Well, after fourteen years, it seems a lot of people within COG-AIC are starting to realize that Hulme has given them a bad deal and want something better. After fourteen years of having Hulme tell them they are God's elect they are wondering why they are simply hidden away, as though they are something shameful.

They wonder why it is that their leaders in WCG, UCG and COG-AIC have told them they are to send a warning message to the world and yet Hulme only publishes a magazine that hardly ever discusses the religion that unites the members of COG-AIC together. Why is their religion hidden in the church's own magazine?

They are wondering why they have to pay tithes to one who seems to succeed only in not doing anything noteworthy and hiding his church from the spotlight.

(However it seems Hulme has succeeded in persuading his followers that UCG is evil and must not be joined. He seems to have exploited the ill feelings caused by the 1998 schism to alienate his followers from UCG. He has succeeded so well that his dissenting followers seem to contemplate moving to Meredith's LCG. I say again that I fear for anyone who falls under the grip of that authoritarian group. As a former follower of LCG I think joining Meredith's group is a very bad idea.)

They are wondering why Hulme seems to want to renounce British Israelism contrary to all they have been taught? If Hulme could be wrong on such an issue could he be wrong about other things? 

They are wondering why they are expected to endure ministerial abuses and rebukes for no good reason, such as Jerry DeGrier's angry refusal to bless a child, an act endorsed by David Hulme.

They have seen the courageous mass defection in Britain away from COG-AIC and are wondering if this is an act worth following.

I admire and cannot help but sympathize with those resisting Hulme's authoritarian rule and are striving to create something better. They have long lived under Hulme's influence. Now the members are starting to think for themselves.