Executive Summary

The removal of a recent Council of Elders question-and-answer session from the official archive of United Church of God (UCG) communications has raised pressing concerns among members. While the recording continues to circulate informally, its removal highlights deeper issues in church communication policy—balancing transparency, institutional authority, and ministerial discretion. This paper examines the dynamics at play, situates them within the broader framework of UCG governance, and suggests constructive paths forward for a healthier communications culture.

I. Background: The Event and Its Significance

A Council of Elders member conducted a Q&A session addressing member concerns about media efforts and ministry policy. Initially made available in the official archive of church messages, the recording was later withdrawn without explanation. Members, unwilling to lose access, preserved and circulated the audio independently.

This chain of events underscores a dual reality:

Institutional intent to control messaging and present a unified voice. Member desire for open access to leadership dialogue, even when unfiltered.

II. Historical Context of Church Communication Policy

The UCG, since its founding in 1995, has faced recurring challenges in balancing centralized oversight with member engagement. Two patterns are worth noting:

Centralized Control: Church media efforts (magazines, broadcasts, web platforms) are carefully vetted to ensure consistency with doctrinal positions. Grassroots Dissemination: In times of controversy (ministerial resignations, doctrinal debates, budgetary concerns), informal member-to-member sharing has often served as an alternative communications network.

The current incident fits into this long-standing tension between official channels and unofficial circulation.

III. Issues at Stake

1. Transparency vs. Institutional Caution

The removal of content without explanation risks fueling suspicion. Was it doctrinally imprecise? Politically sensitive? Administratively inconvenient? Absent clear rationale, members interpret removal as an attempt to silence rather than clarify.

2. Authority of the Council of Elders

When a Council member’s words are retracted, the question arises: does the Council speak with one voice, or as individual elders with varying emphases? The lack of distinction between “official pronouncements” and “pastoral dialogue” breeds confusion.

3. Media Policy and Member Trust

Official UCG communications emphasize outreach and doctrinal education. Yet, internal transparency often lags behind public-facing content. When internal Q&As vanish, members perceive a disconnect: the church speaks confidently to outsiders, but less openly to insiders.

4. Archival Integrity

The act of taking down a recording destabilizes the reliability of the church archive. Members must ask: if this recording can be removed, what else might be? Trust in the historical record is undermined.

IV. Broader Implications for UCG

Informal Networks as Default: When official channels are filtered, members turn to unofficial sharing—often less accurate, less charitable, and harder to contextualize. Perceived Leadership Insecurity: Content removal suggests leadership discomfort with open scrutiny, which may alienate younger generations who expect transparency. Risk of Polarization: Different factions may weaponize unofficial recordings, reading them as either suppressed “truth” or embarrassing “error.”

V. Toward a Healthier Communications Policy

A. Clear Categorization of Content

Distinguish official doctrinal statements from pastoral discussions and informal Q&A. Mark recordings as provisional or non-binding when appropriate.

B. Transparency in Removal Decisions

If content must be removed, provide a public explanation—whether for doctrinal clarity, factual correction, or pastoral sensitivity. Transparency turns potential scandal into an opportunity for instruction.

C. Strengthening Archival Integrity

Maintain unaltered internal archives, even if portions are restricted from public release. Offer annotated re-uploads clarifying context rather than erasing material.

D. Member Engagement

Encourage moderated forums for follow-up questions when Q&A sessions raise concerns. Use these opportunities to model humility, correction, and pastoral care rather than institutional silence.

VI. Conclusion

The removal of the recent Council of Elders Q&A recording is not an isolated incident but part of a larger struggle within the United Church of God to define its communications culture. Members desire transparency and historical consistency; leadership seeks unity and caution. Bridging this gap requires clearer policies, contextual explanations, and a commitment to integrity in archival practice.

The health of UCG’s future communications will not rest solely on doctrinal fidelity, but equally on the trust it builds—or erodes—through how it handles the voices of its own leaders.