Executive summary

On November 1, 2025, Bill Watson—long-time CGI minister and pastor of the Medina, Ohio congregation—publicly announced that he and the Medina church would separate from the Church of God International (CGI) and operate independently under the name Church of God Independent Ministries. CGI responded on November 4, 2025 with an open letter clarifying the organization’s position, the policy issues at stake, and the options that had been presented to Watson earlier in 2025. The split caps several years of tension around compliance with CGI’s field-church policies, branding and fundraising controls, and editorial direction for public evangelism. 

While some in the wider Church of God (COG) orbit will read the separation primarily through a doctrinal lens (e.g., the prominence of British-Israelism and eschatology in Medina messaging), the proximate drivers are organizational and governance: charter compliance, name and asset control, and centralized oversight of outward-facing media. Reports in mid-2025 had already signaled a growing distance between Medina and Tyler (CGI HQ), including Medina’s creation of an independent web presence and media initiatives. 

Scope note on board changes. The user’s prompt references the pastor’s replacement on the Board “by two women.” As of this writing, CGI’s public statement about the split and its news/blog archive do not publish a current board roster confirming such appointments. Independent round-ups confirm the separation and name change for Medina, but they likewise do not list a revised CGI Board. This paper therefore treats the “two women” item as unverified and analyzes it as a scenario with likely reactions if/when officially confirmed. 

1) Background and timeline

Pre-2025: CGI’s governance separates financial/administrative oversight (Board of Directors) from ecclesiastical oversight (Ministerial Council). Field congregations operate under a Manual for Field Churches and brand/charter rules, including restrictions on independent fundraising and use of the “Church of God International” name.  Mid-2025: Public commentary documents Medina’s growing independence: a new website and media program (“Wall Watchers”), and ongoing differences over messaging and policy compliance.  Aug 6, 2025: CGI Board Chair (Vance Stinson) writes to Watson outlining three paths: return to full policy compliance; request independent affiliate status; or declare independence. (CGI later publishes this paragraph in its open letter.)  Nov 1, 2025: Watson announces separation; the congregation will be known as Church of God Independent Ministries; video timestamp referenced by independent COG news site.  Nov 4, 2025: CGI publishes “An Open Letter to Bill Watson”, clarifying the “three options,” the earlier conditional approval for Medina’s use of the CGI name tied to a building purchase (July 1, 2024), and stating the core dispute was organizational/procedural non-compliance, not doctrine. 

2) Immediate causes and structural drivers

A. Charter and policy compliance

CGI’s letter asserts Medina “operated outside the parameters” of policies for chartered churches. The cited issues include fundraising/solicitation beyond local boundaries and branding/name control—all flashpoints in federated church systems where the center aims to protect the brand and donor channels. 

B. Branding and asset control

CGI’s written affirmation permitting “Church of God International, Medina” was explicitly limited to facilitating a building purchase and revocable upon independence—standard nonprofit brand governance. The dispute over whether the right was perpetual or conditional became a public misunderstanding that CGI addressed with direct quotation. 

C. Messaging and editorial direction

Independent commentary through 2025 describes a widening gap between Medina’s prophetic emphasis (including continued, explicit British-Israelism) and CGI’s broader editorial mix and speaker rotation (e.g., “Armor of God” lineup changes). Tensions over who controls the public microphone often surface as doctrinal, but they operationalize as editorial governance and platform access. 

3) Stakeholder map

CGI Board & HQ (Tyler): Mandate to enforce policies uniformly; safeguard brand, donor confidence, and legal conformity across chartered churches. Open letter tone aims at transparency, diffusing the narrative of “ultimatums.”  Medina leadership & members: Desire for local primacy over messaging, fundraising, and programming; confidence that stronger prophecy-centric media better serves their mission. Public renaming signals full autonomy.  Ministerial Council (CGI): Arbiter for clergy/affiliate status; a forum that can soften schism costs (e.g., independent affiliate pathway) while protecting core polity.  Wider COG community (UCG, COGWA, LCG, PCG, independents): Observers will classify the split along familiar axes (governance centralization vs. localism; evangelism strategy; prophetic emphasis; culture-war tone) and recalibrate fellowship lines accordingly. 

4) How this will be read across the COG landscape

A. Governance-first interpretation (moderate and institutional COGs)

UCG/COGWA-adjacent observers are likely to read this as a healthy assertion of governance standards rather than a theological rupture: CGI set options early; Medina chose independence; the brand and fundraising boundaries are normal non-profit hygiene. The open letter’s publication within 72 hours of Medina’s announcement underlines a bid for narrative control and reassurance to donors. 

B. Doctrinal-signal interpretation (prophecy-centric clusters)

Groups prioritizing high-salience prophecy content may sympathize with Medina’s editorial autonomy, viewing central gatekeeping as mission-throttling. The decision to re-brand quickly positions Medina to harvest audience continuity (sermon stream, Feast presence, media series) without litigation over marks. 

C. “Another Armstrongist micro-schism” (critical commentators)

Ex-WCG and watchdog sites will fold this into the long pattern of personality-driven fissures over platform control and apocalyptic messaging, predicting limited but durable diaspora clustering around Medina content. 

5) The (reported) board diversification: if/when confirmed

Although unverified at present via CGI’s official channels, the scenario of replacing Watson’s board seat with two women would be symbolically significant in the ACOG world, where boards and elder bodies have historically been male-dominated. If confirmed, likely reactions:

Institutional pragmatists: Applaud as talent-first, optics-aware governance that broadens donor appeal and reflects women’s de facto leadership in operations, events, and media. Traditionalists: Question alignment with long-standing polity norms; some may frame it as capitulation to contemporary trends, potentially testing fellowship in more conservative pockets. Younger and external audiences: Read it as modernization that could improve media credibility and volunteer recruitment.

Again, this analysis is contingent on confirmation. CGI has publicly explained the policy side of the split, but has not (yet) published a new board roster corroborating such appointments. 

6) Risk register for both entities

Risk

CGI (Tyler)

Medina (CG Independent Ministries)

Donor/attendance churn

Short-term uncertainty; need to reassure that polity equals stability

Dependence on pastor-centric brand; conversion rate from CGI channels

Narrative control

Mitigated by prompt, detailed open letter

Must articulate positive vision beyond “split story”

IP/branding disputes

Low—clear paper trail on name permission & revocation

Must fully scrub legacy “CGI” branding to avoid confusion

Ministerial goodwill

Watch for ripple splits if others share Medina’s grievances

Risk of isolation from speaking circuits and shared Feast logistics

Media capacity

Opportunity to signal bench depth (program hosts, writers)

Must sustain consistent output without CGI’s apparatus

Sources underpinning the table’s items include CGI’s name-use clarification, the three-options framing (compliance / affiliate / independence), and independent reporting of Medina’s new identity and media posture. 

7) Strategic scenarios (12–18 months)

Clean separation, low drama (Base case). Medina consolidates its audience; CGI rebalances media hosts and reaffirms field-church policy enforcement. Limited cross-traffic after an initial churn period.  Soft-landing affiliate corridor. Medina later pursues some level of affiliate cooperation (Feast coordination, pulpit exchanges) through MC channels—common in the COG “archipelago” when doctrinal distance is modest but governance needs diverge. (Implied by the independent affiliate option mentioned in CGI’s letter.)  Echo splits / local copycats. Other congregations cite the Medina path to argue for local media autonomy; CGI’s firm policy stance dissuades most, but a few independents emerge. This is consistent with historical COG fragmentation dynamics documented by commentators. 

8) Recommendations

For CGI (Tyler)

Publish a current governance roster (Board & MC) and a short policy explainer page linking to the Field Church Manual sections on branding, fundraising, and affiliate status. This stabilizes expectations and reduces rumor velocity.  Proactive donor communications: brief email + site note reinforcing that policy uniformity protects members, donors, and the mission; include an FAQ on “What does independence mean for local brethren?” Media bench signaling: feature a clear host rotation (e.g., Armor of God, Prove All Things), with dates and topics—showing continuity of evangelism output. 

For Medina (CG Independent Ministries)

Complete brand separation: legal name, logos, domain, donation systems—avoid any potential confusion with “CGI” to keep relations civil and reduce IP friction, aligning with CGI’s published expectations.  Governance transparency: publish bylaws, board bios, and financial controls to assure supporters that independence includes accountability. Bridge strategy: maintain cordial ties for Feast logistics and pastoral care overflow, leveraging the independent affiliate concept informally even if formal affiliation isn’t sought. 

9) How others in the Church of God community will likely view it

UCG/COGWA/LCG leadership circles: “A familiar governance dust-up resolved in an orderly way; not a grand doctrinal crisis.” Expect sympathetic but cautious distance until new norms settle.  Independent congregations & small ministries: “Proof that local media control is achievable.” Expect invitations for joint evangelistic projects and Feast speaking.  Critics/commentators: “Another personality/platform split” reinforcing the narrative of ACOG fragmentation; limited macro impact beyond the immediate donor/audience footprint. 

10) Appendices (key primary materials)

CGI open letter (Nov 4, 2025) – establishes policy context, the three options, and name-use conditions.  Independent round-up with video timestamp of Nov 1 announcement – confirms separation and new name (“Church of God Independent Ministries”).  Contextual commentary from mid-2025 – documents pre-split drift (new website/program, messaging posture).  CGI polity documents – Welcome overview and Field Church Manual sections that frame the charter/brand/fundraising expectations. 

A note on evidentiary confidence

High confidence: The fact of the split, the date of Medina’s announcement, the CGI open letter and its quotations, the name-use condition, and the three-option framework (compliance / affiliate / independence).  Medium confidence: Pre-split editorial/messaging tensions and platform changes, as reconstructed from public commentary. (Useful for context, but not determinative.)  Unverified (treated as scenario): The pastor’s replacement on the CGI Board “by two women.”