Check the MD Mailbag

Ambassador Watch  A weekly E-zine 

Check the previous AW issue

Issue XIX - August 30  2002

Bernie, is that you?

Money Woes:  The WCG seems to be putting a brave face on the continuing slide in its financial fortunes. Here is what Ron Kelly wrote in the September WN:

PASADENA-After several months of reasonably steady donations, July income trailed off about eight percent when compared to July 2001. Mail income for the month was just over $1.6 million. Other sources of income brought the total monthly revenues to $1.7 million.

The year-to-date total income and gain on sale stands at $15.5 million. That’s a five percent increase over the first seven months of last year. We are thankful that we are still benefiting from the Orr, Minnesota, summer camp sale and the Legacy Partners deposit when they withdrew their bid to buy the headquarters property. As I have pointed out in previous issues, these funds are one-time shots and will not be used for income comparisons for future years. However, we are thankful for these resources at this time.

And then on the expense side of the ledger, while we have received more than $15.5 million in cash, our expenses have exceeded $17.5 million. Thus we have taken just over $2 million from the reserve funds. However, that is almost spot on the projections we had made for the budget year...

We regularly discuss how we could move more rapidly to implement our new financial model, but we just haven’t been able to devise a plan that will effectively maintain our financial obligations. But we continue to explore every conceivable option and will always keep you informed regarding church finances.


British FOT Info:  The Festival season is upon us. For those in the UK, there's a site that lists all the possible venues where various COGs will gather - ranging from Hulme's group to the WCG:  http://www.herbertwarmstrong.net/sites.htm. Here you'll find information on some of the groups that can't be found elsewhere. Among those groups listed:

The Church of God in Wales: A splinter from the Hulme sect, which is a splinter of the UCG, which split from the WCG. - http://www.cogiw.org/  According to this group:

The Church of God in Wales formed in early 1995 hoping to return to the foundations God laid in His Church through His apostle; Mr. Herbert Armstrong. Though it later aligned with United, it also retained its own identity due to many doctrinal reservations. When it was clear that the doctrinal issues could not be resolved within United, The Church of God in Wales separated in 1998 and tentatively aligned with David Hulme. In March 2002 it once again felt the need to become independent in an effort to hold to the foundations originally laid in the Church through the apostle God sent to us.

And, surprisingly, The Church of God and Saints of Christ is also listed: Surprising because this is not a WCG splinter, and is unrelated to the Adventist/COG family. It was founded in the 1890s by "Prophet William Saunders Crowdy", an African-American raised on a slave plantation. The group keeps the Sabbath and holy days. They believe that all Jews were originally Black and that modern-day Blacks are descendants of the "lost tribes." They apparently number 30,000 to 40,000 and are sometimes described as "Black Jews."

Whistler's FOT:  And talking of Tabernacles, MD's regular columnist has whistled up a seasonal filibuster. This month's column is called Form Over Substance - A Modern Day Feast Story.

WCG's Fall Festival Flop: Another item from JLF.

The Fall Festival 2002, as many have noted, is being handled differently this year.

The WCG HQ directive (churchwide in USA and Canada) is that all those who want to attend the Festival must register and pay the registration fee.

According to one salaried pastor, allowances will be made for "hardship cases". These people will have to identify themselves and ask for what the pastor called a "scholarship".

Why the sudden change when in the past visitors and others were welcome in a somewhat open door policy? The Fall Festivals must pay for themselves because of the ongoing financial crisis in the WCG. If they do not they may not be held in that area next year.

One area potentially on the chopping block is the Seaside Fall Festival in Oregon.

Here is a memo sent by Joel Lillengreen, Festival coordinator.

"Registration As of July, we have under 100 households registered, which is at least 50% less than the 140 definite responses we received in our spring survey.

Currently the income for our site is running only 50% of what it needs to be if the fall festival is to continue at Seaside in the future. Any one who wants to attend and is not a paid registered single or family, please register ASAP.

In theory, our budget is based on the collected registration funds. For the fall festival to continue at Seaside we need to have at least 170 paid registered families or singles.

If any do plan to attend Seaside please have them fill out one of the attached registration forms or they can register on the internet at www.wcg.org. But they do need to register this week if they wish to receive the housing info in time.

Again I thank you for your prayers and support. Though this event occurs during the fall, it is totally a new covenant celebration of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

WCG Fall Festival 2002
Do you feel WCG is creating a failure situation to justify dropping the FOT in the near future?
Quite likely
Not at all

View current results

Forgive us for even raising the question, but could it be that the WCG's festivals are being deliberately set up to fail? It seems a totally bizarre suggestion. And yet poor numbers and a financial loss would provide cult HQ with the perfect excuse to drop the FOT tradition entirely... something we're led to believe some in the inner cabal would see as a positive move forward. And you have to wonder why anyone would want to attend an increasingly gray, insipid, dour propaganda-fest anyway? Here's the experience of one MD reader::

During the Feast of Tab in 2000, my curiosity got the better of me and I went to Palm Springs. I had this hope in the back of my mind that I could still have the good times of a "Best Feast Ever", while basking under the leadership of a "New and Improved" Worldwide Church of God. In hindsight, I still cannot believe how naive I was at the time, even two years ago.

What I can remember was a total lack of activities and a lot of hard sell. No planned Family Day. No activities for teens, singles or the elderly. Just going in to listen to sermons struggling to convince us how much better the new WCG is supposed to be. I also got this constant impression that it was very important for the WCG's leadership to be held in a highly esteemed, non-cult status in the eyes of the Protestant community...

If anyone is interested in dropping into a Feast of Tab like I did, please think again.

The full letter is currently available at the top of the Mailbag page.


Paul and Apostleship: Ron Brendel's article on Apostleship inspired Dennis Diehl to pen some provocative thoughts on Paul's understanding of what it meant to be an Apostle. Here's what he says:

While I appreciate the intent of Ron's article on Apostleship, I have to take exception with the use of Galatians 1:18 to show the absolute yieldedness and deference that Paul gave to the Peter and James prior to his ministry to the gentiles. From the entire context of Galatians 1 and 2 it seems obvious the opposite is true. Paul was pronouncing a curse on anyone who preached differently from his gospel perspective (vs.9). He made a big point to say that NO MAN taught him anything which is confirmed by his contempt for the Jerusalem apostles expressed later in the second chapter.

Paul claimed to have been not called, but set aside from BEFORE BIRTH as only Jesus and Jeremiah had apparently been before him. (:15) When you are called from the womb, you don't necessarily have to appeal to anyone else for authority to preach your ideas. Not only this, but Paul said that God had "revealed his Son IN me". Notice this is not TO me, but IN me. There is a lot theological discussion over what Paul may really have meant, but combined with the previous verse about being called in the womb and being very very special compared to others...it may be a more extreme statement than the english conveys. This one statement of Paul negates Luke's Damascus road conversion account, an event which Paul in his own writings never describes. Luke went to great lengths give the appearance of harmony between Paul and the Jerusalem church, but Paul himself does not and contradicts Luke's account of his calling. I doubt the Damascus road event ever really happened, or at least did not happen as described. It is an account filled with contradictions. Notice that Paul says he went to Arabia for three years before ever going to Jerusalem. In Luke's account in Acts, he went to see the Jerusalem leadership immediately. They can't both be right. We have to go with Paul's account.

Whenever we read of Paul's trip to Arabia for three years we always have to deal with "what did he do there?" The standard answer is that "Jesus taught him", which finds no credibility in scripture or history. Three years is a long time. It seems Paul found something there that became the foundation of his teaching to the Gentiles. Whatever it was, it was not something the Jerusalem Apostles knew of or agreed with. It was after this period that Paul went for a short two weeks to Jerusalem and the meeting seems unremarkable. He even has to say, as Paul often seems compelled to do, that "I lie not", which always indicates he was being accused of lying about this. Rather than deferring to Peter, it seems , when you understand the dynamics of Paul's personality vs. James's, Paul was spending time with the weaker of the apostles, Peter, whom he felt was the weak link between himself and James. Peter was the swing vote we might say in Paul being accepted and Paul spent his time with Peter for this reason, not out of great respect for him. Peter is mostly portrayed as this fence sitter in Acts and in Paul's estimation of him in their controversy with each other over eating with gentiles in Galatians.

After 14 years of being left to do his thing, Paul then once again goes back to Jerusalem where in Galatians 2, one does not have to read much between the lines to see that the men of "reputation" (:2), "false brethren" (:3), "seemed to be somewhat" (:6) and "seemed to be pillars" (:9) were James, Cephas ( who may not necessarily a reference to Peter as in the previous verse, Paul speaks of Peter in a much more positive context and his counterpart. ) and John, rather important figures, though not to Paul in the Jerusalem Church! I am sure James would have been shocked to know that Peter had been given such high credentials by Paul or at least someone might have told him about it first. Paul then goes on to throw in a bit about them only asking him to help the poor which he was glad to do but makes no mention of the fact that if this meeting is the same mentioned in Acts 15, Paul was also asked to apply the Noehide rules of conduct for gentiles to become Christians, which of course Paul completely ignores and tells the Corinthians to ignore as well as the teachings of weak and ignorant believers. (I Cor 8: meat offered to idols etc.)

After all this we find the account of Peter's duplicity as described by Paul , over eating and table fellowship. Again, we find Paul attacking Peter's "inbetweeness" and takes advantage of Peter's fear of James teachings contrary to Paul's, to make a point. Why if Paul was so willing to say "if meat causes my brother to be offended, I will eat no meat until the kingdom comes" does he throw this in Peter's face? Simple authority to do so seems to be the answer. Paul was no man's worker bee. Paul was called from womb and going to set the tone, not Peter, not James and not the Jerusalem church.

At any rate, I know many COG groups struggle proof-texting their way into explaining their particular leadership style and of course finding it coincidentally to be God's chosen way as well. But the cold hard fact is that Paul was a renegade according to James and the parent church , with Peter seemingly caught in the middle, and used by Paul as it suited him. I believe the book of James was a personal rebuttal of Paul's perspectives in the book of Romans, which is why the view of these two men are not reconcilable or in any harmony.

Most attempts at finding the God approved way of Church government usually are undertaken after men have established themselves as leaders doing things as their own personalities and visions dictate. No one ever seems to say , "oops, I am doing it wrong," and steps down. Groups separate in disagreement, tempers flair, new leaders and new "ways to be" arise as "God's way" and the cycle repeats itself. What you see today in the COG splits and such, is a repeat of standard Christian church history going back to the visions of Paul and his head-banging with the Jerusalem church and James, "the Lord's brother". How James, who never in Jesus ministry does anything but come to retrieve Jesus as being insane, rose to head of the Jerusalem church is another story. But it would be a familiar one...

Dennis is a former Pastor in the Worldwide Church of God.

Bob Thiel's response and Keith Stump's reply: Bob Thiel addressed our latest editorial this week on his COGwriter site, but got some of his facts wrong. Keith writes:

To set the record straight, it was not "a couple of months ago" (as Thiel states) but rather FIVE YEARS ago that I left the employ of the WCG.  Since that time, my paycheck has come from the law firm at which I work as a legal editor.  Thus, my support for the WCG's doctrinal changes has nothing to do with being paid by the WCG, as Thiel insinuates.

 You can read Bob's comments here - scroll down to the 08/24/02 p.m. entry. Keith's reply is published in full in this week's mailbag.

Dateline Pasadena: Postings from HQ 

From the Pasadena Star News: Church seeks public input on property plans

By Mary Schubert
Staff Writer

PASADENA -- The owners of the Ambassador College property, on the verge of hiring an architect, have begun soliciting public input on how best to develop the former campus and a related property in Old Pasadena.

The Worldwide Church of God hired SheaHomes, a residential developer,last month to be a consultant on the project. A long-debated plan by Irvine developer Legacy Partners to put 1,700 multifamily homes on the properties fell through in April, and the church has been regrouping since then.

The goal this time around is to come up with a development that will be embraced by Pasadena residents and city leaders because it will be crafted with considerable input from them.

"We're very aware of the mistakes that (Legacy Partners) made [MD comment: oh, so it's Legacy who made all the goof ups huh? Certainly not Bernie and the WCG!], and we don't intend to make them again," said Bernard Schnippert, director of finance and planning for the Worldwide Church of God.

"We're very sensitive to the design issue, the traffic issue and the density issue," he said. "The final design is going to have to be pleasing on all those levels, and the Legacy design was not."

To that end, the church has embarked on what it calls a "listening" campaign a community outreach effort, first to local civic groups and then to the general public in meetings that will be widely publicized.

Ambassador College covers about 34 acres, bordered by Green Street, Orange Grove and Del Mar boulevards, and St. John Avenue. That land known for its lush gardens and many old, historic buildings is often referred to as the "west campus."

The church also owns 14 acres in Old Pasadena, known as the "east campus," roughly bordered by Green, Del Mar, Pasadena and De Lacey avenues. Those buildings have long been empty, and tentative plans call for a "transit-oriented urban village" to be built there.

"We're looking for a tasteful design that's able to emphasize the urban character of the east campus and the garden beauty and cultural heritage of the west campus, and do so with a density that's appropriate," Schnippert said.

Members of the West Pasadena Residents Association, a homeowners group that represents the neighborhoods near Ambassador College, will continue monitoring the proposals especially for the former campus.

The Legacy Partners project "was way too dense and way too intense a usage. You couldn't see the gardens from Orange Grove or Green Street," said WPRA President Vince Farhat.

"It should be compatible with the density and scale of the surrounding neighborhood," he said. "We understand and accept that the church will do a much more dense development on the east campus.

"We want to give the church the space and the time they need to come up with a plan," Farhat said. "We need to keep an open mind until they have something concrete to show us."

New material from Gary Scott:  New pages on Gary Scott's site include an open letter to a WCG minister, and a reflection on Bertrand Russell and Atheism.

Dogma Day: Thanks to Tom who forwarded this rather apt bit of satire. Let's see, that looks like Gerry and Spanky and Chuckles and Pack-man. But, um, which is which?

Brandenburg Concerto - Second Movement: Dateline Pasadena reports that UCG's colorful Michael Brandenburg is back, and AOL members can once again glean forgotten truths of Armstrongism through his rambling posts. This time round Michael promises to include original material rather than simply recycling ancient articles cut and pasted from Don Tiger's CDs. 

WCG looks for new church facilities: An item from the Pasadena WCG church bulletin

"Please Pray for our New Church Home!

We encourage any and all of you to be on the lookout for another church that we could share with or an empty building that we could lease in the Pasadena area and adjacent communities. We will only be able to stay at Friendship Church through May, 2003. If you contact a pastor or church office, let them know we are looking for a place to worship on Saturday or Sunday mornings, and that we have about 250 members who attend weekly. We would also like to use some classrooms for youth church during our service. The church parking lot would need to have 60 spaces or so, as well as nearby on-street parking available. Thank you for your assistance!"

So, what's wrong with utilizing some of the currently unused facilities the church owns? We hear, for example, that Ambassador Hall has recently been tastefully refurbished... 

Battleground resumes: There's a new Battleground Board - but apart from the name (and some of the same contributors) it's apparently a new venture unrelated to the old BB. Keeping up with the state of the various forums is no easy thing. Remember COW? MooCow? Battleground? Battleground II (if you blinked you missed that one)?  We wish the new moderator good luck. The official title of the new board is BAAttleground... (Thanks to Dateline Pasadena who drew the latest incarnation to our attention)

WPRA spells it out: This item was also posted on JLF this week.

WPRA has issued a letter to Bernie Schnippert and the church outlining what they and other community organizations (Save South Orange Grove and Singer Park Neighborhood Association) would like to see in the new Ambassador Project. This was cc'd to Pasadena City officials and Shea Homes, who WCG has just hired.

From www.wpra.net

August 12, 2002

Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail
Bernard W. Schnippert, Ph.D.
Director of Finance and Planning
Worldwide Church of God
300 West Green Street
Pasadena, California 91105

Re: Ambassador Campus Development Plan

Dear Dr. Schnippert:

We are writing on behalf of the West Pasadena Residents’ Association ("WPRA"), Save South Orange Grove ("SSOG") and the Singer Park Neighborhood Association ("SPNA") to express our vision for the Ambassador Campus Development Plan ("Ambassador Project").

You have said that the Worldwide Church of God ("Church") is in a "listening phase," and that the Church will not move forward with the Ambassador Project until you gather input from a broad variety of interested parties and groups. We sincerely appreciate that you have invited West Pasadena residents to engage the Church in an open and constructive dialogue concerning the Ambassador Project.


As you know, the WPRA is a non-profit organization committed to maintaining the character and beauty of West Pasadena. The WPRA has almost 700 paid members, and publishes a free quarterly newsletter to nearly 4,900 households in West Pasadena. SSOG is a group of homeowners and renters who live on South Orange Grove and the surrounding streets who organized themselves in response to residents’ concerns about the size, density and traffic impacts of the former Legacy Project. As you may recall, SSOG collected more than 1,400 signatures on their petition opposing the Legacy Project. Founded in 1998, the SPNA represents homeowners and renters living in the vicinity of Singer Park, the City park on the corner of California Boulevard and St. John Avenue, and focuses on two primary neighborhood issues: the proper development of the Ambassador campus, and the proposed extension of the 710 Freeway. Collectively, we have closely followed the Ambassador Project since January 2000, and have actively participated in public meetings, providing critical neighborhood input and comments.

Legacy Partners proposed to build a massive housing project in an established, low-density residential neighborhood. As you know, Legacy Partners’ model of the West Campus caused widespread alarm, shock, anger and concern among West Pasadena residents. The model depicted a massive, fortress-like series of buildings reminiscent of Park La Brea, not Pasadena. Knowing that this massive housing project simply didn’t fit our neighborhood, reasonable people asked why the Church entered into a development agreement with Legacy Partners in the first place and why the City of Pasadena gave the Legacy Project such serious consideration. Residents asked why the Church and City staff appeared to "cheerlead" the Legacy Project instead of guiding the developer toward a smaller project that would have benefited the entire City of Pasadena.

A New Beginning

The Legacy Project is now history, and the Church has selected a new master developer consultant, SheaHomes, to design the Ambassador Project. We believe this represents a crucial opportunity to make a fresh start. Our goal is to work with the Church and SheaHomes to design a project that will meet Pasadena’s needs without unduly burdening our neighborhoods. We are committed to learning from our past experiences with the Legacy Project to assist the Church in developing a vision for this beautiful and unique property.

We have three areas of concern that will guide our review of the Ambassador Project: the planning process; design and scale of the West Campus; and, of course, traffic.

A. The Planning Process

One of the lessons we learned from the Legacy Project was that the City’s traditional planning process did not result in a development proposal that met the community’s needs and enhanced the City’s quality of life.

As we have discussed, West Pasadena residents are most concerned about the design of the West Campus, and the traffic impacts of the overall project. Because of the unprecedented size of this development, we urge the Church to consider the following planning principles as you envision and design the Ambassador Project:

1. The Church should start from the premise that the Ambassador Project is in a "Neighborhood Protection Area," i.e. the project must "protect the neighborhood." (General Plan Mobility Element, Figure 5 at p. 23.)

2. The Church should view the density and height limitations contained in the West Gateway Specific Plan ("WGSP") as maximum limits, not entitlements, in light of the current unprecedented building boom in Pasadena.

3. The Church should insist that City transportation staff give the General Plan Land Use and Mobility Elements equal weight in determining what the City’s development agreement with the Church will contain.

4. The size and scale of the Ambassador Project must be driven by the realistic capacity of measures to mitigate all significant negative impacts, prior to this project’s full entitlement.

5. The Church should only propose a project on the West Campus that is compatible in terms of size, scale, and configuration with that of the existing neighborhood.

6. The Church should insist that City transportation staff establish firm standards for levels of traffic, based in part upon an understanding of the impacts of traffic on the environment and quality of life of a neighborhood.

7. The Church should insist that City transportation staff develop traffic mitigation measures pursuant to specific goals and standards installed and shown to be effective, before the Church begins to build-out the West Campus.

8. For the reasons set forth in the WPRA’s June 13, 2002 letter to the City, the Church should insist that the City prepare new environmental documents for the Ambassador Project, including a new traffic study for the overall project and a new tree inventory for West Campus.

9. Simply put, our "bottom line" is that the environmental impacts of any future development should be fully mitigated before the City approves the Ambassador Project.

B. Design and Scale of the West Campus

One of the lessons that we learned was that the Legacy Project was not in harmony with the design and scale of the surrounding low-density residential neighborhood. Legacy’s proposal obscured the historic gardens from public view. The buildings were too tall and too dense, and threatened to obscure the view to City Hall. The Ambassador Auditorium was squeezed between fortress-like buildings rather than featured as an architectural jewel. Legacy’s proposal to build 833 new housing units on the West Campus was completely unacceptable to residents. In short, the Legacy Project simply did not fit the area.

We urge the Church to consider the following design principles as you develop your vision for the Ambassador Project:

1. The Church must start from the premise that any development of the West Campus should be consistent with the existing design, density and scale of the residential dwellings in the General Plan’s "Neighborhood Protection Area." This area includes the condominiums on South Orange Grove, and the single-family homes on the south side of Del Mar extending south to Columbia Street.

2. Residents should be able to see the historic gardens from all streets, and the views to City Hall must not be obscured. The Auditorium must be honored rather than squeezed between phalanxes of multi-story dwelling units.

3. As part of its development agreement with the City, the Church should promulgate (in consultation with the City’s citizen commissions) master design guidelines for the West Campus requiring all future developers and builders to comply with the letter and the spirit of Pasadena’s "City of Gardens" ordinance.

4. One of the positive features of the Legacy Project was its commitment to preserving historic gardens, trees, walkways and buildings. We hope any future development proposal will maintain this same level of commitment to historic preservation.

C. Traffic

One of the biggest flaws of the Legacy Project was its failure to give transportation planning equal standing with land use planning. Traditionally, developers first address density and land use issues, and then attempt to "patch" traffic mitigation measures to the desired result. But this "density first" approach is backwards. Over and over, West Pasadena residents have said that protecting their neighborhoods from traffic is one of the most important ways to preserve a good quality of life.

The stakes are very high. If the City approves the Ambassador Project, and the traffic mitigation measures prove ineffective or are nonexistent, the Church will be gone, and we will be left to live with the traffic forever. This should give the Church pause, for it would be your "legacy" to Pasadena.

Because of the unprecedented size of this development, we urge the Church to consider the following transportation principles as you design the Ambassador Project:

1. The Ambassador Project should create meaningful incentives for future residents to utilize non-automotive transportation options. For example, future residents of the West Campus wishing to shop in Old Pasadena or South Lake, or to get to the Del Mar Gold Line station, should have the option of riding a local shuttle bus operated by the City or the project’s master homeowner association. The Ambassador Project also should incorporate bike paths and bike lanes into both the West and East Campuses. By creating real incentives for residents to get out of their cars, the Church can reduce the total number of future automotive trips generated by the Ambassador Project.

2. All traffic mitigation measures should be designed to divert regional and project-related traffic eastward, away from existing residential neighborhoods and toward commercial mobility corridors such as Fair Oaks and Raymond.

3. The Church should develop its proposed traffic mitigation measures in close consultation with the City’s Transportation Advisory Commission ("TAC") and the 710 Freeway Design Advisory Group ("DAG"). Our organizations have great confidence in TAC and DAG. The Church should begin working with TAC and DAG this Fall to develop traffic mitigation measures for the Ambassador Project.

4. Any risk of nonperformance of traffic mitigation measures must be borne by the Church and future developers and builders, not West Pasadena residents. Consequently, any traffic mitigation measures developed for the Ambassador Project should be implemented and tested prior to build-out of the West Campus.

5. We thank you for your public statements indicating that the Church is willing to prepare a new traffic study for the Ambassador Project. As you know, in August 2001, the WPRA retained the services of a traffic consultant to evaluate the adequacy of the Legacy Project’s traffic study. Our consultant concluded that the Legacy traffic study had serious flaws, including that it failed to examine intersections south of California Boulevard and relied on questionable trip-generation assumptions. We look forward to working with the Church in the coming months to scope the issues and methodologies to be contained in the new traffic study.


We support balanced and thoughtful development in West Pasadena, and are committed to building a constructive working relationship with the Church and SheaHomes as we move forward in the coming months. We believe the Church’s selection of SheaHomes presents us all with an historic opportunity to achieve a project that will meet Pasadena’s needs without unduly burdening our neighborhoods. In short, we look forward to working with you to design and build a project that will belong to the neighborhood, and that future generations will fight to preserve.

Very truly yours,

Vince Farhat President WPRA
Charles McKenney Vice President WPRA
Carolyn Naber Past President WPRA

Paul Vert I. Co-Chai
Gordon Odell Co-Chair
Pete Ewing President SSOG
Singer Park N. A.

cc: Mr. John Shea, SheaHomes
Ms. Cynthia Kurtz, City of Pasadena
Mr. Richard Bruckner, City of Pasadena
Mr. John Poindexter, City of Pasadena

Ambassador Watch is part of the Missing Dimension website - www.missingdimension.com. It is published online each Friday.  The contact address is: missingdimension@ihug.co.nz  Dateline Pasadena can be reached at datelinepasadena@yahoo.com
AW Back issues
Issue I   Issue II   Issue III   Issue IV  Issue V  Issue VI  Issue VII  Issue IIX  Issue IX  Issue X   Issue XI    Issue XII  Issue XIII  Issue XIV  Issue XV  Issue XVI  Issue XVII  Issue XVIII
MD Quick Links
Mailbag  Links  Herbert W. Armstrong (WCG)  Garner Ted Armstrong (ICG)  Gerald Flurry (PCG)  Roderick Meredith (LCG)  United Church of God AIA  Whistler  MD Yahoo Group

email MD: editor@ambassadorwatch.co.nz email Dateline Pasadena: dp@ambassadorwatch.co.nz 


Weekly issues - COMING SOON: AW 1 - 20  AW21  AW22  AW23  AW24  AW25  AW26  AW27  AW28  AW29  AW30  AW31  AW32  AW33  Monthly issues - AW 34  AW 35  AW 36  AW 37  AW 38  AW 39  AW 40  AW 41  AW 42  AW 43  AW 44  AW 45  AW 46  AW 47  AW 48  AW 49  AW 50  AW 51  AW 52  AW 53  AW 54  AW 55  AW 56  AW 57  AW 58  AW 59  AW 60  AW 61  AW 62  AW 63  AW 64  AW 65  AW 66  AW 67

 Update 1 (Apr-Jul 2001) Update 2 (Aug-Oct 2001)  Update 3 (Nov 2001-Jan 2002)  Update 4 (Feb-Apr 2002)

Mail pages (2001-2002): 1 2 3 4 5

Back Issues: Issue 1   Issue 2   Issue 3   Issue 4  Issue 5  Issue 6  Issue 7  Issue 8  Issue 9  Issue 10   Issue 11    Issue 12  Issue 13  Issue 14  Issue 15  Issue 16  Issue 17  Issue 18  Issue 19  Issue 20