How did the major splinter groups (United Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, Restored Church of God) preserve Armstrong’s doctrines after the WCG reforms?

1. How the splits happened and who claimed continuity

The splintering followed WCG’s doctrinal shift under Joseph W. Tkach in the 1990s, a realignment that multiple sources identify as the catalyst for separate movements; UCG organized in 1995 as a large ministerial breakaway, PCG traces an earlier splinter back to 1989, and RCG was founded in 1999 by David C. Pack explicitly to restore Armstrong’s earlier teachings ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The new bodies framed themselves as corrective continuations of Armstrong’s work—UCG pointing to Armstrong’s “fundamentals” and the so‑called “18 truths,” PCG republishing Armstrong’s books, and RCG proclaiming fidelity to Armstrong as a primary institutional aim ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

2. Doctrinal preservation: which beliefs were prioritized

All three groups retained hallmark Armstrong doctrines—Sabbatarianism and Old Testament holy day observance, non‑Trinitarian theology, British‑Israelite explanations for Anglo‑Saxon identity, and apocalyptic forecasting—because those elements define what commentators label “Armstrongism” and were explicitly defended by splinter leaders reacting to WCG’s move toward orthodox evangelical positions ^{[6] [7] [8]}. Where they differed was emphasis and packaging: RCG publicly insists it “retains the tenets, style, and structure” of pre‑reform WCG ^{[7] [3]}, UCG codified a set of governing doctrines derived from Armstrong’s fundamentals to attract a broad constituency ^[4], and PCG concentrated on preserving Armstrong’s written corpus and prophetic interpretations ^{[5] [2]}.

3. Organizational methods: governance, publications and media

Each splinter built institutional scaffolding to keep Armstrong’s teachings alive: UCG established formal doctrinal statements and a national structure that echoed Armstrong’s fundamentals ^[4], PCG invested in republishing Armstrong’s books and used media to promote his writings—actions that even prompted copyright disputes with reformed WCG successors ^[5], and RCG produced polemical literature and web resources asserting both doctrinal fidelity and denunciation of other splinters’ compromises ^{[2] [3]}. Blogs and watchdog sites document that these media efforts are central to how Armstrongite identity is transmitted after the WCG reforms ^{[9] [6]}.

4. Internal tensions, competing succession claims and critiques

Preservation was not uniform or uncontested: leaders competed over who represented Armstrong’s true successor and which doctrines were non‑negotiable, producing further fragmentation and polemics—RCG accuses some splinters of apostasy while critics and former members allege authoritarian control, failed prophecies and financial controversies in various groups ^{[2] [6] [9]}. Observers note that many differences after the split are as much about leadership and governance models as about theology, with disputes sometimes turning on who preserved “the government of God” as Armstrong taught it ^{[10] [11]}.

5. A balanced appraisal: preservation, adaptation and agendas

The splinters demonstrably preserved large swaths of Armstrong doctrine by institutionalizing his teachings in new churches, doctrine manuals, magazines and broadcast media, but preservation came with adaptation and political aims: UCG sought broader appeal while retaining fundamentals ^[4], PCG focused on textual continuity and polemical protection of Armstrong’s legacy ^{[5] [2]}, and RCG declared an uncompromising restorationist mission that doubles as a claim to doctrinal legitimacy ^[3]. Criticism from independent bloggers and opponents highlights both substantive doctrinal continuity and contested leadership agendas, so assessment depends on whether one prioritizes doctrinal wording, organizational form, or control of Armstrong’s published legacy ^{[9] [6]}.