More UCG Turnover

Well, it is official.  Jack Hendren has now split off from United Church of God (UCG).  He and Arnold Mendez, Jr have started the Church of God – South Texas.  Do remember Jack Hendren for later.  He is old guard.

Ken Giese resigned yesterday as well, it appears.  At least, it has been reported in two different places.  Ambassador Reports has posted his letters to his congregations at “Giese Resigns; More UCG Turmoil”.


  1. Some might wonder why everyone can't just get together and talk things over and resolve any issues that come up. They assume that everyone is decent and well intentioned and wants peace. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are actually many very bad people with very bad agendas in the UCG, though they try to hide it.

    The problem is ultimately that Satan and his demons have got into the UCG. They work through wicked human instruments. At this point, they appear to have enough active agents in the UCG to try to split it apart. From what I know about the people in the UCG and their behavior, it is just a matter of time.

    This might be hard for some people to accept, but remember that the history of the WCG shows that anything is possible. Satan is now well established in the UCG and is going to sift it.

  2. As I have reread several times the much discussed and now withdrawn sabbath paper what really frosts and concerns me is misuse of scripture. The paper allegedly quotes Exodus 20:8-10. The paper quotes the first half of verse 10 but doesn't quote the last half "you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant nor your female servant…" which is the most relevent part of the whole point. It strikes me as being dishonest with scripture. The paper talks about how applications aren't always clear in the modern world but does not even mention what appears to be a clear command, so clear that even the marginally alert kid in a preteen bible study would get it.

    You may as well quote the Bible as "And Judas hung himself… go ye therefore and do likewise."

    Instead it uses human reason and irrelevent examples of emergency medical care and animals. This is not an ox in the ditch. This is a known situation which is a requirement of the business. You know it is going to come up every year. The paper reasons that since they do not have "direct control" because of the law that they there is not a sabbath problem. They do have direct control. They can divest themselves of the business. There are some businesses a christian just simply may not be able to be a part of. It doesn't always involve the sabbath, it could involve the ethics of a business. There have been positions I have turned down or not even applied for those kinds of reasons.

    The paper places heavy emphasis on the family's "good faith". Good faith is admirable but does not make one right. Many people will go to church tomorrow on Sunday in "good faith" according to the best of their knowledge. Does that make them right?

    That the paper has been withdrawn is good but I'm still concerned that the reasoning it represents exists among whoever has the authority to put it together and get it on the internet in the name of UCG. At best it is laodicean, at worst it is antinomian.

  3. What is clear to one person can be opposite to what is completely clear to another person. Just try and discuss things with an antinomian on and that should become rather clear.

    "so clear that even the marginally alert kid in a preteen bible study would get it." Of which antinomians say exactly the same thing. It should be understood that people can use the same scripture with opposite intents.

    However as the scripture in 2 Cor 2:3 says, "But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds"

    You know most everyone in a CoG would be familiar with the phrase, 'the sabbath is a test commandment'. But it may be prudent to ask, which side of the issue is it testing?

    Is it testing those who would water down doctrine or is it testing how those who are opposed to such watering down and how they treat other people made in the image of God?

    I believe there are clear instructions on how to treat brethren when confronting certain behavior in 1 Cor 5:11. But when it comes to the sabbath the NT is rather emphatically silent. It imposes on us to make our own decisions.

    The major organizations professing Christianity worldwide testify to that. They don't understand Jesus Christ giving a rather plain example to His people the custom to follow. And rightly so because they still look for commandments – "you are not under the law".

    Even to this day they still look for letters to justify their behavior.

    I also believe that Paul an Apostle is still sent to us today and gives an idea that both refutes those who rely on the law alone and those who rely on faith alone. In his major epistle to the Romans he both starts and ends with the idea of the "obedience of faith" (Rom 1:5, 16:26)

    Basically I believe the sabbath should be taught to be kept holy by the ministry but not judged how it should be kept holy. The Siegle's already basically understand that, they are sacrificing some wages for it. But if they or you or I believe it is up to a church to forgive sin solely against the Lord (Mt 12:8). Then all of us may as well join the Roman Catholic Church.

  4. Of course the church does not forgive sin. Even if I do something that is sin after being told by a minister or someone in authority it is ok, it is still sin.

    I would agree there are many areas in observing the sabbath someone should not judge how it should be kept, and most of those are private which a congregation never knows about. For instance if someone watches some tv, eats out, etc etc. Most of those are private actions unless you choose to make them public.

    In this case though we have a public action which divided the congregation because many felt it was a blatant and obvious violation to the sabbath command.

    There the ministry does have a duty to step in.

    Of course that the family involved are close relatives to a council member and minister threw gasoline on the fire. Undoubtably many felt that played into the "advice" given. Then to send that same person there to straighten things out only enflamed the issue.