Earlier this evening, I was sent a short (roughly 6 minute) video from the Chairman of the Council of Elders for the church I attend in which this minister expressed his thinking that the United Church of God had learned from 1995 and the experience of the Worldwide Church of God and had created a flat form of governance based on roles and not rank. Unfortunately, while this gentleman expresses an opinion that fits with his own experience of the United Church of God, it is not one that expresses the experience of the members of the church as a whole. Naturally, this provoked a response that is suitable for this Pentecost weekend where we celebrate the establishment of the church visible of both the Old and New Covenants.

---

Executive Summary

This white paper critically examines the governance structure and lived experience within the United Church of God (UCG), an organization formed from a schism in the Worldwide Church of God in 1995. While many ministers in the UCG describe the organization as “flat”—highlighting the equal standing of ordained elders in decision-making—ordinary members often encounter a rigid, functionally hierarchical system. This contrast in perception and experience reveals a gap in organizational transparency, ecclesiology, and congregational participation, raising important questions about authority, accountability, and member inclusion in spiritual and institutional governance.

---

Introduction

The UCG operates with a Council of Elders, elected by the broader body of ordained ministers, which serves as its highest human authority. The church eschews episcopal or papal structures and instead favors a collegial model among ministers, theoretically promoting a “flat” ecclesiastical environment. However, from the perspective of lay members, the church often feels strongly hierarchical due to structural, social, and administrative dynamics in local congregations, where pastors, elders, and deacons wield concentrated authority with little lay recourse.

This paper explores the theological, organizational, and psychological dimensions of this dual experience, explaining why the ministerial view of flatness is plausible internally while remaining largely inaccessible to the ordinary believer.

---

I. The Ministerial Perception of Flatness

A. Governance by Council

From the perspective of UCG ministers, the church is governed not by a singular presiding bishop or hierarchy of ordination grades, but by a rotating Council of Elders, which is elected by peers. This creates a model of shared responsibility and mutual accountability among equals in office. Every elder has a voice and a vote in determining doctrinal direction and institutional policy. The absence of a singular charismatic figure is a conscious rejection of authoritarian models.

B. Equality of Ordination

All ordained ministers—whether full-time, part-time, or unpaid—are formally recognized as holding the same spiritual office. Titles like “pastor” or “evangelist” indicate function rather than rank. Theoretically, this removes clericalism and promotes collegiality.

C. Reaction to Past Abuse

The “flatness” narrative is rooted in a reaction to the perceived abuses and centralized authoritarianism of the Worldwide Church of God. UCG’s founders deliberately sought to avoid recreating the same top-down structure. Thus, ministers often contrast their present experience with past models, viewing the new arrangement as more democratic and less prone to cult-like control.

---

II. The Lay Experience of Hierarchy

A. No Voice in Governance

From the member’s standpoint, there is no formal pathway for lay input in the governance of the church. The General Conference of Elders (GCE) elects the Council, and only ordained elders may participate in those decisions. Local church boards (if they exist) are usually advisory and not empowered to shape doctrine or oversee ministers. For many members, this creates the impression of a closed clerical system.

B. Administrative Roles and Deference

Within congregations, pastors and elders often exercise unilateral authority over sermon scheduling, congregational activities, feast site decisions, disciplinary matters, and the use of tithes and offerings. Deacons may assist in administration but are typically appointed, not elected, by elders. Lay members have no mechanism to challenge leadership decisions short of leaving the congregation or appealing to a higher elder—who is still part of the same internal network. This reproduces functional hierarchy.

C. Cultural Hierarchy and Social Signaling

Even if the structure is not formally hierarchical, the social reality is. Pastors are deferred to in both spiritual and administrative contexts. Their opinions carry greater weight. Members learn over time that challenging a pastor may bring social or spiritual consequences, including accusations of rebellion or division. The result is a quiet reinforcement of clerical dominance, irrespective of the theoretical flatness among elders.

---

III. Causes of the Perceptual Gap

A. Structural Invisibility

Because the inner workings of elder elections, Council deliberations, and doctrinal decisions are largely hidden from lay view, members often see only the front-facing results of hierarchical administration. Even when minutes or summaries are published, they are seldom read or fully comprehended by the average member.

B. Functional vs. Formal Flatness

Ministers speak of equality among elders; members experience inequality between themselves and those elders. The confusion arises when a formally flat clerical structure is mistaken for an absence of hierarchy in the lived experience of the whole church. In reality, the absence of hierarchy among elders may coexist with clear hierarchy between clergy and laity.

C. Clerical Encapsulation

Ministers often socialize and work primarily with other ministers, shaping their perception of the church through peer interaction. Meanwhile, lay members inhabit a different experience entirely, one where they are recipients of decisions but not participants in making them. This creates epistemic distance and communication breakdown.

---

IV. Theological Implications

The Bible presents multiple models of church governance—from charismatic leadership under Moses and the judges, to the apostolic council in Acts, to the bishop/elder structures of the pastoral epistles. The UCG appeals to the Acts 15 model of collective leadership. However, the absence of lay involvement in decision-making contradicts the New Testament model of a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), where all members are spiritually engaged and valued contributors to the body of Christ.

Moreover, the tendency to restrict influence to ordained males cuts against the New Testament ethos of spiritual gifting distributed across the whole body (1 Corinthians 12). It risks turning ordination into a spiritual class system, even while rhetorically denying the existence of hierarchy.

---

V. Consequences of the Disjunct

A. Erosion of Trust

When ministers speak of flatness while members experience control, the credibility of leadership suffers. It becomes harder to trust sermons or policies when they seem disconnected from the practical realities of congregational life.

B. Disengagement

Lay members who feel powerless are less likely to volunteer, less likely to contribute financially, and more likely to become passive or disillusioned. Over time, this corrodes the health of the congregation and the vitality of the church’s mission.

C. Institutional Inflexibility

A structure that lacks lay feedback is poorly suited to reform or self-correction. Problems linger because decision-makers are not exposed to the full consequences of their decisions in the lives of ordinary people. The lack of accountability is amplified by the absence of lay mechanisms for recourse or redress.

---

VI. Proposals for Reconciliation

To bridge the gap between clerical perception and lay experience, the following reforms could be considered:

1. Lay Observers in the GCE: Allowing non-voting lay observers to attend and report on the General Conference could increase transparency and accountability.
2. Congregational Feedback Structures: Implement formal systems for members to express concerns or suggestions, with periodic reporting on how these are addressed.
3. Elected Local Representation: Introduce lay representatives who can speak for congregants at the local and regional levels, especially in administrative and financial matters.
4. Public Minutes and Explanations: Publish not only the outcomes of Council deliberations but also the theological rationale and minority views behind decisions.
5. Theological Reaffirmation of the Priesthood of All Believers: Teach and model the inclusion of all baptized members in the spiritual life and decision-making spirit of the church.

---

Conclusion

The United Church of God, like many churches emerging from authoritarian pasts, has made sincere efforts to avoid clerical tyranny. However, the perception of “flatness” among elders does not match the lived experience of ordinary members who feel surrounded by hierarchy and excluded from governance. Unless this gap is acknowledged and addressed, the church risks fostering alienation rather than unity, compliance rather than conviction, and institutional preservation rather than spiritual growth. A renewed commitment to transparency, shared responsibility, and theological integrity could reinvigorate the UCG as a truly participatory body—where “flatness” is not just a clerical experience but a congregational reality.

---

References

• United Church of God. (2023). Rules of Association and Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.ucg.org
• Wiersbe, W. (2002). The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: New Testament. David C. Cook.
• Avery Dulles. (2002). Models of the Church. Image Books.
• Bonhoeffer, D. (1954). Life Together. Harper & Row.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press.

Let me know if you would like a version with more theological exegesis or historical comparisons to other post-splinter church models.