The Vultures Are Circling

David Pack is trying to pick the low hanging fruit from the recent churn at UCG, and he’s posted “An Open Letter to the United Church of God".

Recently, I was joking with someone about being getting kicked out of church, and the response was, “What?  There are 400 different splits?  Well, I could go to 397 of them.”  Guess which one was included in the list of “no go” churches?


  1. Quoting Mr. Pack's P.S.: We can report that hundreds of people from around the world in UCG are reading this letter.

    See what you've done with that link? :-O

    But anyway: I couldn't resist doing an "Armstrong" count in that letter — and his name comes up eight times.

    That's why I'm not sure a lot of UCG members would be comfortable in RCG. Many of them (don't ask how many; I'm not sure) realize the Armstrong-centered approach to faith is flawed.

    On top of that, imagine what would happen if they knew Mr. Pack sometimes gives four-hour sermons.

  2. John D Carmack

    @Richard: You said, "See what you've done with that link? :-O"

    See? He must be a prophet after all. ;->

    "Mr. Pack sometimes gives four-hour sermons."

    Hmmmm, that says more about him than the words that come out of his mouth.

  3. Uh-oh — may have just found an embedded literary explosive device hidden in Mr. Pack’s letter.

    He cites a July 2003 chat with the “then current UCG President,” who claimed UCG government does not work.

    Who was that man in July 2003? None other than Interim President Roy Holladay — who said in a “must-play” sermon which my congregation heard this weekend the “collegial” form of government is one of UCG’s strengths!

    Did his mind change in seven years? Or is something else at work here? Ooh boy….

  4. John D Carmack

    @Richard: Don't forget that posting a link to someone is not to be construed as endorsement of or believability of said author. 🙂

    I guess I missed that little item because it is very difficult to read something as self-serving as that letter is. Of course, it is only incendiary if it is believable. It seems odd that this was a man who even prior to HWA's death was facing opposition from members of his own congregations. This was back during a time when it was pretty rare for an individual, let alone a group of people, to question the church leadership.