Talk:United Church of God

POV Issues October 2011
There have been some major POV edits to this page over the last year. Some major damage to the integrity of the page overall. I am putting up for consideration that we go back to older more stable and less POV'd versions. Waitingwatch (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC) This current (and much older) version represents a narrow and highly inaccurate POV of the United Church of God that reflects subjective quasi-evangelical POVs that are not so much related to fact as they are to an attempt to unfairly (and wrongly) discredit the UCG through fallacies of logic and omission of key historical/theological data. This current version does not match Wikipedia standards for accuracy, collaboration and fair representation. The prior recently edited version (which has been unfairly deleted and reverted to an older, highly subjective version) provided a much more balanced view of the UCG within the Sabbatarian/Church of God movement, which is accurate. It should be noted that if one wishes to use potentially defamatory and inaccurate words like "offshoot," then it can safely be stated that this same standard should be applied to Wikipedia entries regarding the Lutherans and other European-based religions that were clearly historical "offshoots" of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, many of the subjective comments made regarding the origins of the UCG could be equally applied to the major Protestant religions with regard to their theological roots in Roman Catholism. As it now stands, this page possesses little integrity with the reversion to an older, and inaccurate, version. Mktchamp (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC) You clearly like to misrepresent and hide your history as a church. How come you are so ashamed of your past association to Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God if this is where all of your teachings directly come from? It is clearly deceiving to omit such important information providing a background to your past. Waitingwatch (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

deutschmaus' edits Feb 27 2011
Respectfully, I have a much better idea - why don't you all go to www.ucg.org and read their Statement of Beliefs or send away for their booklet entitled "This is The United Church of God". You can even download any and all of their articles from their website. That will clear up all the confusion about going to heaven and to whom UCG's beliefs should be attributed. Deutschmaus (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

18th Feb - OkayThere - new deletions / edits
I removed a section of text that stated that the beliefs of United Church of God are based on the beliefs on Herbert Armstrong. The members of United Church of God hold the position that the beliefs are first and foremost biblical beliefs and are in fact the beliefs of the first Christians. Whether or not Herbert Armstrong believed them is irrelevant. In addition Herbert Armstrong had many "beliefs" that are NOT part of church doctrine. Making a blanket statement that these beliefs are Herbert Armstrong's beliefs is tantamount to saying that believers follow a man and not God. This is very far from the truth of United.

I also removed this section:

"UCG's prolific use of new media is based on an approach used by Herbert W. Armstrong, who was known as an early pioneer in radio and television evangelism."

The article talked about internet technologies such as twitter and facebook and then claims that this approach is modeled after Herbert Armstrong's approach. This is kind of ridiculous since Armstrong died in 1986 long before there was a public internet.

In addition the use of television and radio is and was hardly unique to Herbert Armstrong and the United Church of God. There are thousands of church organizations that have used different types of mass media to get their message out. This looks like an attempt to tie United Church of God as closely as possible to Herbert Armstrong despite the fact that he died a decade before the founding of this church.

I also removed some slightly inaccurate "history" from the article opening paragraph. Since there is a history section in the article itself it was redundant.

And finally I removed a section concerning ABC ", and is modeled on the now defunct Ambassador College." The two schools are completely different in both course content, structure, physical location, etc. etc. ABC was no more "modeled" after Ambassador College than it was modeled after any other institution of higher or specialized learning. Again this seems like more of an attempt by an author to link United with Herbert Armstrong and/or the "old" Worldwide Church of God.

I don't think anyone is going to deny that Herbert Armstrong had a strong influence on many people that are now in United. But that's much different than the organizational focus and mission which is NOT on Herbert Armstrong. Other Church of God organizations such as Philadelphia Church of God and The Restored Church of God routinely denounce United for NOT adhering to the teachings of Herbert Armstrong. Many of United's members, such as myself, have had no affiliation with the old Worldwide Church of God or Herbert Armstrong and choose to attend United precisely because they do not overstate or venerate Herbert Armstrong. So to imply or infer that United Church of God overemphasizes Herbert Armstrong is simply wrong.

Thanks!

Okaythere (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

19th Feb - OkayThere - additional deletions / edits
Okay I had previously made some changes to the doctrinal statements that I felt better reflected the actual doctrine taught by United. But somebody changed them.

For example this is in error: * Belief that Old Covenant laws (excluding ancient civil laws and temple laws) are applicable to Christians today.

It gives the impression that United believes that we bound by the old covenant. Untrue. God does have laws that don't change and thus carry over from the old covenant to the new covenant. The sabbath law is the best example. Now certainly there IS debate about what laws DO carry over from the old covenant to the new covenant but the author is advocating his/her point of view by labeling all of these as "old covenant" laws.

I changed it back to: "Belief that a number of the laws and feasts of the Lord as enumerated in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament are still applicable to Christians today.

Also I removed the statement "will not go to heaven" from : Belief that the core of Jesus Christ's message was the coming of a literal earthly Kingdom [6][7] and that people who are saved will not go to heaven but will live and rule eternally with Jesus Christ after his second coming."

The phrase "will not go to heaven" is misleading and incomplete. The "kingdom of heaven" is another term for the "kingdom of God" and certainly the saved will be in the kingdom of heaven. We disagree about what "heaven" is, not about where Christians will go.

Wow...I didn't even know where to start with this:

"* Belief that mainstream Christianity is corrupted and surreptitiously teaches various pagan teachings under the guise of Christianity. Members consequently believe that the 'Church of God' is the only 'true church', and that only people who believe and practice 'Church of God' doctrines and were baptized according to the practice of the church, may receive the Holy Spirit and be eligible for eternal salvation."

For starters "mainstream Christianity" is hardly a specific term. Catholics would consider themselves "mainstream" and they literally teach that all protestants are in grave error. Catholics believe they are the one, true, church. United Church of God does NOT think it is the one, true Church. Rather a generic "church of God", God's church, is the true church with no respect to denomination. And speaking of corruption I think that you'll find members from most major denominations that would claim that mainstream Christianity is no doubt corrupt. This isn't a different or unique view of United.

It's easiest just to leave it out rather than to try and make it pov neutral.

Okaythere (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

19th Feb - WaitingWatch revert & response

 * OkayThere: I respectfully disagree with your recent edits. The reality is that UCG is an offshoot of WCG and formed because UCG members wanted to remain faithful to Armstrong's teachings. Even if UCG is a more moderate offshoot, and even though they have abandoned some of Armstrong's more extreme teachings, the reality remains that UCG teaches all of the central tenets of Armstrong's theology.


 * Please consider that this page has to be written from a point of view that will be understood by non-UCG members. In this light:


 * 1) Not prominently mentioning UCG's origins in WCG and the centrality of Armstrong to UCG's teachings is misleading. Even though Armstrong has been dead almost 25 years, there is no mistaking where UCG teachings originated.


 * 2) Armstrong was a pioneer of using new media to spread his message. During his days this meant radio and TV evangelism. To UCG it means aggressive use of emerging forms of Internet communication. Armstrong's successful use of media to spread his message is a source of inspiration to UCG. http://www.ucg.org/un/un0307/


 * 3) I would agree that in terms of general structure and scale, ABC is not similar to Ambassador College, however, in terms of spiritual intent and course content there are obvious parallels. As per the reference: It seems God inspired an educational program as early as the times of Elijah and Elisha (2 Kings 2:15; 4:38). In this end-time, Elijah-type work (Malachi 4:5), God used Herbert W. Armstrong to institute Ambassador College, after which ABC is modeled today.http://www.ucg.org/un/un0509/


 * 4) It is no secret that 'churches of god' believe and teach that non-church of god churches are daughters of the great harlot - i.e. the catholic church and its offshoots - and that these are a satanic counterfeit christianity designed to deceive humanity and pervert christianity by redressing paganism. This was one of Armstrong's central teachings - and it still exists in UCG's teachings, albeit in a more subtle version. i.e. Christmas, Easter, Sunday are Pagan, etc. While you may disagree with the nuances or the specifics of the above, the basic reality remains. 'Mainstream' christianity, however we define it, typically doesn't present such a view.


 * 5) On not going to heaven - remember that this page predominantly addresses the non-church of god reader. Most of these readers believe, rightly or wrongly, that christians go to heaven at death. It is an important distinction that churches of god (including UCG) teach a literal earthly kingdom vs. 'going to heaven.


 * 6) Again, from the point of view of a non-church of god reader, laws such as sabbath keeping, holy day keeping, clean and unclean meats, etc. are old-covenant laws, even though UCG may believe that these laws are not strictly old-covenant.


 * UCG seems to be treading a line between newer / younger UCG members that downplay the link to Armstrong vs. the older members that are intimately familiar with the old WCG and Armstrong's teachings / writings.


 * Waitingwatch (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

19th Feb - OkayThere response & re-deletions
''Your bias is that you keep characterizing this as "Armstrongs Theology" which implies that this theology didn't exist prior to Armstrong and that it's somehow less valid. You're using it a pejorative. It's like editing a Catholic article and labeling the doctrine as "The pope's theology". Our beliefs are first and foremost based on scripture."

''Understood by non-UCG members without trying to BIAS them. Here's where I believe your coming from. You disagree with all or part of the theology of United. You perceive that Worldwide was a flawed organization. You don't want people to have a positive reaction to United. So you attempt to link two completely different organizations into one. It's like judging Protestant denominations on the practices and founders of the Catholic church. At some point there is a recognition that the two organizations are different. Just because SOME people used to belong to both organizations and because they share SOME common theology isn't a good enough reason to attempt to link them as strongly as you wish to. It's NOT reality anywhere but in your bias."

1-''This is simply a biased opinion. These teachings originate first and foremost from the bible and from the practices of the first church. Armstrong merely publicized them. He didn't create any new beliefs. He was famous for saying "don't believe me, believe your bible." I think your bias is to want to link United to Worldwide and to make that link as strong as possible. Members of United don't sit around and thank Herbert Armstrong. We sit around and thank the Lord Jesus Christ for giving us holy scripture."

2-''Well again I'm going to have to disagree that Armstrong brought anything unique to this. If you're going to link Armstrong to United based on broadcasting then you might as well link United to Bishop Sheen and the Catholic church. Sheen and the Catholic church has a much more extensive television and radio network and were very "new media" savvy. Again I perceive that you merely wish to link Armstrong to UCG any way you can."

3-''More of the same."

4-''Your opinion isn't evidence. Does United teach this? Can you show me where they teach this? There's actually quite a variety of OPINION on this within United. It's NOT settled. There are some who believe that this end time beast is Islam. Or a church that does not yet exist.''

5- ''Even here you're misrepresenting. There is a literal earthly kingdom but only for a thousand years. Then there's a kingdom of heaven, a spiritual realm, that is for eternity. You're attempting to define "heaven" based on your belief and then setting up United as being different from your belief. Define "heaven" for me and then we can discuss this further.''

6- ''FROM your point of view. Most non-churched don't know the difference between United Church of God and the Catholic church. You have a belief and are attempting to define United based on your beliefs."

Okaythere (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)'

20th Feb - OkayThere - response & re-deletions
I'm not sure if I'm getting this across to you but I'll try again. This statement is inaccurate and incomplete:

Belief that Old Covenant laws (excluding ancient civil laws and temple laws) are applicable to Christians today.

It gives the casual reader the impression that United Church of God BELIEVES that Christians are under the Old Covenent. This is not correct and it not an accurate representation of belief.

The sabbath law is part of the old covenant AND part of the new covenant. But the sabbath law exists OUTSIDE and INDEPENDENT of these covenants.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Note that the sabbath exists long before Israel was created. In addition:

Exo 16:28 And the LORD said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? Exo 16:29  See! For the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day."

These events occur BEFORE the old covenant was instituted. This means that the sabbath law existed OUTSIDE of the old covenant.

Thus to categorize these as "old covenant" laws is inaccurate, misleading, and confusing.

Please understand that Wikipedia is first and foremost about accuracy. a non-member of United trying to characterize and summarize United doctrine is not going to accurately reflect that doctrine.

I changed it back to: "Belief that a number of the laws and feasts of the Lord as enumerated in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament are still applicable to Christians today.

This statement avoids having to explain covenants and more accurately depicts what the doctrine of United truly is.

Okaythere (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you said this again:

"* Belief that mainstream Christianity is corrupted and surreptitiously teaches various pagan teachings under the guise of Christianity. Members consequently believe that the 'Church of God' is the only 'true church', and that only people who believe and practice 'Church of God' doctrines and were baptized according to the practice of the church, may receive the Holy Spirit and be eligible for eternal salvation."

This is NOT official doctrine of the United Church of God. If some members HAVE this opinion it is their opinion or speculation. This MAY have been the opinion of most or all people in Worldwide, but that does NOT make it United doctrine.

As mentioned earlier some believe the end time apostate religion will be Islam. Or it will be a church that hasn't taken form yet. Either way it's completely inaccurate and unsubstantiated to list this as an official doctrine of United Church of God so I'm deleting it...again.

Thanks.

Okaythere (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here we go again:

You said:

"These beliefs are based on the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong[13] and are known by non-adherents as 'Armstrongism'."

These beliefs are NOT based on the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong. As much as you may disagree they are based on the teaching of God, Jesus Christ, the apostles and scripture. Herbert Armstrong did publicize them. But he pointed people toward the source, scripture, even in his lifetime.

Therefore the inclusion of this line is inaccurate and misleading. I deleted it. Again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okaythere (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okaythere (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You said:

"UCG's prolific use of new media is based on an approach used by Herbert W. Armstrong, who was known as an early pioneer in radio and television evangelism. "

Yet the link provided points to a document outlining United's goals for 2003. In addition the article specifically says that the media approach must be different than Herbert Armstrongs because media has been fractured into smaller segments.

The article says:

''We all realize in the early days Mr. [Herbert] Armstrong was a pioneer in radio and television. In fact, he was such a pioneer that the World Tomorrow program had a major impact in this country. What’s happened since then is that media has become fractured. When the World Tomorrow program was first broadcast, there were few radio stations, and at night, most of the clutter was cleared from the air because they had clear-channel stations that stayed on, so it didn’t matter where you went, you could always hear the program.''

''But that’s changed dramatically in our age, because in our time every major city has sometimes dozens of radio stations and they all have different formats. Some are news, some are music, some are talk, and some are easy listening, some are rock. Classical, jazz, whatever. And so, therefore, the audience has been fractured. And most of them stay on until late. And so being on radio today doesn’t carry as much clout as it used to.''

''The same thing was true of television. When we first started on television, there were only three major channels, so if you were on one of them, you could pretty well guess that you had quite a large audience. But today, with cable systems and satellite television, you can have hundreds of television stations and every type of topic you can think of.''  So today, as a result of that, we feel that we need to use a multifaceted approach in media.

So to say that United's approach to media is based on Herbert Armstrongs is completely untrue and the linked document proves it.

I removed it. Again.

Okaythere (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This appeared in the article heading:

"UCG is an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, which was originally incorporated in the 1940's as the Radio Church of God by its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. After Armstrong's death, the subsequent WCG leadership introduced a series of major doctrinal changes which substantially altered the fundamental beliefs and goals of the original Worldwide Church of God.[5] A segment of the membership wished to retain Herbert Armstrong's theology and teachings (which is known by non-adherents as "Armstrongism") and left WCG to start their own organizations.[6] The United Church of God was established in May of 1995 and is the largest of these offshoot organizations.[7][8]"

There is already a History Section explaining the history of United. Notwithstanding that this is also inaccurate. Those who wished to retain Herbert Armstrong's theology and teaching's joined Philadelphia Church of God or Restored Church of God. The term "offshoot" also denotes a living branch off the same tree. Worldwide Church of God and United Church of God would more accurately be called a "split" and not an offshoot. They are completely different legal and corporate identities with completely different corporate and legal structures.

I removed it...again.

Okaythere (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

20th Feb - JeffBillman revert & response

 * Okaythere, see those numbers? Those were footnotes, pointing to sources which substantiate every claim you unilaterally and flippantly dismiss as "inaccurate".  I will restore them now.  Please do not remove them again without seeking consensus here on this talk page.  Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

21st Feb - Okaythere response & re-deletions

 * I did see those numbers. And I see that the much of the time they don't say what the comments imply they say. Here is a great example. In the "extra history" section I keep deleting the author says this:


 * A segment of the membership wished to retain Herbert Armstrong's theology and teachings (which is known by non-adherents as "Armstrongism") and left WCG to start their own organizations.[6]


 * The number 6 references this link, http://www.ucg.org/about/history.htm, which is a brief history of United Church of God. Within the REFERENCED article is this:


 * Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.


 * So the AUTHOR of the article completely misrepresented what was actually said. The REFERENCED article says that members and ministers left because of NON-BIBLICAL practices and beliefs.  It does NOT say that members left because they "wished to retain Herbert Armstrong's theology and teachings".


 * In other words, if that's not clear, the author fabricated an reason and referenced a source that disagrees with the fabrication.


 * These are the reasons I'm deleting this stuff. Not because of some random impulse. Understand?


 * Okaythere (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

21st Feb - WaitingWatch revert & response

 * OkayThere - as per JeffBillman - please talk these things through on the Talk page and reach consensus before you make major and controversial edits. Constructive edits are possible, but when they involve contentious issues then they should be talked through and agreed upon before proceeding.


 * Specifically dealing with the issue of UCG's history - here is what the current references state:


 * From the United Church of God's webpage about it's history: Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.


 * From the United Church of God's publication - the United News: Most of our ministers and members were formerly with the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), when it was under the leadership of the late Herbert W. Armstrong. In the early 1990s, the WCG leadership began to openly depart from many of the church’s beliefs and practices, which model those of the early New Testament Church of God. By late 1994, WCG leaders actively began to impose their change of belief upon the entire church. Unable to dissuade them from this course, hundreds of elders and thousands of members left or were disfellowshipped by WCG ministers....Our objectives include a commitment to observe the seventh-day Sabbath and God’s Holy Days, and preaching Jesus Christ’s gospel of the Kingdom of God to the entire world—the same objectives held by the WCG when Mr. Armstrong was its leading minister.


 * From Grace Communion's website (formerly Worldwide Church of God): In the early 1930s, Herbert Armstrong began a ministry that eventually became the Worldwide Church of God. He had many unusual doctrines. These he taught so enthusiastically that eventually more than 100,000 people attended weekly services. After he died in 1986, church leaders began to realize that many of his doctrines were not biblical. These doctrines were rejected, and the church is now in full agreement with the statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals...Many members did not accept these changes...In 1995, hundreds of ministers and 12,000 members left to form a different denomination. (The denomination being alluded to is the United Church of God, which had its founding Indianapolis conference in 1995.)


 * From Christianity Today: Referring to the Worldwide Church of God - By January of 1995, there was a clear consensus at the top--and among many pastors and laypeople as well--that there was no turning back. It was then that Tkach, Sr., issued a document on the "new covenant" that would enunciate for any still in doubt that the church had departed from Armstrong's teachings...1995 became the tumultuous year. The "new covenant" proclamation unleashed pent-up emotions that had been, in some cases, simmering for years. The Pasadena headquarters was suddenly inundated with protests and resignations...The trickle out of the church seemed to turn into a flood in 1995. At a conference in Indianapolis in early May, the United Church of God (UCG) was formed...


 * From the above quotes a number of things are clear:


 * 1) Herbert Armstrong founded the Worldwide Church of God.


 * 2) After Herbert Armstrong died, the Worldwide Church of God rejected his teachings.


 * 3) This upset thousands of members that still believed what they were taught by Herbert Armstrong.


 * 4) These members departed WCG to form their own churches, of which UCG is the most significant.


 * 5) UCG teaches the same core teachings that were taught under Herbert Armstrong.


 * 6) Rightly or wrongly, UCG believes (as did Armstrong) that their teachings represent biblical truth and that they are a continuation of the early new testament church.


 * OkayThere: You have every right to believe that what UCG teaches is the truth, and that this truth exists in the Bible apart from Armstrong. However, regardless of whether UCG's teachings are right or wrong, the remainder of Christianity sees UCG and the old WCG as teaching fundamentally the same thing. The same core teachings that made Armstrong different from the remainder of christianity from the 30s through the 80s is what makes UCG different from the remainder of christianity today. i.e. The Sabbath, the Kingdom, Holy Days, clean and unclean meats, the third resurrection, rejection of the trinity, british israelism, etc. These beliefs are what defined Armstrong and the church he founded (WCG) - and it is these beliefs that define UCG to the remainder of Christianity today. It is no secret that UCG split from WCG, or that the majority of its baptized members were also members of WCG, or that the majority of UCG ministers attended Ambassador College in the days of Herbert Armstrong. Regardless of whether what UCG teaches is right or wrong, the reality is that it is historically linked to WCG and Armstrong. It is this link that, to the non-UCG member, contextualizes who and what UCG is because it explains where UCG comes from.


 * I sense that what you are trying to say is that what UCG believes is not the teachings of a man - i.e. Armstrong, but the teachings of God in the Bible. You are entitled to have this view. However, this should be no reason to obscure UCG's history regarding WCG and Armstrong. I am going to revert your latest deletions, but I am going to suggest an edit here. (We can address the issues one by one.) Proposed changes are bolded:


 * UCG is an offshoot of The United Church of God split from the Worldwide Church of God, which was originally incorporated in the 1940's as the Radio Church of God by its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. After Armstrong's death, the subsequent WCG leadership introduced a series of major doctrinal changes which substantially altered the fundamental beliefs and goals of the original Worldwide Church of God.[5] A segment of the membership wished to retain Herbert Armstrong's theology and teachings the church's earlier beliefs ( which is known by non-adherents as "Armstrongism") and left WCG to start their own organizations.[6] The United Church of God was established in May of 1995 and is the largest of these offshoot organizations.


 * Waitingwatch (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

21st Feb - OkayThere response & re-deletions
WaitingWatch - The problem as I see it is that neither you or JeffBillman are expressing a neutral point of view. For example, you said:

"However, regardless of whether UCG's teachings are right or wrong, the remainder of Christianity sees UCG and the old WCG as teaching fundamentally the same thing."

Oh really? Every single Christian in the world? The Catholic Church? Seventh Day Adventists? Messianic Jews? Latter Day Saints? All others church's of God? Since there are over a billion people in the world that call themselves "Christian" with a billion different ideas how can you support this statement or this viewpoint?

I'm suggesting that you two are presenting a viewpoint that is hostile to United Church of God because you have an agenda and/or a large disagreement with some of the doctrine. For example, to support your point in the post I'm responding to you rely mainly on the "spin" of the very same organization that rejected the doctrines we're talking about. That's about a non-neutral source as you can get. I could garner quotes from a million different websites that support the doctrine taught by UCG but that would be kind of silly because all I would be trying to do is find a bunch of quotes from people that agree with my non- neutral point of view. I've been open about my affiliation. What is yours?

Another point. A Wikipedia entry isn't considered valid based on what a particular religious group thinks. It's presumably about what mankind in general thinks. So even IF every other Christian in the world has the same objections as you two it doesn't matter. What matters is the overall neutrality of the article. To the standard non-Christian not versed in Christian theology (which is MOST of the world) United Church of God appears little different from the rest of American Christianity.

And THIS is where I'm having a problem with the edits. In REALITY United Church of God as an organization DOES not rely on quoting, teaching, venerating, exalting, emphasizing or building up Herbert Armstrong. These "edits" skew reality by making it appear as if United Church of God first and foremost emphasizes a man called "Herbert Armstrong" and that it's the very same organization as "WorldWide Church of God" only with a different name.

This presents a false image of United Church of God to a person with a truly neutral point of view. It goes expressly AGAINST the truth which is expressed in this quote from "A Brief History of United Church of God".

''Concerned with uneven administrative practices of the former assembly, more than 100 ordained ministers developed a new administrative structure that was more directly accountable to members and the ministry. A new 12-person Council of Elders, elected by a general assembly of all ordained ministers in United, was tasked with reviewing and independently documenting all core beliefs and doctrines of the Church, which above all must be true to the biblical record and not reliant on later divisive philosophical and theological traditions that were developed centuries after the original apostles. ''

What this means (in nice speak) is that the people who started United wanted no part with the WAY in which Worldwide Church of God was structured and run. That was a wise move because there WERE abuses by the ministry and leadership (not necessarily by Herbert Armstrong) throughout the history of the church. In addition many things that were more speculative than biblical were being preached from the pulpit even though they may have not been part of official WWCOG doctrine.

When United started a major effort was undertaken to separate these teachings from what was biblical. Clearly this wasn't popular and it's why some other Churches of God condemn United for rejecting the teachings of Herbert Armstrong.

So to sum up, these edits are being done with a non-neutral viewpoint which presents a false and inaccurate picture of United Church of God.

Concerning specifically:

'' UCG is an offshoot of The United Church of God split from the Worldwide Church of God, which was originally incorporated in the 1940's as the Radio Church of God by its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. After Armstrong's death, the subsequent WCG leadership introduced a series of major doctrinal changes which substantially altered the fundamental beliefs and goals of the original Worldwide Church of God.[5] A segment of the membership wished to retain Herbert Armstrong's theology and teachings the church's earlier beliefs ( which is known by non-adherents as "Armstrongism") and left WCG to start their own organizations.[6] The United Church of God was established in May of 1995 and is the largest of these offshoot organizations. ''

The first problem is the location of this history. There is ALREADY a history section on the page This is REDUNDANT and I suspect the only reason for it's inclusion here is to try and influence people who only read the opening paragraph.

That being said even the edits STILL don't present an accurate picture. As just outlined the "church's earlier beliefs" involved doctrinal and administrative issues. Many of these beliefs were jettisoned. Making this generic statement is only meant to imply a non-existent reliance on Herbert Armstrong.

Also it's not "non-adherents" who call these bible beliefs "Armstrongism". The people who use "Armstrongism" as a pejorative are those who strongly disagree with the doctrine...staunch critics. Having that statement in there is just an attempt to try and make people believe that these beliefs are based solely on something Herbert Armstrong made up in his head and not the bible.

Just delete it. It's a transparent attempt to sway people to a non-neutral point of view and there's already a history section. This issue is so clear to me and I think I presented a valid argument so I trust you will delete it. I'll give you the opportunity to do so and then we'll move on to other edits.

Okaythere (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd March - WaitingWatch revert & response

 * OkayThere - please be more collaborative. You must discuss your proposed changes and reach consensus on the talk page before going wild deleting referenced material from the wiki. As before, constructive edits are welcome, but when you make controversial and unilateral edits that delete existing referenced content without having reached agreement then it is in clear violation of Wikipedia principles.


 * One thing to remember is that Wikipedia is a type of encyclopedia. It is about helping people know more about people, things, places, etc. In the case of UCG: Who are they? Where do they come from? Who or what shaped their beliefs? What makes them different from other forms of christianity? And, very importantly, how do you explain this to a non-UCG member that doesn't know or believe the same things as does UCG? Whether you like it or not, the old WCG and Armstrong are pivotal to the answers to these questions. If you ask anyone that is not a member of UCG (or another 'Church of God' group): Who or what is UCG? - then the simple answer is: An offshoot of the WCG that teaches Armstrong's core teachings. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/u00.html#unitedcog


 * In an attempt to find the middle ground I propose that we create a new Background section underneath the Introduction, and that we merge the UCG background information from the current introduction and history sections into this new location. We can also work on softening the wording. Dry information (e.g. past church presidents, council members, texas move, can still be located at the bottom of the page in a History section. Here is the proposal:


 * Background:
 * UCG is an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, which was originally incorporated in the 1940's as the Radio Church of God by its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. After Armstrong's death, the subsequent WCG leadership introduced a series of major doctrinal changes which substantially altered the fundamental beliefs and goals of the original Worldwide Church of God.[5] A segment of the membership wished to retain Herbert Armstrong's teachings (which is known by non-adherents as "Armstrongism") and left WCG to start their own organizations.[6] The United Church of God was established at a conference organized in Indianapolis in May of 1995, and is the largest of these offshoot organizations.[7][8]


 * Regarding your other edits, I'm proposing the following:


 * - On Armstrong's media usage vs. UCG: It really is no secret with church members (UCG) that Armstrong went all out in using media to proclaim the 'gospel of the kingdom'. UCG uses the same approach. However, I am prepared to let this one go as this is not necessarily key to the article. I'll delete this.


 * - On Doctrine: the general package of beliefs that are core to Church of God groups is known by non-adherents as 'Armstrongism'. It is an important reference to other Wikipedia articles that summarize some of Armstrong's teachings. I propose that we soften the wording to read: "(Known by non-adherenets as 'Armstrongism'.)"


 * - Regarding teaching that mainstream christianity is corrupt, see the following references. There is no way to separate UCG from these teachings. I'll add these references to the article.


 * The true Church of God is pictured in the Bible as a chaste bride waiting to be married to Christ. The harlot of Revelation 17 is a deceptive religious system masquerading as a true system of worship. The final resurrection of the Roman Empire, like the original empire and its subsequent "resurrections," will be centered in Europe. It appears that it can be seen today in its embryonic form in the European Union. That does not mean that all current EU nations will be part of the final configuration, but those that choose to participate will combine to form a short-lived, powerful union influenced by a traditional religious system based in Rome, the modern heir of ancient Babylon. Since the "great harlot" of Revelation 17 is pictured as continually being the dominant religion of the "beast" system, it follows that the final revival of the Roman Empire will be influenced by the same traditional religious system that has been allied with the earlier attempts to restore the Roman Empire. In other words, it will be a "Christian" influence. Revelation 13:11-14 confirms this viewpoint by describing a "beast" that looks like a lamb but speaks like a dragon. A lamb is a biblical symbol for Jesus Christ, and the dragon is a biblical symbol for Satan the devil. In other words, this particular "beast" is some kind of religious authority appearing or claiming to represent the true lamb—Jesus. In reality, though, it is a tool of Satan. This religious beast causes the world to worship another beast (verses 1-9) and enforces obedience to its dictates (Revelation 13:16), which will be contrary to the law of God. It is this religious beast that Satan will use in the end-time to persecute the true followers of Jesus who have His testimony and keep the commandments of God (Revelation 12:17). http://www.gnmagazine.org/wnp/wnp0708/prophecy.htm


 * This Church is not to be confused with the false church that is described in chapter 17 as "the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication" (verses 1-2). The apostle Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 that "Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness." The false church, pictured as a harlot, a church that compromises, or sells itself for gain, was prophesied to commit "fornication" with the "kings of the earth." This is a political church. God's true Church stays out of politics, heeding the words of Jesus Christ that His Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Fornication, however, is not the same as marriage. In marriage there is commitment. Each partner tries to please the other in order to make the marriage successful. http://www.wnponline.org/wnp/wnp0909/europe-church-papacy.htm


 * If the Church of Rome is the "image of the beast," then that church is mentioned fairly extensively because of its political role—a role made more formidable by the Vatican being a state as well as the headquarters of a universal church. Despite the fact that Jesus Christ said that His Kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), here is a church that has played a major political role for two millennia. This false church is described as a "harlot" (Revelation 17:1), selling herself for temporal gain. http://www.gnmagazine.org/wnp/wnp0809/europe-church-horn.htm


 * By the end of the third century the true servants of God had become a distinct minority among those who called themselves Christians. The counterfeit Christianity had become the majority. http://www.beyondtoday.tv/booklets/CJ/counterfeit.htm


 * The Church Jesus Built discusses these topics more thoroughly. It shows the beginnings of a counterfeit Christianity in the first century. Several books of the New Testament mention false teachers infiltrating the Church with corrupting ideas. They combined bits and pieces of pagan religions with Christian concepts and convinced many to follow their ways. Satan has taken great advantage of these circumstances (2 Corinthians 11:13-14) and has created a counterfeit church to parallel the true one. Through the intervening centuries, people accepted the counterfeit over the true Church. The booklet explains the doctrines and practices of the early New Testament Church of God, so those who would like to find it today can do so. http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/true-church-of-god.htm


 * Christ's prophecy of false teachers coming in His name, claiming He is the Christ but deceiving many, indeed came to pass. Church history is largely a story of teachings and practices of the counterfeit Christianity, with its system of beliefs and practices fundamentally different from what the early New Testament Church believed and taught. The story of those who held to or at times recaptured the essence of true Christianity is not easy to follow through history. Today those who strive to practice the teachings that Christ put into His Church are few in comparison to the thousands of churches that call themselves Christian but are in fact descendants of the counterfeit movement begun in the first century... http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn50/thehorsemen.htm


 * Waitingwatch (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd March - OkayThere response & re-deletions
WaitingWatch - Plain and simple you have a beef against United Church of God and/or the doctrine espoused. You're far from impartial and bordering on hostile. The "source" you use "http://www.apologeticsindex.org" is nothing more than a "we hate everyone who is different from us" website. They characterize UCG as a "cult" and on their front page they have this quote boldly displayed "Cults...Nobody joins a cult. You join a self-help group a religious movement a political organization.They change so gradually, by the time you realize you're entrapped - and almost everybody does - you can't figure a safe way back out....- Deborah Layton, Survivor of Jim Jones' Peoples Temple"

Sir or Ma'am...you have an agenda. You support your misguided agenda with a website that ties United Church of God with Jim Jones. That's deeply insulting on so many levels. As such I see no need to collaborate with you on changes anymore than I would collaborate with an anti-semite who paints 100 swastika's on a Jews houses and then attempts to "collaborate" with them to pare it down to 50. That's how transparent these "edits" are.

Without the stuff I keep excising the article is truthful, honest, and fairly reflects United Church of God. There's a history section that tells the ORIGINS of United for anybody who is truly interested. Yet you still keep insisting on making changes that reflect your personal bigotry that United Church of God is a "cult" on par with The Peoples Temple. That's not reality.

Okaythere (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

13th March - WaitingWatch revert & response

 * I'm reorganizing the whole discussion sparked by OkayThere's edits so that we can keep track of the chronological development. Please put new text underneath old text.


 * OkayThere: I've tried a number of times to engage you in some sort of constructive discussion and collaborative editing. While I continue to want to find some kind of middle ground, I'm not sure that is going to be possible at this rate. Please realize the following:
 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Facts and information deserve to be stated if they can be substantiated.
 * 2) If you don't like the wording, then I'll work with you to find a mutually acceptable way to phrase things, but thus far all attempts to engage you in constructive dialogue have failed.
 * 3) You can't delete referenced and important information simply because it doesn't fit with your POV.


 * So, I've once again reverted your edits and ask, once more, that you engage a collaborative process of editing. If you continue to delete substantiated content without first seeking consensus, then I am going to report this whole situation to the powers that be.
 * Waitingwatch (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

24th April - Waiting watch comments
There have been no formal responses to the proposed edits. I am going to proceed with structuring content on the page into Introduction vs. Background vs. History sections.Waitingwatch (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

July 2009
I have made an edit in response to recent controversial edits. There has been some disagreement between myself and ScottAshley on what to stay and go, etc. My most recent edit incorporates some of ScottAshley's edits, such as the change in number of booklets to 33 and deletion of frivolous information. However, I have also added some references to substantiate parts of the page that ScottAshley had wanted to delete. For background: UCG has a very strong foundation in the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God and this history / origin of UCG should not be removed or covered up. The bulk of UCG's teachings are thoroughly based in the teachings of HWA and the old WCG. I am open to discussion and attempts to find mutually acceptable solutions. Waitingwatch (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

cuts from archive 1
Here is a summary of the productive parts of the archive:

We started with 4 questions:


 * 1) It appears based on the quotes to me the UCG does not claim to believe in a trinitarian God?  They claim that the Holy spirit is not a person.    Okaythere are you disagreeing with either of the following two claims
 * 2) That those are in fact the beliefs of the UCG
 * 3) That those beliefs disagree with majority christian doctrine
 * 4) As for "normative".  Are "Orthodox" or "Nicene based"  acceptable?  There needs to be some sort of a but I think if the UCG has a term they use that would be a very good choice.  I would agree that "normative" sounds a bit loaded I'm hoping we can come up with something more NPOV.  We can explicitly define the term in the article with something like "for purposes of this article the term mainstream will be used to denote any doctrine held in common by  'Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Reformed and members of the NAE/Evangelical Alliance" (as was suggested in the talk) Would it then be acceptable?
 * 5) This one is for "Pepsimax33 "Belief that the gospel is less about the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but primarily about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth" I'm not sure if I follow the claim here. Taking into account Summary of Christian eschatological differences can you explain to me what is outside the "normative" with regard to UCG in your opinion?
 * 6) Its my opinion you need more than one sentence to describe UCG with regard to old testament law.  Every "normative" christian group sees some of the laws as applying and other ones not applying.  By in large they all agree on which ones (murder applies, heave offerings don't).  I don't see evidence for a major doctrinal difference here.  What I do see some evidence for is a difference in observance / practice.  Would everyone accept a rephrase it in those terms?

We have the possibility of a new version of the doctrines being created.

Now that this is out of the way. Reading your response it appears you do think a doctrine section should be developed by someone more friendly to UCG. Why don't you write what you consider to be a section which describes their doctrines fairly (again you may want to use the example I posted above of other denominations). Remember the goal is to describe their doctrines not to argue them (though you should certainly link to arguments). jbolden1517Talk 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation about motivation and Wikipedia article editing. It helped clear up some issues. A decision on the expansion of the doctrinal section is pending. Thanks again! Okaythere 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is supported by the other editors:
 * How can I help with this, Okaythere? I admit to being fascinated with UCG's doctrine, even as I happen to disagree.  (Nothing personal, I hope you understand.  As a Marcionite, I'll naturally disagree with the doctrines of most Christian denominations.)  Perhaps we can set up a temporary subpage to work out this edit and expansion? -- SwissCelt 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I welcome your call to Okaythere to write his own doctrinal section. I also welcome Okaythere's surprising response, to the effect that s/he would consider it. .... Out of respect for this process, I will naturally refrain from re-posting past edits or posting new edits. (by pepsimax33)

We had an answer to my question #3 by pepsimax


 * Sixthly, to respond to jbolden1517's question, it's a more subtle distinction. The UCG, like the vast majority of Christians believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ purchased "salvation" for believers. The difference lays in that conception of salvation. The "normative" view of this is that salvation is in the here and now. It is a primarily a spiritual act of "justification", in which a believers sins are replaced in God's eyes by the holiness of Christ. The believer is thus saved in the present age, at the moment of repentance, baptism and other sacraments. The Kingdom of God is a present reality (albeit in only spiritual form at present). The gospel message is therefore focused on the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God.


 * The UCG position is somewhat different. They argue that that the Kingdom of God is not currently in force in any way, but is entirely to come. For them, the spiritual and physical Kingdom will arrive at once, so salvation is about salvation into that future, visible kingdom of God on earth. Their gospel message reflects this view on the Kingdom of God. Given that they believe that salvation is salvation INTO that physical Kingdom, they argue that the gospel is the good news that that Kingdom is coming (made possible through Jesus).


 * I invite you to peruse their articles on this issue where they lay out their doctrine and freely argue their difference from the "normative view": http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn18/understandkingdom.htm and  http://www.ucg.org/booklets/GK/kingdomherenow.htm are just two examples.


 * To be honest, I think that they make some peruasive arguments. I probably sit closer to the UCG view than the "normative" view. However, as I said above - the issue is not what I believe to be right or wrong. The issue is that they hold to a different definition of the gospel message than their counterparts in the the bulk of other Christian denominations.
 * (subsequent clarification: I concur re the gospel message needing to focus more on the coming physical Kingdom of God. I do not concur with their view that the Kingdom of God is not in spiritual force today --pepsimax 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


 * This is a late interjection, but better late than never. It is not quite true to say "They argue that that the Kingdom of God is not currently in force in any way, but is entirely to come". For clarification on this, see How Are We 'Translated Into the Kingdom'? --Atimco 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Time frame
OK I'm still waiting on an answer to question #4 from pepsimax and a final choice from okaythere. Pepsimax if we don't get a yes by the 21st go would you be OK with a go ahead and put your changes in with one alternation use the word "orthodox" in place of "normative"? jbolden1517Talk 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, jbolden1517. The sudden absence of sleep is turning my brain to mush. To your question 4 above, I'm not about to quibble over language and would happily re-draft the point along the lines you suggested.


 * Re your suggestion re normative vs orthodox, I will change it as per your suggestion.


 * And finally, re your question re the 21st, I suggest giving Okaythere another couple of days (s/he may be seeking input from local or denominational UCG leaders and it would be nice to give them every opportunity to improve the UCG article by making a positive contribution). How about end of week (26 May)? Thoughts?


 * Cheers, --pepsimax 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with waiting until the 26th. jbolden1517Talk  17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. I see jbolden1517 has restored the doctrinal section, as per the thinking above. Apologies for not actioning this myself on 26 May as agreed (health problems). Thanks all for your contributions. I think we have a better outcome than we started with. Best regards, Pepsimax33 --pepsimax 21:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Doctrinal Differences
Hi everyone. I appreciate the consideration shown here and I'm sorry about the long delay in a response. Instead of re-writing the doctrinal section, I thought I would just tweak the current doctrinal section. Most of the changes have to do with further explanation of doctrinal distinctions of the UCG.

For example, the first point originally read:


 * "Belief in a non-Trinitarian view of God (specifically, belief that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person of the Godhead)".

This may lead the casual reader to conclude that the UCG must believe that there is no such thing as a Holy Spirit. This is incorrect. I changed it to read:


 * "Belief in a non-Trinitarian view of God. Specifically, the belief that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and of Christ Jesus and is not a separate person in the Godhead."

This gives the reader a better understanding of the UCG belief.

Point two originally read:


 * "Belief that Christians will eventually, at the end times, become full members of the God family as "spirit-born divine beings who are part of Elohim, the universe-ruling family of God"

There are a number of points here that misrepresent the belief of UCG. For example, the use of the phrase "end times" is ambiguous. The UCG belief is that Christians are reborn as eternal, spirit creatures at their resurrection at the return of Christ. Also, the term "full members" is also ambiguous. The UCG belief is certainly that physical Christians are full members of God's family, just not yet in spirit form. So I changed it to read:


 * "Belief that Christians are part of the family of God and will eventually, at their resurrection, be "spirit-born divine beings who are part of Elohim, the universe-ruling family of God""

Point 3 originally read:


 * "Belief that the gospel is less about the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but primarily about the promised future, visible Kingdom of God on earth"

The use of the word "less" implies a negative concept of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nothing could be further than the truth. These things are paramount to Christian salvation. However, the gospel that Christ taught primarily, and that he charged his followers to teach, WAS about the kingdom.


 * Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

So I changed it to:


 * "Belief that the gospel that Jesus Christ taught was the promised future, visible Kingdom of God and that the gospel is more than just the life, death and sacrifice of Christ"

Point 4 read:


 * "Belief in British Israelism (the theory that the USA, United Kingdom and most nations of Western Europe are the physical descendants of the lost 10 tribes of ancient Israel)"

The UCG does not believe in a belief called "British Israelism" and does not use that term. This term has been co-opted by "Christian Identity" movements and as such is often linked with racist ideas, bigotry and hatred. As the link to "British Iraelism" points out, there is no one unified belief that explains that term. At best it's an imcomplete statement. So I removed the link. I also changed the wording to more accurately reflect countries and occupants. For example, the ten tribes of Israel are not restricted to the USA, UK and Western Eurpose, but include other countries on other continents.


 * The above statement is not entirely accurate. While it is correct that there are variations of the basic British Israelism theory, it still remains true that what UCG believes is a nothing other than the core British Israelism belief. The basic belief of British Israelism remains the same: Ancient Israelites were 'lost' to the North of the Black Sea and found themselves (through variations of the Scythian / Cimmerian / Celt theories) in England and the surrounding area in Western Europe etc. UCG's belief directly derives from Herbert Armstrong who was probably the most vocal proponent of this theory in recent history. His name is synonymous with the subject of British Isrealism in all forms of research, books and websites on the subject. I have added the link to British Isrealism back as people should be able to read up more about it, though I will add that it is "a form of".Waitingwatch (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that UCG itself links its theory to British Israelism in the booklet on the United States and Britian in Bible Prophecy. See UCG on British Israelism Waitingwatch (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed to read:


 * "Belief that the USA, United Kingdom and some other nations around the world are composed in large part of the physical descendants of the lost 10 tribes of ancient Israel"

Point 5 read:


 * "Belief that a number of the laws and worship festivals given in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament are still binding on Christians today."

A couple of things here, the use of the word "binding" denotes a belief that it is a hardship, or a burden, you are tied up, you are bound. UCG members take delight in God's law and holy days and don't consider it a "binding". Second, the term "worship festivals" is ambiguous. There's no such term used in the bible or UCG literature. They are called "feast of the Lord". I also changed "given" to "enumerated" because the belief of the UCG is that these laws and days existed, and were known by, biblical figures such as Abraham before they were specifically listed elsewhere in scripture.

Changed to:


 * "Belief that a number of the laws and feasts of the Lord as enumerated in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament are still applicable to Christians today."

Point 6 read:


 * "Belief that the pagan origins of traditional Christian celebrations (e.g. Christmas, Easter) render them inappropriate as Christian celebrations"

Not much wrong here, except that the UCG belief is that they are offensive to God, which is why Christians should not observe them.


 * Changed to:


 * '''"Belief that the pagan origins of traditional Christian celebrations (e.g. Christmas, Easter) render them inappropriate as Christian celebrations in the eyes of God"

''' Where neccessary, I added links to UCG literature supporting the statements.

Thanks again...Okaythere 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph
I believe the first paragraph is rather POV-oriented. Using scripture to defend or describe an organisation smacks of apologetics and does not seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia. I will put forward another proposed beginning. RelHistBuff 09:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops! Sorry, I didn't see this in the talk before I added the intro paragraph back.  My real objection to this is that you removed sourced material in the article without replacing it with other cited material.  The idea is for this article to be based more on outside sources, not less.  That said, I agree that the first paragraph after the first sentence needs some work.  The first sentence (to wit:  The United Church of God (UCG) is a Christian denomination.) is, I believe, NPOV; moreover, it serves as a good introduction for those unfamiliar with the topic. -- SwissCelt 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the "references" for the first section are linked to anything! I'd like to see the references for -UCG is a christian denomination- Dr d12

World News and Prophecy
"The World News and Prophecy alleges the rise of the European Union, the decline of U.S. and British power, and the moral decay of Western culture." There's something missing in the sentences. Alleges *what* about these things? I think perhaps the writer means "decries" in this context, but I'm not sure.


 * I think you're right. Any objections to making this change? -- SwissCelt 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Exit & Support Network
This external link has been removed at least twice from this article. What is it about the site that mandates its exclusion from this article? -- SwissCelt 13:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Arianism
A recent edit claimed that the UCG does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is divine in nature. There are a few problems with this. Firstly, the source cited to substantiate this claim makes no statement regarding the UCG. Secondly, the source cited is another Wikipedia article; self-references are generally problematic. Thirdly, no reliable source has been provided linking UCG doctrine to Arianism. Because of these problems, I removed the claim. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

caut biserica unita a lui dumnezeu care este si in limba romana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.92.206 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Move to Texas
The section on the move to Texas needs to be updated. It has been overturned, to much uproar. Those in favor of the move, like Joel Meeker, are upset:

From: Joel Meeker

To: [UCG Elders Forum]

Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 5:27 am

Subject: EF: Requiem for truth and honor

Joel Meeker, Milford OH

There have been times in the history of the United Church of God when I've been very proud of this association. There have been times when we've come through trials or temptations with our heads high, and our GCE or COE or particular leaders have performed with distinction.

But now we've disgraced ourselves as a body and I for one am ashamed to be part of this General Conference of Elders.

Last year we prayed and fasted and voted on relocation and it was finally approved by 7 votes. This year we were assured that revisiting the decision would bring unity and closure and everyone would be "brought on board." We fasted and prayed and the relocation was canceled by 10 votes. So far I haven't heard anyone who was so morally indignant last year, complain about this obvious lack of consensus; that this decision was made by such a slender margin. But that wouldn't be due to a double standard, or situation ethics....

This year 9 fewer men voted against the move, 34 fewer men voted to support the relocation. So 43 men, nearly 10% of our GCE, were discouraged enough or disgusted enough or far enough along in the process of disengaging from the GCE that they didn't vote this year when they had last year. Thank you for the new unity, and for getting everyone on board. Or is that silence you hear the sound of some more saints having been worn out?

What does this prove: that 10 is more than 7 so God has finally spoken? Does God work through misinformation, innuendo, and railing accusations against the brothers we have chosen for our administration? Does He accomplish His will through furtive slanderous internet forums and personal attacks? I guess we're supposed to believe so. Thus far those who were in favor of the relocation have generally behaved with decorum and respect, so I expect this issue will remain a dead letter now for some time. Some elders do have a sense of propriety and shame. Would that it had been so with those who worked so hard, with so much misleading misinformation to defeat it. Yes, I'm ashamed to be part of an association that supposedly repudiates factions - where a faction can behave with such cunning ruthlessness and contempt for the truth, and still win its own will.

The most telling blow and the most shameful to us, however, is that an elder who blatantly defied the lawful decision of our president – made in the best interest of the Church, a man who according to the Council showed no repentance or remorse and stated plainly he might do the same thing again any time he chose, who thereby soiled all respect for our rules, our policies, our leaders and anyone who doesn't agree with his own personal view of "God's will," a man who was censured by our COE – an unprecedented act of sanction and disgrace – for his actions and his attitude; that man we have blithely reelected to serve on our Council of Elders.

Shame on him. But even more than that, shame on us.

I suppose we get the leaders we deserve. We shall drink deeply of that cup.

We have just crossed a moral line. I don't believe we can ever go back to the ethics and principle-driven values we at least tried to have before. Populist politics have taken over – just like in the world; we have espoused a post-modern, emotion-driven worldview. A majority of our balloting elders have shown they will not support the consensus of the GCE if they don't feel like it. They have shown that they will listen to mud-slinging and vituperation and even lies, mixed with generous helpings of fawning and flattery and they will willingly cooperate.

They have shown that they don't care about rules or codes if they don't feel like it, even if we've all previously agreed to abide by them. They have besmirched our ministerial code of ethics by reelecting a defiant, self-willed man to the Council.

Either that or they were just duped. And that would scarcely bode any better for the future of this association.

I believe this is the beginning of the end for the United Church of God as we have known it. The fissures caused by the moral earthquake we all just felt will no doubt be papered over for a while and we will be assured that all is well in the best of worlds. Great trees don't fall in an instant, but the cracking sound is getting louder. Some of you have sown the wind; you will in time reap the whirlwind. God is not mocked. In the meanwhile, may God have mercy on His people; they deserve better.

The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

From: Joel Meeker

To: [UCG Elders Forum]

Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 6:25 am

Subject: EF: Post may be shared

Joel Meeker Milford OH

My post of this morning may be shared in accordance with our EF rules. Westwind273 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Council of Elders Statement
This is statement from the council of elders correcting some of the info that showed up here.

From the Council of Elders:

Announcement to be Read in All Churches on the Sabbath of May 24

We have just completed a profitable General Conference of Elders meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio. Our new strategic plan, the operation plan and the budget for the next fiscal year were approved by large margins. We greatly appreciate your prayers for the overall success of this annual event.

This announcement is to update you regarding the proposed Home Office relocation to Texas. As you know, a resolution to rescind last year’s ballot approving the move was placed on this year’s agenda. This resolution passed by 187 in favor and 175 opposed. It is clear that the two ballots on the relocation of the Home Office demonstrate that we are not united on this issue.

So how do we proceed now?

All of us who serve on the Council of Elders and in administration want you to know that we remain dedicated to our primary purposes of preaching the gospel and preparing a people. We must not allow our differences over the relocation issue to undermine our commitment to do the Work that God has called us to do. All of us want the facilities which will best serve our needs.

The initial reason for proposing the move was to address the needs of the Church, both short term and long term. The administration has the task of bringing to the Council recommendations on how we should now proceed. We will keep you informed of decisions and progress on this important aspect of God’s work.

Thank you for your continued prayers and faithful support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.106.4 (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What info does this correct? All it says is "stay tuned, we'll keep you informed". I don't see the correction. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It corrected when the balloting was held ( May not April) and how much the initiative was approved by ( 12 not 7). Please make sure you get your facts right before you quote some rant from Joel Meeker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.106.4 (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, they are not "still debating" The administration has been charged with coming up with another plan. Read the most recent council notes- from the 5/21 council notes:

Mr. Kilough responded that there is no need to rush. He offered a second option; instead of appointing a task force, give the administration a chance to “go back to the table,” develop a plan on how to proceed and provide proposals at the August meetings. Since the resolution to rescind was approved, the logical next step is to develop proposals for how to move forward from here. We have no need to decide today because this is not driven by budget or time constraints.

This is NOT debating. Maybe some guys on the EF are talking about it, but as far as a "debate" goes, there is none I can find.

Get official sources, not something you get off a "RAG-BLOG"

Proposed work group
There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologetics Index
I'm considering removing the source nominating the United Church of God as a "Christian sect". Apologetics Index is a poor source, given its rather obvious POV in favor of certain Christian interests. Let's discuss. -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete
After resigning from the Council of Elders, is Clyde Kilough still president of the United Church of God? This needs to be explored and sourced. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - Clyde will still be president, though it is unclear how well this is going to work if he has just resigned council... Here is a link: http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue135/clyde-kilough-richard-thompson-resigning-from-ucg-council.html Waitingwatch (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide Church of God
Yes, I realize that the Worldwide Church of God is now known as "Grace Communion International". However, the organization from which the United Church of God stemmed is "Worldwide Church of God". We should not change this to reflect the organization's present name, as it's simply not true; the United Church of God never was a part of "Grace Communion International". -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikify Template
I've added the Wikify template to this article because I think it should be cleaned up for Neutral Point of View and Advertising standards. Specifically, the article reads from the point of view of a church member; I think that referring to the Home Office or Council (with the caps) should be avoided for clarity. This sentence is a good example: "Specifically, the belief that the Holy Spirit is the spirit/power of God and of Christ Jesus rather than a separate person in the Godhead". The article also contains what I consider advertising by directly linking in the text of the article to YouTube and Twitter spaces, as well as noting the time and network for the church's television program. The article also contains numerous links to the church's literature, especially in the Doctrine section. I think these links are valuable and appropriate sources and references, but they need to be organized as such and not as direct links.

84.150.69.215 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Organizing Doctrine Section
I've moved the "doctrinal corruption" section up to the top of the Doctrine section, and tithing down to the bottom. I think we can all agree this an important overarching distinction, not tithing.Siricruz (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support that move, and also question whether or not we need to change the first sentence of the section, "UCG follows and believes in most of the basic doctrinal principles shared by other Christian churches." As you (& the sources) mention, there are substantial, overarching, distinctions between "Armstrongism" Perhand both Protestantism & Catholicism, and I believe Armstrong and his groups' current leaders would be the first to you so, followed by researchers from the other side of the coin such as Walter Ralston Martin . There truly are a great deal of doctrinal differences considering that all of these groups share the same Bible. Roberticus (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps something similar to the Handbook of Denominations of The United States, 13th Ed. (2010) which says United "holds to some traditional Christian teachings such as the inspiration of the scriptures, Christ's bodily resurrection, baptism, and the three ordinances of baptism." or something to that effect and then goes on to delineate the differences, though I don't think United would consider these teachings merely "traditional". It also highlights United's Adventism, which I don't see in this article, and says: "...as with most Adventist groups, the church believes strongly that biblical prophecies will be fulfilled in history and it interprets contemporary events in light of prophecy." The Handbook seems to be pretty accurate and neutral in POV.

New Doctrine Section Intro
I have changed the doctrine intro to introduce some basic commonalities with mainstream Christianity. Any probs anyone? Please note my citations. Some mainstream Christians may argue that UCG doesn't believe "Justification is a free gift from God" but, by UCG's own literature, it does. I also replaced a few words: I think it is probably best to use recognized theological terminology which can link to other Wikipedia doctrinal articles, rather than slang, for example "Apostolic church" for "New Testament Church" and etc. Siricruz (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

3 ordinances of baptism
Hi, what are the "three ordinances of baptism"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be a mistake. Maybe the original text said "three ordinances of baptism, the Lord's meal, and (something else)".  --134.153.14.13 (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on United Church of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100425083607/http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com:80/ to http://ucgcurrentcrisis.webs.com/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100501114728/http://shadowsofwcg.com:80/?p=498 to http://shadowsofwcg.com/?p=498
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121102005207/http://members.ucg.org/content/updates-ucg-administration-changes to http://members.ucg.org/content/updates-ucg-administration-changes
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131111232000/http://goodworks.ucg.org/ to http://www.goodworks.ucg.org/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131111232032/http://breakingfree.ucg.org/ to http://www.breakingfree.ucg.org/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131111231959/http://uyc.ucg.org/ to http://www.uyc.ucg.org/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131111232000/http://coe.ucg.org/ to http://www.coe.ucg.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Abib?
Why 14 Abib and not 14 Nisan? --142.163.195.197 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Correcting misleading opening sentence
"The United Church of God, an International Association (UCGIA or simply UCG)[2] is a non-denominational religious group[3] based in the United States." This opening sentence is misleading and absurd, although it isn't actually clear to me whether it is intended to mean that they are their own distinct religion, which doesn't have multiple denominations, or if it simply reflects a claim they made that they aren't a denomination - it is quite common for groups who believe they are restoring the original New Testament faith to criticise denominationalism, not realising they practise it more than everybody else does... In any case, the source doesn't state that now and I think what it does say implies that they kind of accept being labelled as a denomination: "How are you related to the other denominations? We have no association with any other organization or denomination."

But I will replace with a description (borrowed from the wikipedia LDS page) that is more informative than calling them a "christian denomination" or something like that, and hopefully also uncontroversial. If anyone disagrees that this description accurately applies to the UCG I suggest they check the references in the "Fundamental Beliefs" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:878A:8C00:707F:7182:D6D0:BE53 (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

God arose 3rd day
God did rise on the 3rd day and the holy biblical does speak of it this church may need to go back and stud. And I hope there isn't a humanoid bot in this church 192.161.246.27 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)