Executive Summary

The separation between the United Church of God (UCG) and the Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA) in 2010 was not primarily a doctrinal dispute over Sabbath observance, holy days, or the gospel—it was a conflict over authority: how it should be exercised, how it should be shared, and how it should be restrained. The resulting division revealed deep-seated confusion about the biblical nature of authority within the Body of Christ and the balance between servant leadership and corporate governance.

This white paper analyzes:

The competing models of authority that contributed to the split. The theological roots of these models in Scripture and church history. The unresolved issues that still affect both organizations today. A biblically grounded framework for restoring right understanding of authority in the Church of God community.

I. Historical Context: The Roots of the Authority Crisis

A. The Legacy of Hierarchical Control in the Worldwide Church of God

Under Herbert W. Armstrong, the Worldwide Church of God functioned under a strong hierarchical model, justified by appeals to apostolic succession and the notion of “one-man rule under Christ.” Authority flowed from the top down, and loyalty was measured by submission to centralized government.

While this structure enabled unity and decisive action, it also fostered dependence on human authority and discouraged local initiative. When the doctrinal revolution of the 1990s dismantled that hierarchy, it left a generation of ministers and members distrustful of centralized power.

B. The Reaction: Collegial Governance in the United Church of God

When the UCG formed in 1995, it intentionally avoided a single-leader model. Its Council of Elders and General Conference of Elders were designed to provide checks and balances, reflecting shared leadership and representative accountability. The goal was to prevent domination and encourage collective discernment.

Yet this very structure introduced new tensions:

Who interprets “Christ’s leadership” when the Church acts corporately? How does one balance spiritual authority with administrative responsibility? How should dissent be handled without fracturing unity?

C. The 2010 Division and Its Subtext

The immediate causes of the 2010 split—personnel assignments, communication failures, and ministerial loyalty—were symptoms of a deeper conflict over the nature of authority.

Two implicit models had emerged:

Model

Description

Perceived Strengths

Perceived Weaknesses

Representative Authority (UCG)

Authority rests in the collective body of elders; decisions flow from deliberation and majority consent.

Prevents autocracy; encourages accountability.

Can become bureaucratic, slow, and politically factional.

Executive Authority (COGWA)

Authority rests in a streamlined executive structure with clear ministerial direction.

Enables efficiency and unified action.

Risks re-creating hierarchical control and reducing participation.

The split thus revealed unresolved theological uncertainty about how Christ governs His Church through human instruments.

II. The Biblical Foundations of Authority

A. Christ as the Only Head

Scripture is unambiguous that Christ is the sole Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18). All human authority in the Church is derivative, conditional, and accountable to Him.

No council, board, or pastorate possesses independent sovereignty.

B. The Servant Model

Christ explicitly forbade worldly models of domination:

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:25–26, NKJV).

Authority in the Church is functional, not positional. It exists for service, not status. Elders are stewards, not lords (1 Peter 5:2–3).

C. The Collegial Model in the Apostolic Church

The book of Acts presents a pattern of shared leadership and consensus seeking:

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) resolved doctrinal questions through open discussion and collective judgment guided by the Spirit. Paul and Barnabas functioned as co-laborers rather than hierarchical superior and subordinate. Even apostolic authority was persuasive rather than coercive (Philemon 8–9).

This model combines order with humility: authority exercised in plurality under the Spirit.

D. The Principle of Mutual Submission

Ephesians 5:21 enjoins “submitting to one another in the fear of God.”

Authority in the Church therefore involves mutual accountability—leaders to members, members to leaders, and all to Christ.

III. The Theological Fault Lines Exposed in the Split

1. Confusion Between Spiritual and Corporate Authority

Both UCG and COGWA adopted legal corporate structures for stewardship and compliance, but the conflation of corporate governance with spiritual headship blurred distinctions. Some ministers viewed administrative decisions as spiritual disobedience if resisted; others saw administrative oversight as illegitimate clericalism. The biblical model differentiates between organizational management and spiritual leadership without denying the necessity of both.

2. Overreaction to Past Abuse

Having experienced authoritarian excess under Worldwide Church of God, many elders overcorrected by adopting a quasi-democratic skepticism toward centralized authority. This pendulum swing produced paralysis in some cases and resentment in others.

3. Personality-Driven Allegiances

The dispute’s intensity revealed that personal loyalty often supplanted theological reflection. This tendency suggests insufficient cultivation of a biblically rooted understanding of authority independent of personalities or structures.

4. Neglect of Reconciliation Theology

The failure to address interpersonal conflict biblically (Matthew 18; Galatians 6:1) showed that procedural appeals replaced spiritual restoration. Administrative mechanisms cannot heal spiritual wounds.

IV. Continuing Issues in Both Fellowships

Even years after the split, both organizations exhibit lingering distortions in their approach to authority:

Distortion

Manifestation

Biblical Correction

Proceduralism

Overreliance on committees and bylaws to solve spiritual problems

Zechariah 4:6 — “Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit.”

Institutional self-protection

Avoidance of accountability for fear of losing credibility

2 Corinthians 7:10 — Godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation.

Deference to hierarchy

Ministers hesitant to challenge leadership decisions

Acts 5:29 — “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Cynical independence

Members or elders dismiss authority altogether

Hebrews 13:17 — Respect legitimate oversight that watches for your souls.

These conditions show that the deeper issue was never merely structural but spiritual—a misunderstanding of the heart of authority as sacrificial service.

V. A Biblical Framework for Restoring Right Authority

A. Authority as Service, Not Status

Every exercise of authority must aim at edification, not control:

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45).

Thus, leadership meetings should emphasize pastoral care, mentoring, and reconciliation, not merely policy or management.

B. Accountability as Fellowship

Authority must operate in transparent relationship:

Leaders accountable to their peers (Galatians 2:11–14). Members accountable to the body (1 Corinthians 5). Both accountable to Scripture.

C. Governance as Stewardship of Trust

Administrative systems are tools for stewarding trust, not substitutes for it. Whether conciliar or executive, governance must cultivate trust through consistent communication, shared prayer, and openness to correction.

D. Restoration Through Confession and Forgiveness

The biblical path to healing authority is confession, repentance, and forgiveness (James 5:16). Organizational reform without moral humility cannot repair broken authority relationships.

E. Rediscovering the Role of the Holy Spirit

Both groups must move from legal rationality to spiritual discernment. The Spirit, not structure, unites the Church (1 Corinthians 12:13). Meetings and councils should begin with earnest supplication for the Spirit’s guidance rather than political calculation.

VI. Recommended Steps Toward a Biblical Renewal of Authority

Joint Theological Study on Authority Commission elders from both fellowships to produce a shared doctrinal paper on biblical authority, distinguishing between spiritual and administrative dimensions. Ministerial Seminars on Servant Leadership Annual retreats focused on humility, conflict resolution, and the example of Christ washing the disciples’ feet (John 13). Transparent Governance Reforms Publish minutes, policies, and decisions to members to model accountability and rebuild trust. Inter-Organizational Dialogues Encourage informal fellowship among ministers across organizational lines to foster mutual understanding and healing. Member Education Series Sermon series on the biblical meaning of authority, submission, and service to correct misconceptions and prepare the ground for eventual reconciliation. Annual Day of Reconciliation A shared fast or day of prayer in both organizations seeking God’s intervention to restore unity and right governance.

VII. Conclusion: The Ongoing Test of Authority

The division between UCG and COGWA was never only about structure—it was about the heart of leadership in the Church of God. Both bodies sought to follow Christ but did so through differing human conceptions of authority: one fearing control, the other fearing chaos. Both errors stem from incomplete trust in the Headship of Christ.

True authority in the Church must mirror Christ’s example:

Rooted in truth, not personality. Expressed through service, not domination. Shared in love, not suspicion.

Until authority is re-understood as a sacrificial trust rather than a right to rule or a system to control, the Body will remain divided in spirit even when doctrines align.

Reformation of authority—through humility, confession, and renewed submission to Christ—is therefore the unfinished task of both UCG and COGWA, and the key to any future restoration of unity.