The buzz, according to a report received by AW, is that John Meakin and "honest, compassionate and effective leader" David Hulme (see below) had a "difference of opinion" over how the tithe money was being spent. Vision, it seems, is a thirsty beast, and there are those in COG-AIC who apparently believe that the dosh spent on the magazine might be better used in other ways: surely a deja vous moment, given the issues surrounding Hulme's departure from the UCG presidency.
Did Meakin walk out or was he pushed? That isn't clear, but rumor has it that John was spoiled for choice, being offered positions at both LCG and UCG.
Given the glowing professional endorsements of David Hulme on Naymz, I'm actually surprised that John could as much as raise his eyes to the Great One's shining presence. A sampling:
David is a highly intelligent individual, who is both creative and highly literate. Peter Nathan.
David seeks to know, live by and disseminate truth. He is an honest, compassionate and effective leader as a result of years of experience and practice of ethical and moral standards. Dr F Paul Roberts.
Knowing David Hulme has enhanced my life. Tom Fitzpatrick.
Dr. Hulme is a gentleman of highest integrity and moral standards. Bill Hendricks.
David is exceptionally capable and a keenly perceptive expert in International Relations. I ... have watched him always take the high road. His fair-minded approach and balanced outlook shines through whenever he speaks or writes. John Prohs.
David is the most intelligent and yet balanced person I know personally. A delight to be with him. You can trust him in anything. Winfried Fritz.
He is one of the most ethical, honest, and intelligent people I have ever known. Don Mitchum.
David Hulme is a scholar of the highest integrity... Gina Stepp.
Dear Lord, this man is almost perfect! One might note however that an endorsement from John Meakin is conspicuously absent from the hagiography. One might also note that something seems to be missing from the potted bio.
David Hulme holds a doctorate in International Relations from the University of Southern California with an emphasis on the Middle East. He has also studied theology, psychology and philosophy. He is the author of "Identity, Ideology and the Jerusalem Question" (Palgrave 2006) and a contributor to "What Makes Us Human?" by Charles Pasternak (ed) (Oneworld 2007). David Hulme is publisher of the quarterly journal, Vision, president of Vision Media Productions and chairman of Vision.org Foundation. In the Fall 2008 semester, he is lecturing in Middle East Politics at the University of Southern California.
What? No direct reference to his position as leader of an obscure schismatic sect? An oversight surely!
14 comments:
Why hasn't someone said..
"David Hulme is an Alpha Male - a Geriatric Love Machine in the great tradition of $$$ - HWA, GTA, Joseph Tkach, Joseph Smith, Mohammad - $$$."
Will the Meakin inherit the church?
As I've mentioned previously on this blogsite, for several years I used to attend Hulme's tiny group, the COG-AIA.
It's interesting to note that at least HALF of the glowing testimonials to David Hulme's character are from members of his own group, several of them paid employees, several of them ministers, one of them the wife of a minister.
So this source of information is very subjective and questionable at best.
This is not to say that Hulme doesn't have his good qualities - at least he recognizes the fact that virtually ALL of the COG spin-offs are mindless, unoriginal, copy-cat clones of their parent group (the WCG), and he tries to at least appear distinctively different in projecting his group's image to the public, even though behind the façade it's the same theological kettle of fish, with many of the same corporate dysfunctions of all the other COG splinters.
At this time there is a lot of shuffling within the various COG's. Not only in the membership but it is also in the ministry. Only the bigger names are being mentioned. Numerous elders and deacons have moved as well as members. No one organization has the hold on or the control of the membership as did WCG. While there is the "loyal, hard line" membership many are waking up to the authoritative dictatorial government. Most of the COG's have "seized" control of salvation (at least in their minds and in some of the minds of the membership), which is truly reprehensible. They twist the scripture....such as Revelation 3, saying the doors are doors of preaching. "So if you want to escape the tribulation then you must support the preaching of the gospel. This means send in your $$. Oh and by the way if you are not with our organization you will not only have to go through the tribulation you will probably not be in the first resurrection."
Where in the context of Revelation 3 does it say anything about preaching. The context talks about salvation. John 10 says Christ is the door. Other places in scripture describe a door of salvation. The context would dictate that the doors of Revelation 3 are doors of salvation. This scripture says that no man can shut open the doors of salvation. Yet these men who proclaim themselves minister of Christ tell their membership that they control the door. Only if you are with them and letting them tell you what the Bible says will you have salvation. How arrogant.
Most of those 'glowing' testimonials are from members of his splinter cult. Given the history many of these people have in Armstrongism NONE of them have any credibility!
They are just as abusive and vindictive as the Hulmerous One is.
"What? No direct reference to his position as leader of an obscure schismatic sect? An oversight surely!"
I sense that the sect exists mainly to fund these other ventures.
Doug Ward wrote:
"I sense that the sect exists mainly to fund these other ventures."
You sense correctly, Doug. Even though Hulme seems a cut above (intellectually-speaking) the typical COG leader, it's my view that he knows a good thing when he sees it - and to have maybe two thousand or so people around the world eager to give you large percentages of their income to promote your professional credentials, hey, that's not a bad deal!
I have never been a part of DH’s group, but recognise most of the names.
Endorsements of a person would carry more (or less) weight if the person making the endorsement also revealed their relationship with the person in question.
e.g. from the list of 21 on Naymz:-
I am his Father-in-law, and also run the German branch of his business. He pays my salary
I am the treasurer of his business. He pays my salary
I am one of the chief executives of his business. He pays my salary
I am one of the employees of his business, he pays my salary, and I would like to be promoted.
I am the wife of one of the chief executives of his business.
Most of the endorsements would come under one of the above. Of the remaining probably all would come under the heading:-
I follow the beliefs of this man, send money into his business, and believe I must be a part of his business, or my future is very bleak.
I use the term ‘business’, as clearly he does not words like ‘church’ or ‘religion’ to appear on the Naymz site.
"What? No direct reference to his position as leader of an obscure schismatic sect? An oversight surely!"
I am reminded of HWA’s explanation that the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation was founded so he could speak at banquets of international so-called leaders as being the head of something truly significant like the AICF, without being “embarrassed” that his job was just heading up a church.
aic was constantly reaasuring members that the media efforts were going to get really big and far reaching really soon. Kind of like vaporware, we never really saw it materialize, so John's reported desire to focus resources elsewhere after years of these efforts going nowhere is certainly understandable.
The AICF eventually ran into some legal issues because a previous group had the same acronym - the American Israeli Cultural Foundation, I believe it was called.
So it was shortened to simply the Ambassador Foundation.
I know this because at the time this happened I used to do the artwork involved in the WCG/AC/AF stationary.
Shoot, if these ministers are metriculating amongst the ACOGs to find a visible work, why don't they join up with TBN? That is the most highly visible outlet for the preaching of the Gospel! Doctrine shouldn't be a problem, because TBN features about half a dozen Messianic Jews. Oops, I forgot! TBN has accountability standards.
Never mind.
BB
BB
In UK we had a comic book hero called Dan Dare and his evil enemy was the Mekon. Now it seems Meredith as Dan Dare and John Meakin are teaming up to bring us a new adventure called Dan Dare and the Return of the Meakin
http://www.weaselwords.com.au/index3.htm
Post a Comment