The Painful Truth About The Worldwide Church of God

The Epistle to Paul (Kroll)

By Ed Sr.


 To: Ed

Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 9:21 AM

Subject: Wow-Peace

 Dear Mr. ,

I've read almost every experience on your web page. I am truly amazed at the amount of hurt and pain that such an organization has caused people. I am active in my church as a lay minister, and reading your web pages articles continues to teach me to be patient, kind and understanding. I pray for you and those on the web page that you and they will have peace and healing.

I am confused on something, and I was wondering if you could clear it up. I listened to the "Bible Answer Man" Broadcast by Hank Hanagraph and supposedly interviewed the new Pastor General, and Hank stated that the Church has changed for the better. I know you are much better informed, has the new Pastor General followed Christ in love and understanding, or has he basically added a new twist to an old theme?

Thank you for your time,





As far as the Worldwide Church of God changing for the better: Yes, it is much better than it was. But everything is relative. If you used to beat your wife and your children but now you only beat your wife, I would say that you have changed for the better.

I ask you: Has the Worldwide Church of God followed Christ in their transformation from cult to mainstream? How would Christ act if He was in charge of a church that had damaged uncountable thousands of lives? I think, after 25 years of mandatory, guilt trip, bible study, I have come to "know" this person, Jesus, just a little bit better than these Cheap, Prostitute Salesmen For The Cult.

While I no longer believe that this Jesus ever existed, I do believe in the things that he is said to have taught about how we are to live our lives and treat our fellow man. And, the actions of this "New and Improved" church are not representative, in any way, of the way this Jesus would act. My mother (who was not any particular religion) always taught me that, if I break something that belongs to someone else, that I should fix it or replace it. This may be something that Christians do not understand, I'm not sure, based on the actions of the Worldwide Church of God and those that give it their blessing.

I will be copying this message to Paul Kroll ( you can check out some correspondence between some former member and him on my webpage: The "New and Improved" Worldwide Church of God). Paul seems to be in charge of "Personal Correspondence." Read that as "chief excuse maker" and "deflector of criticism" and "labeler and discreditor of the accusers."

As you will be able to see, he only wants to disregard all the damage that his church has done in the past and just move on with his "new Christianity." He changes the subject. He doesn't answer the questions of this former member. He labels this person as negative. (And I am sure he will do the same with me but that is okay because I label him as a non-minister along with his non-minister, god-pimp, brothers who will sell you God and Jesus for a price.)

So, what would Jesus do if he were actually in charge of the New Worldwide Church of God? Given the outrageous history and foundation of this CULT, the only decent thing to do would be to disband the whole thing. As the un-named letter writer mentioned above, stated, Jesus himself said that, if a tree bears bad fruit, it should be cut down. Is there something unclear about that?

I would like Paul Kroll to respond to my "What would Jesus Do" page and the challenges to the continued existence of this "New and Improved" version of the Worldwide Church of God.

I would like Paul Kroll to defend the actions of this "church" in light of the questions that I pose on my FAQ page ,which I reprint below. I might add that none of his fellow abusers or present members of the Worldwide Church of God have been able to give a satisfying answer to these questions. They must be very embarrassed :

Question #2. But isn't the Worldwide Church of God different today?


See my What Would Jesus Do?? page.

If the church covers up evil so that people will continue sending them money, I would say that could be as bad as they ever were. See my Still Evil page.

They are still an abusive cult, its just that the level of abuse is less than it was before. That still doesn't make it "good" or worthy of praise.

Show me where they tell their members the truth about how they were misled.

Show me where they tell their members the truth about "God's Apostle" and his appointed successor, Joseph Tkach Sr. This is the foundation of the wcg: founded in iniquity, incest and lies. Can a bad tree bear good fruit? Not according to your bible.

Show me where they apologize for all the evil this church has committed over the years. Show me how they break it down fine, in little parts and be specific as a proper repentance would be. The readers of the PT didn't have any problem coming up with plenty of things the wcg could apologize for. Why is it so hard for "headquarters" to do a proper apology? Are they just too afraid of losing money?

Show me how they are trying to find and heal physically and mentally and monetarily all the former members that they harmed, as a Good Samaritan would. Explain to me how they can justify just moving on with their newfound Christianity without cleaning up the horrible mess they made in the past. Explain to me how your Christ would back up such behavior.

Show me that they are NOT going to use the proceeds of the sale of the campus' for their own retirement and the perpetuation of their nice little money machine. (This is "old money" not new money. It belongs to all those that contributed their life blood to the church in the past. And, by this definition, this does not include the "ministry")

Explain to me why they are not so guilt ridden and fearful for all the evil that was done in God's name, that they don't get out of the religion business altogether.

Explain to me who gives the wcg the right to preach about God after all the evil they have done in the past. I don't think they really believe there is a God. How could any Christian organization approve of the Worldwide Church of God while knowing all the evil that it is responsible for and has never tried to "fix?" How can such "Un-Christian" behavior be allowed to bear the name of "Christ?" It is a shame and a disgrace to the Jesus they pretend to follow.

And, in spite of the Worldwide Church of God wanting to forget about all the people that it has damaged and the lives it has ruined, it is still responsible. It cannot move on because it will always be tied, forever, to the people it wants to forget. A truly Christ oriented organization would sell all it had, give it to the poor and just go away. But these "men" are too interested in their true calling of making money and feeling important. They will never, willingly, give this up. They delude themselves, they delude their members, they change the subject, they accuse their accusers of bitterness and "mental problems" and all kinds of other demeaning and discrediting things, but, if there is a God, they will answer for their abuses some day.


To answer your question about Hank Haanegraf: The following is from a friend of mine who knows Joe Jr. personally:

"I can give you my opinion, and that's all it is. Joe likes Hank Haanegraf but realizes his flaws. Joe told me that Haanegraf and another evangelical named Kennedy no longer talk to each other, and transmit messages to each other via Joe. Joe thinks their feuding to be quite childish. I think Joe and Greg see themselves in Haanegraf and relate to him on that basis.

My personal opinion is that Joe never had any deep personal transformation on his own part to come to his own particular beliefs, but I could be wrong on that. It all seems to be on an intellectual level and not from the heart. I mean, they'd go to these guys and say "is the doctrine change enough?", how heart felt and personal is that when you have no personal opinion on the doctrine change? One can understand two people arguing from personal belief, but this detachment from personal conviction is strangely cold, and can't be said to be from the heart."


Your question: "Has the new Pastor General followed Christ in love and understanding?"

Judging by all that you now know about the past of the Worldwide Church of God and the lack of true, heartfelt repentance with action and responsibility, can you say that they have followed the ideals of Christ? Isn't that what Christianity is supposed to be about?

The very least that these present day abusers could do would be to change the name of this godforsaken church and give those of us that rue the day we ever heard of the name Worldwide Church of God or Herbert W. Armstrong or Joseph Tkach a little peace. But they are so shameless in their "new found Christianity" that they are willing to keep the name and the history and the legacy of their abusive past so they can continue to collect the tithes and offerings from the present day members who would probably feel free to leave if the name of God's only true church were to change. You see, these are the true believers who probably still feel that they have to tithe, helped along by the not so subtle guilt trips put on them by Tkach and company. They are sticking around, waiting for God to put the church back on track.

So now, let's wait to see what Paul Kroll will respond with. Or maybe you could just look at what Greg Albrecht said to another person posing similar questions: I will probably get basically the same thing, if anything.

They can't answer these questions honestly or they would be convicted in their hearts. If they were convicted in their hearts, they would fold up their tents and go away in shame and fear of the God they have misrepresented.


Ed Sr



If you have anything you would like to
submit to this site, or any comments,
email me at:
Send Me Email

Back to "Painful Truth" menu


The content of this site, including but not limited to the text and images herein and their arrangement, are copyright 1997-2003 by The Painful Truth. All rights reserved.

Do not duplicate, copy or redistribute in any form without prior written consent.