Gerald Flurry Faints

I just heard this from Exit and Support Network (see January 4 letter). Gerald Flurry fainted while giving a sermon at Armstrong Auditorium.

Here is the article from PCG discussing this:

At approximately 2:35 p.m. CST, Philadelphia Church of God Pastor General Gerald Flurry fainted briefly while giving a sermon to the headquarters congregation at Armstrong Auditorium. After awakening from the short fainting spell and being helped from the stage, the pastor general was anointed by his son, Evangelist Stephen Flurry. As he relaxed backstage, his color returned and he was able to catch his breath more easily. Approximately five minutes later, services were concluded with a hymn and closing prayer by Stephen Flurry.

He is 78 years old, as the article later states, so clearly he needs to take care of himself.

I hope he recovers from this.

I wished he used his time recovering to make PCG less oppressive towards its members, such as letting PCG members talk to ex-members and members of the other COGs, or encouraging people to go to the doctor, or relaxing their oppressive tithes, but I strongly doubt that will happen.

Must Read: Schism of the Hulmites (Updated)

Silenced has just released an excellent post detailing the latest developments in the ongoing schism within COG-AIC: Hulme's Group Implodes.

It contains links to many documents released by Silenced regarding this schism. Here are some selections from the documents currently being released.

Stephen Elliot's letter to David Hulme (December 28, 2013) contains this devastating indictment of Vision magazine.

In August I mentioned to you that the fruit of this organization is bad. Our membership has declined, not grown. After 15 years and an estimated expense for Vision of $3+ million dollars for salaries, advertising, publishing, design, shipping, PR, video, travel and whatever, there has been no fruit from Vision or the Vision website. The only new members, other than children of members, have come because of a personal relationship with a member—not because of Vision. (p. 2.)

One of the documents is An Explanation of the Primary Issues in the COGaic which explains some of the issues that have prompted dissenting ministers to stand up against Hulme's tyranny.

1. Governance. The issue at hand is not the proper form of government in the Church. The issue revolves around the proper way to exercise responsibility and authority within the community of the Church, to declare the truth and to prepare God's people to rule with Christ. It's about the way we work together to get the job done, and the way we care for those who are a part of that effort. ... On several occasions, Steve Andrews, Brian Orchard, Peter Nathan and Bob Rodzaj have approached Mr Hulme privately about matters of unethical conduct among the ministry. In addition, matters have been brought before the U.S. board. Finally, Steve Andrews wrote a letter appealing to Mr Hulme to consider these and other matters where members have suffered because we have not acted in accordance with the Scriptures. ... The fear is that Mr Hulme has withdrawn into an autocratic style of governance that no longer reflects a concern for the real welfare of God’s people. ...

2. Our approach to the gospel. The issue at hand here revolves around the content of the message and how it is conveyed. This has been the subject of debate for several years, and has more recently come to the fore. ... Yet as time has passed in these 15 years since we came together again, our public proclamation has not effectively conveyed the truth of God to the world in a clear and courageous way. This too has been brought to Mr Hulme's attention, but we continue to produce materials that fall short in that way.

3. The Church’s teaching on the United States and Britain in Prophecy. The issue at hand here is whether we believe what we once did regarding this pivotal, long-standing teaching of the Church. ... Mr Hulme's answer to one minister when he asked Mr Hulme whether he believed Ephraim was Britain was in essence “no.” Others have heard Mr Hulme express similar ideas regarding this. Peter Nathan and Brian Orchard have appealed to Mr Hulme to consider his approach to the scriptures in this regard. ... A pivotal doctrine like the United States and Britain in Prophecy, which is so much a part of the content of the Church's message, cannot be easily diminished.

David Hulme has peevishly disfellowshipped Steven Andrews for questioning his authority which is mentioned in his member letter of November 20, 2013.

The hope is always that there will be a change of heart on the part of those who have strayed in their actions and attitudes. But if not, in such situations the Church must act decisively to protect the members. Sometimes we must remove the source from among us ... . Accordingly, I am saddened to say that Steven Andrews had to be disfellowshiped. We should bear him no ill will.

Later David Hulme sent this letter (December 18, 2013) he which he begs for money because the crisis he started (by neglecting the needs and concerns of his followers) has reduced COG-AIC's income.

Thank you, dear brethren, for your love and support in this current trial on the Church. So many of you have written, showing that you are not confused by the events of recent days. We must pray for all affected, that they will be led to see the underlying problems, and seek God’s peace for the whole body.

It is customary that I remind US members at this time of year that any donations that you wish to be receipted as tax deductible should be dated and postmarked on or before December 31. The Church’s anticipated income has fallen in the current crisis, and any additional help you can give would be much appreciated. Remember that we are promised all the help we need in such times.

Also worth reading is this Pro-Hulme Current Crisis memo which presents even from the viewpoint of those wishing to maintain and support Hulme's tyranny.

The author uses a personal story of his to imply that the dissenters are being irrational and emotional.

Personal story
i. c 2006 I placed a Pastor’s Update on the website
ii. I got a call from someone who monitors this who was concerned with what I wrote
iii. The person thought that what I wrote meant something I clearly did not say; I could not understand how it could be misunderstood; it simply made no sense at all to me
iv. However, I took the posting down
v. This really troubled me, and I dwelled on it for a while. I talked to my wife about it, and it troubled her as well. Neither of us could understand why someone might misunderstand.
vi. Finally, though, after thinking and praying about it, I came to the understanding that it mattered very little in the scheme of things.
vii. My little article on the web was not going to profoundly change anyone for the better. While I thought it would be helpful, this article was simply not that important
viii. With time, the anger that I felt dissipated, and I was able to completely let it go, with God’s help
ix. I can honestly say, while that even greatly troubled me at the time, it doesn’t bother me one bit today. It’s gone.
x. However, if I had tucked that event away, and let it simmer in the back of my mind; my discontent would have continued to grow.
xi. I could have covered it up; none of you would have known. I could have kept it inside of me.
xii. In time other events could have been piled on until I was at a point of being ready to rebel; refuse to support those God has placed over me

Intriguingly he claims that there seemed to be no problems as of November 1.

Please consider something with me for a moment
1. At the first of November most of us (perhaps all of us?) had no clue there were any
problems
2. How is it, in the span of less than a couple months, entire congregations were very aware
and completely on board with their pastor who has such strong disagreements with Mr.
Hulme?
3. This level of dissent does not occur overnight. Let me be frank and speak plainly: most of
the Phoenix congregation – a congregation I once pastored, with people I dearly love – are
now aggressive against Mr. Hulme. How did that happen so quickly, when you didn’t even
know there was an issue? Think about that.
4. When I was the pastor, there were no indications of this kind of disagreement.

He is categorically wrong to say there was nothing wrong on November 1. Silenced reported over a year ago that trouble was brewing among the Hulmites. Even I discussed it in a previous post. Also last August Banned by HWA reported that many British Hulmites had defected to LCG. The fact that this pro-Hulme minister noticed nothing wrong by November 1, 2013 indicates that he had his head in the sand and was blind to the building frustration.

Also this is an important admission from Hulme's side that some of the dissenting ministers are greatly supported by their congregations.

There is a lot more to get through but I cannot get through it all at this moment.

Update:

Bill Hendrick's resignation letter is particularly poignant. Here Hendrick is compelled to resign after visiting an ill, old lady in order to comfort her at home.


Here Hendrick discusses his views regarding the disfellowshipping of Steven Andrews.

The announcement of the disfellowship of Steve Andrews raised a lot of questions. I couldn’t give any answers at that time since I had received no prior information. When I asked you about it you gave no answers other than to say that he was in rebellion against authority and I would not get any truthful answers from someone that had been disfellowshipped. No comment or information came from Pasadena either. In another conversation about it you said that he had tried to “take over the church”. Knowing Steve as long as I have, I could understand someone might mistake his approach to things because he can be very direct and forceful, but trying to take over the church or to be outright dishonest, no, he is not that way. ...

Hulme gradually expelled more ministers but these still did not stop people asking questions.

As the list of Pastors and Elders being disfellowshipped grew, more questions were coming to me wanting to know what was going on. Still no information or answers were given for the questions being raised. As you should be well aware, this causes concern and is disturbing to the peace of God’s people.

Hulme and his collaborators insist that he is to be followed without question for he is God's chosen.

You have expressed that Mr. Hulme was chosen by God and your view seems to be that he is to be followed without question because of his position. Mr. Orchard, if that is the case, we should all still be members of what is now called Grace Communion International!

Why is Hendricks being forced to resign? Because he tried to comfort an old woman. This is just so bizarre and weird.

Now to address my “unwise actions”, as you put it, of last Sabbath which led you to ask for my
resignation.

I know that there are members that have been watching me and reporting back to you of everything I say and do. I have not tried to hide anything. Last Sabbath I made it a point to talk to Mrs. Edison. She had been ill the Sabbath before and I had not been able to see her for two weeks. She made the statement to me that she didn’t know what she would do if (name omitted) were to be kicked out or leave the church. Then she said “I’d just die if that happened!” I told her that she didn’t need to worry about it. He wouldn’t just leave us. I then told her that “I think something will happen to clear all this up and things will turn around soon, maybe even this week”. According to you that was an “unwise” thing for me to do. Really?

Hendrick also reveals that some members are spying on him. He also gives an example of the mind control tactics Hulme's collaborators are using to keep people enslaved by Hulme when he talks of how one speaker at church inferred " that those that have been put out are divisive and God hates their actions."

When services started I joined in the song service, listened to the announcement in which Jack Campbell added a short sermonette to the end inferring that those that have been put out are divisive and God hates their actions. After the announcements they introduced the special music and just after the music started I got up from my seat at the back where I normally sit and was leaving when a member stopped me and asked if I was leaving. I told that person that I had already listened to Mr. Keefer’s sermon very closely and it didn’t address the issue at hand because it was taken out of context. This person’s reply was something to the affect of “yes, I have listened to it 4 times”. The same person that overheard my conversation with Mrs. Edison was also closely listening to this one.

This is a tragedy that Hulme is viciously impose upon his followers.

HWA Tells Us How to Have a Shower

Authoritarian totalist groups such as HWA's WCG often have a poor sense of personal boundaries. The cult leaders will often devise all sorts of rules and regulations for their followers in even the intimate and mundane aspects of their lives in order to build a sense of dependency upon the cult leaders in the minds of the followers.

This was true of HWA and his WCG. Yet another example of this may be seen in how HWA advised WCG members how to have a shower. This peculiar advise come out in a series of comments from Banned by HWA from an anonymous commenter and Dennis Diehl.

Anonymous:

truth is found when people probe, ask, question, and search for it. Not when they blindly accept what one man says as absolute, even if it's all the way down to the way he showers each morning.

Dennis C. Diehl replied:

" Not when they blindly accept what one man says as absolute, even if it's all the way down to the way he showers each morning."

You got me laughing here! You have to be an insider to know how everyonce in awhile we'd be reminded that HWA used a "brisk towel to rub himself down after a shower" lol. That was the beginning of too much information right there!

I believe RCM [Roderick C. Meredith] informed us of this fact for some reason

Anonymous replied:

... regarding the shower and rub down with a brisk towel, yes I am an insider, ... Yes, I've heard the minister clones talk about the brisk rub-down too, in fact years ago one minister boldly said in a sermon, (loudly), "Mr. Armstrong does a brisk rub down with a towel after he showers, and IF THE APOSTLE does it, DO IT!!!" If I had had the sense of humor then that I have now, I think I would have bust out laughing. Didn't have the courage to when I was younger, but I always thought it was most odd. Not even the Queen of England shares her bathing techniques with her subjects. ... 

Thinking about this sort of dysfunctional behaviour from HWA does not surprise me one little bit. It is only further proof that HWA's WCG was a cult that had a terrible destructive influence upon most of its members.

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.

Why Does a Church Leader Not Teach his own Religion?

(Please note: The link goes to an Armstrongite blog run by one James Malm.)

Another grievance Steven Andrews presented to David Hulme in his letter (which has been discussed on this blog here and here) is Hulme's tendency to not teach Armstrongism in the publications of COG-AIC, the religion it is supposed to preach. Andrews discusses this at great length.

Surely you remember Mr. Armstrong’s public repentance with respect to Human Potential and Quest?  He labeled that initiative as a misdirection and a misuse of God’s tithes because they exalted human achievement and humanist efforts.  They did nothing to advance the gospel and Mr. Armstrong ceased to publish them.  On one occasion, you told me that you had been advised to abandon “your crusade.  Is this your crusade, to recreate in some way Human Potential and Quest?  Is that why “Vision” approaches the “gospel” in the manner that it does?  If so, then appreciate that the Father will not, indeed cannot, bless our efforts if those efforts represent your initiatives. And he has not blessed those efforts.

The second question is: So what? In other words, what is its impact of the message we have been sending out?  I have spoken to you before about Isaiah 55:5-11 and Romans 9:6-7; 10:14-20; 11:1-5?  Both sections of scripture speak to the Father’s will to call people.   No one is being called.  Isaiah says that when the word of the Lord goes forth, it does not come back empty, yet Vision only comes back empty.  Paul says if we preach it they will come.  We say we are preaching it, but no one comes.  Our standard answer for this phenomenon is that the Father is not calling at this time.  Is that the case or is it the case that we have not, and are not, sending his message to the world?  This is not about numbers, it is about a message that goes out in the earth and because of its special qualities of content is, through the power of Holy Spirit, blessed by the Father so that it provides an increase in righteousness (Acts 2:47).  Why do you refuse to consider that the words that go out in Vision are more yours than the Father’s?  Is it appropriate to blame our Father in heaven when we fall short?  Another discussion that has not taken place is one concerning whether we are “seeding” the right field.  We have all heard your explanations about the gatekeeper concept – fine –but what about Matthew 13?  Do we really believe that gatekeepers – leaders in this world – are going to carry the message we have been tasked to take to the world (Acts 26 suggests the opposite).

Two examples (hundreds could be referenced) suffice to illustrate the problem:  In your article (May 2001 the Vision version not the CGN version), “The Violent Heart,” you concluded this:

How, then, do we begin to come to terms with the violence that seems so naturally a part of us? There is no question that understanding what we are up against in the spirit world is central. A strong sense of personal moral identity is also a key. Knowing who we are morally – cannot be underestimated. This speaks to the early and continuous formation of character: knowing what is right and exercising the will to do it Glover writes: “The sense of moral identity is one relevant aspect of character Those who have a strong sense of who they are and of the kind of person they want to be have an extra defence against conditioning in cruelty, obedience or ideology.”

This passage begs a number of questions:

• Why are we speaking of conditioning against violence when the good news is that our Father through his Son by the power of the Holy Spirit is going to give all mankind a new heart. (Isaiah 9; Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 20). ...

• Why isn’t Paul’s experience in Romans 7 referenced here?  Indeed, why does anyone care what Jonathan Glover thinks?  Certainly our Father does not. 

• And why are we preaching Jonathan Glover’s message instead of Jesus’ message?

• Why aren’t we talking about the role of the Holy Spirit in giving mankind the power to come to terms with his moral identity (Jeremiah 17:9)?

When one reads about people like the Pharaohs, Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Bashar al Assad the problem is not the absence of a sense of identity, who they think they are or what they want to be. All of these people have an outrageously over stimulated sense of who they are and what they want to be. Their psychopathy of narcissism is so fully developed that they became megalomaniacal and then sociopathic. Their inflated sense of self, like Satan’s, reflects an absence of a moral connection to anyone or anything but self. What do self-styled messiah’s like Glover tell us about changing these people?  Is it your belief that somehow all men and women will, of themselves, simply decide to be “moral” people? And if so, moral according to whose standard? ...

Andrews then discusses another article by Hulme in which Hulme promotes neuroplasticity as a way of improving one's mental health. It is Andrews' contention that neuroplasticity is being used to replace Armstrongism. Andrews wonders why is it that a leading COG minister is promoting neuroplasticity instead of the religion he is supposed to preach.

In your recent publication Big Questions — Straight Answers beginning on page 110 in the article entitled, “A Change of Mind,” you write this: “The role of the will in change of heart and mind is part and parcel of the conceptual framework we use to explain how our decision making is affected by our own independent thought processes.” “…We are not irreversibly programmed by our genes nor by our early environment; we can make changes in our existence by conscious, willed thought (emphasis added) leading to action.” “… In other words we can change our own patterns of thought and behavior by our self-directed will.” (Emphasis added). Neuroplasticity is the solution for certain disorders and behavioral problems and because it has benefit in certain limited situations it “goes without saying” that neuroplasticity is the answer in other “mental and behavioral impasses.” (See page 111, last paragraph, first sentence. It does not “go without saying” according to the apostle Paul).

You go on to state this: “The new findings have profound implications for improvement in the most difficult and sensitive human problems from depression to addictions of all kinds and even protracted national and international deadlocks.” You then reference a Four Steps program in which people learn to recognize what is happening inside their brains and “take appropriate self-directed or willed actions.” The apostle James (chapter 4) is under the impression that war (international deadlocks) is the result of the exercise of man’s self-will.  Who is correct in your view?  Schwartz or the apostle James?  One presumes, given the context, that the purpose of self-directed or willed action is to solve man’s thinking problem.  How does neuroplasticity compare to Jeremiah 31:33?  Is there a new moral code that is a substitute for an ancient moral code that needs to be imbedded in man’s heart (mind) for man to change?

You then reference a “spiritual” parallel. You speak of the Hebrew term “shub” and the Greek term “metanoeo.” You equate Schwartz’s four steps program with Biblical repentance and then state: “Another way of saying it is that sin can be overcome through change at the conscious level of the mind when the will is engaged (emphasis added).” This, you later describe as “the only way forward, the way to health both physically and spiritually (emphasis added).” Continuing on, you conclude that: “What we have not understood until recently is the role of the physical brain in this process. Once the will to change is engaged and specific actions are taken, new neural pathways are created and new attitudes and new behaviors result.  The more we take the new action, the more lasting the behavior becomes (emphasis added).”  “…The way out of human problems as diverse as obsessive-compulsive disorder, bad habits, racial prejudice, hate crimes, depression, brutality, and exploitation of others remains a fundamental change of mind (emphasis added).”

Again, a number of questions come to mind:

You reference sin but sin is the transgression of the Father’s law (I John 3:4).  It is also anything done that is not done from faith in the Father and the Son (Romans 14:28).  What is it that Jeffrey Schwartz can tell us or mankind in general about those things?  Aren’t we the ones who have to tell people those things?  And if we don’t, how will they know?

When you speak of lasting changes are you talking about change for as long as one lives or for all eternity. The question needs to be asked because the good news is that through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit mankind can have lasting change for all eternity.  Can Jeffrey Schwartz promise that or is that something that can come only through the name “Jesus Christ” (Acts 4:12)?  Seems like this is something we should have said in this article.

I thought the way out of human problems was Jesus Christ living his life in us (Romans 6).  The good news is that he will if we are willing.  However, can we be willing without the Holy Spirit? (Romans 8:7).  True Biblical repentance is a gift from the Father (Romans 3 and Ephesians 2).

How can what you discuss in this article be said to be the Father’s words when so many fundamental truths are omitted?

Also in this article, you reference, but do not quote the Judeo-Christian scriptures — why?  And technically, they are not the Judeo-Christian scriptures they are the words of Elohim, the Most High, YHWH, El Olam, El Shaddai – see II Timothy 3:16-17.  This kind of obfuscation cannot be pleasing to the Father.  You speak of what they say as “tradition” but they are much more than that — they are TRUTH – the words of LIFE. 

You then say as part of an ongoing, and frankly convoluted, conclusion, this: “As we have seen.” As we have seen? You referenced a Hebrew word and a Greek word and quoted absolutely no scriptures and provided no context in which those words are used to define repentance scripturally. We have seen exactly nothing of what the scriptures say. Don’t you think such a statement is deceitful and insincere and cuts against even what Jeffrey Schwarz recommends we do to practice his notion of “repentance”? (See your last paragraph and in particular the last two sentences of that paragraph on page 113).

In fact, your idea of the Biblical definition of repentance – “introspecting and changing our way of doing so that change is lasting,” while acceptable to Jeffrey Schwartz, falls far short of statements by John the Baptist, Jesus, the Apostles and in particular, II Corinthians 7.

Near the end of his letter Andrews reveals some of the tension within the COG-AIC leadership arising from Hulme's promotion of neuroplasticity.

Your [David Hulme's] attempts in two separate board meetings and in the pages of Vision, to construct from the psychology of neuroplasticity, “our new way forward,” is nothing more than a corruption of I Corinthians 2 and the gospel.  It denies the power of the Holy Spirit.  You have no cause to be angry with me for whatever it is you think I did to prevent such a perversion of the truth. So that you know, the last sermon I gave, entitled “Curing the Defect” was not per se a response to your attempt to substitute neuroplasticity for the work of the Holy Spirit, it was the same sermon I gave on Pentecost in 1999 and one you sent to be played in all churches. The purpose of the sermon was to help us all prepare for the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread. Your angry reaction and that of John Anderson, to that sermon begs the question: What happened between Pentecost of 1999 and January of 2013 to make that sermon unacceptable?

This is a very intriguing question that Andrews has put out into the open. Why will a church leader not teach the religion he is paid to promote and teach?

No wonder there seems to be so much dissatisfaction within Hulme's church at the moment.

David Hulme's Call for One Man Rule

Happy New Year everyone! I hope all readers will have a happy, exiting and prosperous new year.

Now onto business:

One of the issues that prompted Steven Andrews to write his letter to David Hulme (discussed last post) was his concerns regarding a sermon Hulme recently gave in which he asserted the right to rule alone.

(Please note: Andrews' letter is posted on an Armstrongite blog operated by one James Malm.)

Here are some excepts from Andrews' letter regarding this particular sermon:

Because of its impact on everything we do as an organization, your view of government and authority is of primary concern. In your recent sermon on government, gospel and godliness, great effort was expended in an attempt to demonstrate, using scripture and the Apostle Paul, that you are entitled to rule in what can only be called an autocratic manner. What was not in your presentation was any acknowledgement that what makes government work is godliness, beginning with faith.

Unfortunately, government, more specifically, Biblically based government, is a topic about which leaders in the church, for as long as I have been in the church (40 years), seem to know very little....

Once in power, leaders seek to protect that power. Not surprisingly, by asserting their authority, based on their position, to do so. This kind of circular reasoning has been true even of Church leaders. What makes it worse when Church leaders behave in such a manner is that they misuse scripture to justify their acquisition, possession and retention of authority. That is precisely what you did in your sermon on government, gospel and godliness.

Andrews also points out that according to the rules and regulations of California it is not possible for COG-AIC to be controlled by one man and to do so would put COG-AIC in rebellion against the law of the land, contrary to Scripture.

As I have explained to you and board, The Church of God, an International Community was created for the following purposes (Bylaws Article 3.1 emphasis added throughout):

“…the corporation shall serve as an instrument of the Church of God to publicly proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God to the world as a witness and care for those that God, the Father, shall call. The corporation shall not, except to an insubstantial degree, engage in any activities or exercise any powers that are not in furtherance of the purposes of this corporation…” 

The corporation is a California Nonprofit Religious Corporation under the California Corporations Code. California Nonprofit Corporations Code §9210(a) provides that a Nonprofit Religious Corporation is required to have a board of directors. It further provides that the activities and affairs of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the board. Subsection (b) of that same section allows the board to delegate management of the activities of the corporation to any “person or persons” “provided that the activities and affairs of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers be exercised under the ultimate direction of the board.” 

This means that under California law, the board of a Nonprofit Religious Corporation is the highest authority for the organization. No particular board member, including its Chairman enjoys sole authority and the authority of the officers of the corporation is subordinate to that of the board acting as a body. The lawful operation of the organization demands this structure and specifically eschews autocracy. Romans 13, particularly verses 1-2, require those of us in the Church to respect the laws of the land unless they contradict the laws of God (Acts 5:29).

In these scriptures, we are given clear lines of authority with respect to governing. Since there is nothing in the Nonprofit Corporations Code that contradicts the scriptures, those laws and the structure they provide need to be respected and upheld. The model of governance on which California law is based is not different in the UK, Australia, Canada or any other location in which the Church is incorporated to facilitate its work. Notwithstanding, implicit in all government and governing is authority. And while it is the California Corporations Code that defines authority within the corporate entity of the Church of God, an International Community (an instrument of the Church), the bylaws that establish operating authority for the organization have been subordinated to scripture. I did that intentionally.

So whether we are speaking of the Church of God, or the corporation established as an instrument to facilitate the work of the Church, neither primary, nor ultimate authority rests with you, any other individual or any group of individuals. Authority rests with Christ and based on his Father’s instruction, he demands mutual submission, not autocratic rule. Primary and ultimate authority rests with the Father. Your sermon on Government, Gospel and Godliness referenced none of this. Rather, it painted a threatening picture of your autocracy within the household of the Father. Not a few people felt threatened. Was it your intent to threaten the beloved children of the Father?

So we see that David Hulme's attempt to reimpose his absolute authority within COG-AIC has been exposed.

Grievances Against David Hulme

There appears to be mass dissension building up within the Hulmite church. Apostle Malm has posted a letter by Steven D. Andrews, a COG-AIC minister, addressed to Hulme, detailing certain problems he wished to help solve with him.

Among the grievances cited include one minister refusing to bless a child who wished to be blessed by him.

Two years ago, Jerry DeGier angrily misused his Pastoral authority and refused to ask the Father’s blessing on a little baby.  For the only time in my forty years in the church, a pastor did not reference the scriptures related to the blessing of the little children prior to asking the blessing.  For the only time in forty years a child, presumably present because the family was drawn by the Father to seek his blessing, was turned away.  You defended and supported Jerry in this.  Did Jerry, based on scripture have the authority to do what he did?  Did you?  Reflect on the fact that Jesus corrected his future Apostles for their efforts to limit access to the Father through him. He corrected them for attempting to do what Jerry, and later you, ultimately did. Even Jesus did not seek to restrict those drawn by the Father from coming to him (Mark 10).  The matter speaks for itself.  If the Father had not drawn them, how would they have thought to come to him?  What is most significant here is that Jesus knew that he had no authority to turn them away. So, if even Jesus knew the limits of his own authority, why is that you and Jerry DeGier felt comfortable doing something Jesus did not and would not do? 

 He also cites how Hulme gave advice that prompted three generations of one family to defect.

But the greatest wrong was yet to be inflicted, by you, on an already embarrassed and hurt family. You would to try to convince Mr. Mendez that Jesus’ example in Mark 10 was not what it appeared to be and his words in that same chapter did not say what they clearly said – that is what drove him and his family (three generations) away. Why is it ever right in our Father’s eyes for his called out ones to be driven away (John 6:37, see the NIV)?  In what way can it be said that your actions and the exercise of your authority is in submission to the will of the Father when it exceeds what Jesus, the living Christ would allow for himself?

Andrews also critiques at length an article by Hulme in which he promotes neuroplasticity as a way to improve oneself without getting into details about getting right with God and becoming an (Armstrongite Hulmite) Christian. He wonders why is it that a church is not openly preaching its understanding of Christianity in its magazine, Vision.

Your attempts in two separate board meetings and in the pages of Vision, to construct from the psychology of neuroplasticity, “our new way forward,” is nothing more than a corruption of I Corinthians 2 and the gospel.  It denies the power of the Holy Spirit.  You have no cause to be angry with me for whatever it is you think I did to prevent such a perversion of the truth. So that you know, the last sermon I gave, entitled “Curing the Defect” was not per se a response to your attempt to substitute neuroplasticity for the work of the Holy Spirit, it was the same sermon I gave on Pentecost in 1999 and one you sent to be played in all churches. The purpose of the sermon was to help us all prepare for the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread. Your angry reaction and that of John Anderson, to that sermon begs the question: What happened between Pentecost of 1999 and January of 2013 to make that sermon unacceptable?

He also criticizes Hulme's apparent attempt to renounce British Israelism.

I was uninvited to the Ministerial Conference this year.  I am told that there was an effort on your part to assault the scriptural truth related to Israel. [British Israelism.]  Please don’t do that.  Because, if the sun came up this morning and if it set in the evening, if the moon and stars are still in the sky, then all of the Father’s promises relating to Israel stand — and will for eternity ... If Israel’s experience can be dismissed, i.e., not even the law of God, the covenant and the Sabbaths can reform man, then maybe there still is another way for man to find to his own recovery – something like neuroplasticity?  But if the truth of Israel stands for all eternity, and it does and that is great news, then the only way forward for mankind is the power of the Holy Spirit

(It must be stated here that British Israelism is not true. It is well known that there is no evidence to support the idea that Europeans are genetically related to Jews in the way British Israelism incorrectly assumes. Also HWA plagiarized British Israelism from writers such as J. H. Allen.)

Andrews also questions how COG-AIC uses its members' tithes. He appears to feel that it should be used more for preaching then Hulme currently does. 

Of course, doctrinal corruption is a big problem.  But, as I told Joseph Tkach, it is accompanied by perhaps a bigger problem – misuse of the Holy Tithe.  I know you did not ask, but great care needs to be taken here.  It appears that the Holy Tithe is not being used for its intended purpose.  If something that belongs to our Father is indeed misappropriated because it is used to prosecute one’s personal initiative and not preach our Father’s gospel then that will surely invite our Father’s judgment.  It occurs to me that if a man can end up in the lake of fire for stealing what belongs to another man (say his wages, James 5:4), what can happen to that man if he takes something Holy to the Most High and uses it for his own purposes?  Is this not also in fact a misuse of the Father’s elect?  Is it possible that it is these matters, and not the Father’s reluctance to call, that is the source of the problem?

It seems painfully obvious that Hulme is embarrassed by the religion but he choose to opportunistically continue to preach Armstrongism simply to live off of the tithes of his followers.

Many of the discontented members appear to be thinking of defecting to LCG according to Apostle Malm's post. I must state here that Meredith has proven himself to fall far short of any godly standard of leadership and I fear for anyone (from COG-AIC or anywhere else) who chose to submit themselves to his authoritarian rule. 

HWA Disfellowshipping Garner Ted Armstrong

Here is HWA's announcement of his disfellowshipping of Garner Ted Armstrong on June 28, 1978.

Contrary to what HWA portrayed in this letter it appears that HWA removed Garner Ted Armstrong was that he decided to side with Stanley Rader during a vicious power struggle for control of WCG. Essentially HWA had decided to removed his own son in favor of Stanley Rader in order to eventually make him the number two man in WCG. There is suspicion that Rader had damaging information on HWA and was able to blackmail him. Even though Rader later fell out of favor HWA continued to shun his own son and miserably failed to mend relations with him or his followers till the day he died.

All this and more are discussed in posts I made discussing The Truth Shall Make You Free by John Tuit (1981).

Please note, this article of HWA's disfellowshipping of Gerner Ted Armstrong is placed in a COG splinter group whose leader, M. John Allen, has now rejected much of what HWA taught and has embraced all sorts of heretical nonsense HWA never taught, as may be seen in a previous post:

Apparently M. John Allen now believes God is the Universe, and that Yahweh is not God but a leader of a bunch of space aliens who live on a planet called Nabiru. ...


I know I am wasting my sympathies but I feel sorry that he has fell into such craven nonsense. It is terrible that he is tries to lure people into believing these absurd and ridiculous ideas.

Christmas is "a Christian-Created Holiday" (Silenced)

HWA and his imitators teach that Christmas is an adaptation of pagan festivals and are therefore forbidden by God. But, as Silenced has recently mentioned, often what really happened was far more complicated then HWA made it out to be.

Christmas, Halloween, St. Patrick’s Day, Easter, Valentine’s Day and even birthdays have been banned within the COG for their connections to similar-ish pagan holidays long ago. Silly books like Alexander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons” have lined COG bookshelves for decades and many, many booklets have been published where Armstrongite authors stomp their feet that mainstream Christians and the rest of “the world” are in Satan’s thrall for trick-or-treating, hanging tinsel or drawing heart shapes.

Unfortunately for the COG, pagan connections to modern holidays often aren’t as strong as Armstrongites claim them to be and vastly more complex. Taking Easter for example, rather than being a direct descendant of Babylonian celebrations of the goddess Ishtar, it instead didn’t arise until the late 2nd Century CE and its etymology is in dispute, even while clearly-pagan symbolism gradually climbed its way onboard from the wellspring of traditional folklore among peasants (as opposed to church mandates).

When it comes to Christmas, the COG and other fundamentalists like to say it’s nothing more than a repackaged version of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (the birthday of the unconquered sun), a supposedly-Roman solstice holiday that took place on December 25. The problem is, there’s no definitive proof that this celebration actually ever existed. Solstice celebrations were common during the era, but this isn’t likely to have been one of them.  Some paganism associated with Christmas can indeed be found in the Bible where it discusses fastening ornate trees as something heathens do. And it’s obvious when the Catholic Church instituted Christmas, they allowed people to craft a large amalgamation of traditional pagan solstice rites into their celebrations of Christ’s birthday, in the name of converting the unwashed masses to the new religion. However, rather than Christmas being a continuation of a specific pagan celebration — the holiday didn’t arise and spread until the 4th century CE — it’s a Christian-created holiday. In fact, before Christmas was established as the “official” birthday celebration for Jesus Christ, many Christians celebrated Epiphany on January 6 in its place, after the Winter Solstice and its pagan connotations would have already passed for the year. So basically, there’s no consistent continuation of December 25 celebrations between pagan tradition and early Christianity, and any pagan elements were added gradually over time.

As is so often the case it is once again shown that HWA was profoundly ignorant about what he preached about so confidently.

Deborah Armstrong Interview

Troy Fitzgerald, former WCG member who renounced religion and is now a Secular Humanist, and author of Cults and Closets: Coming Out of Chaos, has posted an interview with Deborah Armstrong, HWA's niece, at his website, Secular Safe House.

This sounds most fascinating.

All About Armstrongism has this to say about the interview:

Probably, In my view, One of the most significant interviews to be conducted about Armstrongism in decades – from the perspective of an Armstrong Family Member, Herbert Armstrong’s Niece. You MUST listen to this, in it’s entirety.

The interview is over an hour long.

You can listen to the interview here.

Hat tip: Silenced.